= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
So conceded. Suggest an edit to the post?
I don't want to disrespect the graciousness of conceding this minor point, but I also don't have a great suggestion. Maybe something as simple as
someone at least making an attempt at substantiating their accusations of groupthink
becoming
someone backing up their accusations of groupthink
? But up to you, I just wanted to point out that "attempt" was bringing in some probably-unintended judgments.
Calling it an attempt is no dismissal. Successful attempts are a subset of all attempts.
ADBOC - People refer to successful attempts as "successes," not as "attempts."
So for example, reddit believers largely believe in evolution. Make a comment in favour and a comment against, the former goes up while the latter goes down, and groupthink is proven. I think you need a more rigorous experimental method.
A position can be well-supported by facts and still be well-supported by a group for reasons other than facts.
EDIT: The statement above is a truism. I also don't think a group's support for or opposition against evolution is a sufficient indicator of all other group opinions being correct.
Consider the full facts about that comment. It starts thus: "I'm only posting this to play devils advocate" - which is a good reason (see ciphergoth's forthcoming list of phrases to never use) to not even attempt a rebuttal.
It suffices as an example of what I want an example of, which is someone who is at least trying, and acknowledging groupthink as a technical term. I don't have to set the bar at "trying and succeeding", not for cryonics: the debate on cryonics has enough evidence of being a debate, so we already know that groupthink isn't happening on that particular topic.
Don't demand particular proof that groupthink isn't happening, such as someone saying "groupthink!" with strong evidence plus rebuttals of their points.
(Hey, I'm agreeing with Eliezer, and linking to his post. Groupthink!)
I didn't accuse anyone of groupthink or demand any particular proof opposing or supporting claims of groupthink. I said it warranted a rebuttal before being dismissed as an attempt.
In response to
Boo lights: groupthink edition
EDIT: This comment does not apply to the current version of the post.
Considering the post to which you linked (about labeling the cryonics opinion on LW as groupthink) has no attempts at rebuttal, it seems like it merits an answer instead of merely dismissing it as an "attempt" - which is just saying, "This isn't sufficient" without any statement about what would be sufficient.
At the time I posted this comment (and at the time I post this one), the post to which I'm referring still has no rebuttals. I will be very disappointed if someone posts a very weak rebuttal which is subsequently held up as sufficient for no reason other than it exists.
The fact that that post is presently at +5 karma is actually evidence against groupthink.
It seems dirty to say, "It raises a bunch of good points," and then, without answering any of them, say, "See? I just said it has good points. No groupthink here, thus disproving his points."
In response to
Boo lights: groupthink edition
EDIT: This comment does not apply to the current version of the post.
Considering the post to which you linked (about labeling the cryonics opinion on LW as groupthink) has no attempts at rebuttal, it seems like it merits an answer instead of merely dismissing it as an "attempt" - which is just saying, "This isn't sufficient" without any statement about what would be sufficient.
My last sentence was a deliberate snark, but it's "honest" in the sense that I'm attempting to communicate something that I couldn't find a simpler way to say (roughly: that I think you're placing too much importance on "feeling right", and that I dismiss that reaction as not being a "legitimate" motivation in this context).
I have no problem making status-tinged statements if I think they're productive - I'll let the community be the judge of their appropriateness. There's definitely a fine line between efficiency and distraction, I have no delusions of omniscience concerning its location. I'm pretty sure that participation in this community has shaved off a lot of pointless attitude from my approach to online discourse. Feedback is good.
I disagree quantitatively with your specific conclusion concerning quality vs quantity, but I don't see any structural flaw in your reasoning.
It's only productive inasmuch as it takes advantage of the halo effect - trying to make your argument look better than it really is. How is that honest?
In response to
comment
by
on
How Much Should We Care What the Founding Fathers Thought About Anything?
It's not totally clear to me how narrow or broad the ambit of LW posts should be in terms of how far they can stray from core questions of rationality. This post seems no farther from that core than other posts that appear here, but then maybe some of those shouldn't be here either.
In any case, the thing that I think gives this an LW-type flavor is that it's an example of how you can use a certain kind of argument to bully your opponents. One side in the argument takes a legitimate value that no one can dispute (unlimited power by judges is bad) and then, by what pretty much amounts to a rhetorical trick, sets things up so that anyone who attempts to reasonably trade that value off against other values stands accused of abandoning the value entirely. This leads to a situation where the guy on the other side of the argument comes out sounding unpersuasive, but only because he's got to conduct the argument within the unfavorable constraints set up by the first guy.
Maybe you still don't buy this as being close enough to core LW topics to belong here, or maybe I didn't make the link explicit enough in the post.
In response to
comment
by
on
How Much Should We Care What the Founding Fathers Thought About Anything?
There has to be another example of this phenomenon that doesn't come from such a political issue.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Here's something interesting on gender relations in ancient Greece and Rome.
Why did ancient Greek writers think women were like children? Because they married children - the average woman had her first marriage between the ages of twelve and fifteen, and her husband would usually be in his thirties.
The reason ancient Greek writers thought women were like children is the same reason men in all cultures think women are like children: There are significant incentives to do so. Men who treat women as children reap very large rewards compared to those men who treat women as equals.
EDIT: If someone thinks this is an invalid point, please explain in a reply. If the downvote(s) is just "I really dislike anyone believing what he's saying is true, even if a lot of evidence supports it" (regardless of whether or not evidence currently supports it) then please leave a comment stating that.
EDIT 2: Supporting evidence or retraction will be posted tonight.
EDIT 3: As I can find no peer-reviewed articles suggesting this phenomenon, I retract this statement.