Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Benquo 31 March 2017 12:12:10AM *  1 point [-]

This isn't submission, this is cowering away from your expectation for them to submit to you. Actually submitting means swallowing your pride and eating whatever criticism is given to you. It hurts. Saying "Sorry I let you down, I suck" is a way of avoiding facing the responsibility you want to place on their shoulders for them to figure out what they did wrong and fix it.

The purpose is to show "hey, I'm not fighting you" so that if you continue to be an aggressor, you will feel bad and look bad to others. It's still "violent communication" in the NVC sense, as it is basically a plea for others to do violence on the behalf of the "victim" if the aggressor doesn't cut it out.

That is what submission is: sending a clear "I lose" signal so as to end the interaction by accepting a loss of social status.

Comment author: jimmy 31 March 2017 05:29:00PM *  2 points [-]

I don't want to get too deep into the semantics argument, as the point is a substantive one, but google defines submission as follows: "the action or fact of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person". Actually accepting their authority over you and working to cooperate and follow their direction (rather than making distress calls for backup while non-cooperating) is at the heart of what is important here, and is what people generally mean when they speak of "submission". Whatever you want to call it though, "Please don't hurt me!" is a very very different thing than "yes sir, whatever you wish", and the former is not by any means an "I lose" signal.

There is a difference between "I accept defeat" and "I do not want to fight you". Accepting defeat means agreeing on terms of surrender. "I don't want to fight you" is trying to avoid giving them what they want by avoiding the direct confrontation. It does mean that you're conceding that they are stronger here, but it does not necessarily mean losing status, or losing anything, really. Status isn't all about direct strength and the battle isn't always about being stronger than each other. For example, imagine the town asshole yelling at the sweet and friendly ten year old girl that everyone likes. If all you see is some 30 year old man yelling at a 10 year old girl who is girl crying and saying sorry, does the asshole's status go up in your eyes, or does it just go down further because he looks to be picking on this little kid again? You'd probably pick the man to win in any direct one on one confrontation (physical or otherwise), but when the rest of the town shows up, the pitch forks are coming out on the side of the little girl. Status is a social thing, and when you come out ahead in the end because everyone holds you as in the right and worth defending, you're the one with higher status. This is what people mean when they accuse people of "playing victim" - it's still a status play, even if not in the way you're used to seeing.

Comment author: jimmy 30 March 2017 02:29:25AM *  5 points [-]

There is the basic problem of someone dropping the ball, and offering submission rather than fixing the problem on some level. As someone who tried to run a company, this is especially maddening. I do not want you to show your submission, I want you to tell me how you are going to fix what went wrong,

This isn't submission, this is cowering away from your expectation for them to submit to you. Actually submitting means swallowing your pride and eating whatever criticism is given to you. It hurts. Saying "Sorry I let you down, I suck" is a way of avoiding facing the responsibility you want to place on their shoulders for them to figure out what they did wrong and fix it.

The purpose is to show "hey, I'm not fighting you" so that if you continue to be an aggressor, you will feel bad and look bad to others. It's still "violent communication" in the NVC sense, as it is basically a plea for others to do violence on the behalf of the "victim" if the aggressor doesn't cut it out. It is understandably infuriating when someone will screw up, shirk responsibility, and then play victim to get out of facing the consequences. And so it's very easy to get angry at them for this. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I know this failure mode very well.

The solution is to make submitting to you easier, more enjoyable, and more visibly safe. It used to boggle my mind that anyone could think I would be at all unhappy with them for making mistakes once I could see that they're taking responsibility and fixing them, but in the times where it would become an issue it really wasn't clear to them and they hadn't even considered that it could possibly be otherwise. I felt pretty shitty realizing that people actually expected me (by default) to not be forgiving and understanding in positions of local dominance, and that motivated me to start making it explicitly clear a lot more often. The difference is night and day, and can be pinpointed to the exact moment you reaffirm good feelings and trust that they will take you up on the offer to let them submit and make things better.

If the dominance games and submission don't feel right and desirable for both parties, something is going wrong somewhere. Even when submitting after a fuckup can be emotionally painful, it should feel like a pain you want - not a pain you want to avoid. There are a lot of reasons it doesn't always feel desirable in practice, but that has a lot more to do with the trust and empathy shown than the dominance/submission aspect itself. BDSM is pretty explicitly about these kinds of dynamics being mutually desirable, so if you want to better understand how dominance games and submission can actually be good things, it might help to read accounts of what people get out of that stuff. Even though it's a bit of a corner case, the same principles apply to a lot of "normal" social interactions.

Comment author: gjm 01 February 2017 06:33:37PM 0 points [-]

All the options you explicitly list imply disrespect

Well, the one I'm actually proposing doesn't, but I guess you mean the others do. I'm not sure they exactly do, though I certainly didn't make any effort to frame them in tactfully respect-maximizing terms; in any case, it's certainly not far off to say they all imply disrespect. I agree that there are situations in which you can't explain something without preparation without any disrespect to the other guy being called for; but that's because what happened was

  • jimmy says some things
  • gjm response
  • jimmy starts saying things like "Before engaging with why you think my argument is wrong, I want to have some indication that you actually understand what my argument is, that's all, and I haven't seen it."

rather than, say,

  • jimmy says "so I have a rather complicated and subtle argument to make, so I'm going to have to begin with some preliminaries*.

When what happens is that you begin by making your argument and then start saying: nope, you didn't understand it -- and when your reaction to a good-faith attempt at dealing with the alleged misunderstanding is anything other than "oh, OK, let me try to explain more clearly" -- I think it does imply something like disrespect; at least, as much like disrespect as those options I listed above. Because what you're saying is: you had something to say that you thought was appropriate for your audience, and not the sort of thing that needed advance warning that it was extra-subtle; but now you've found that I don't understand it and (you at least suspect) I'm not likely to understand it even if you explain it.

That is, it means that something about me renders me unlikely -- even when this is locally the sole goal of the discussion, and I have made it clear that I am prepared to go to substantial lengths to seem mutual understanding -- to be able to understand this thing that you want to say, and that you earlier thought was a reasonable thing to say without laying a load of preparatory groundwork.

Is there a reason you haven't addressed the possibility that [...] my disinterest [...] isn't predicated on me concluding that you're stupid/blinkered/crazy/otherwise-unworthy-of-respect?

See above for why I haven't considered it likely; the reason I haven't (given that) addressed it is that there's never time to address everything.

If there is a specific hypothesis in this class that you would like us to entertain, perhaps you should consider saying what it is.

The thing is, that does presuppose that my belief that [...] is wrong.

No, it presupposes that it could be wrong. (I would say it carries less presumption that it's wrong than your last several comments in this thread carry presumption that it's right.) The idea is: It could be wrong, in which case giving it a go will bring immediate benefit; it could be wrong but we could be (mutually) reasonable enough to see that it's right when we give it a go and that doesn't work, in which case giving it a go will get us past the meta-level stuff about whether I'm likely to be unable to understand. Or, of course, it could go the other way.

I'm not sure what your plan is for dealing with the possibility of object-level blind spots

When one is suspected, look at it up close and see whether it really is one. Which, y'know, is what I'm suggesting here.

if you're writing all these words because you actually want to know how the heck I see it [...] I expect it to take a decent amount of work

What I was hoping to know, in the first instance, is what I have allegedly misunderstood in what you wrote before. You know, where you said things of the form "your description doesn't even contain my actual reason for saying X" -- which I took, for reasons that still look solid to me, to indicate that you had already given your actual reason.

If the only way for you to explain all my serious misunderstandings of what you wrote is for you to write an effortful lengthy essay about your general view ... well, I expect it would be interesting. But on the face of it that seems like more effort than it should actually take. And if the reason why it should take all that effort is that, in essence, I have (at least in your opinion) understood so little of your position that there's no point trying to correct me rather than trying again from scratch at much greater length then I honestly don't know why you're still in this discussion.

I'm sure I'd have a bunch of questions on how you see things, if you'd have any interest in explaining your perspective

I am happy to answer questions. I've had it pretty much up to here (you'll have to imagine a suitable gesture) with meta-level discussion about what either of us may or may not be capable of understanding, though, so if the questions you want to ask are about what you think of me or what I think of you or what I think you think I think you think I am capable of understanding, then let's give that a miss.

Comment author: jimmy 01 February 2017 11:09:22PM *  0 points [-]

rather than, say, jimmy says "so I have a rather complicated and subtle argument to make, so I'm going to have to begin with some preliminaries*.

I suppose I could have said “so I have a rather complicated and subtle argument to make. I would have to begin with some preliminaries and it would end up being kinda long and take a lot of work, so I’m not sure it’s worth it unless you really want to hear it”, and in a lot of ways I expect that would have gone better. I probably will end up doing this next time.

However in a couple key ways, it wouldn’t have, which is why I didn’t take that approach this time. And that itself is a complicated and subtle argument to make.

EDIT: I should clarify. I don't necessarily think I made the right choice here, and it is something I'm still thinking about. However, it was an explicit choice and I had reasons.

When what happens is that you begin by making your argument and then start saying: nope, you didn't understand it -- and when your reaction to a good-faith attempt at dealing with the alleged misunderstanding is anything other than "oh, OK, let me try to explain more clearly" -- I think it does imply something like disrespect; at least, as much like disrespect as those options I listed above.

Right, and I think this is our fundamental disagreement right here. I don’t think it implies any disrespect at all, but I’m happy to leave it here if you want.

Because what you're saying is: [...] That is, it means that something about me renders me unlikely [...] to be able to understand this thing that you want to say, and that you earlier thought was a reasonable thing to say without laying a load of preparatory groundwork.

I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think arguments with subtle backing always need that warning, nor do they always need to be intended to be fully understood in order to be worth saying. This means that “I can’t give you an explanation you’ll understand without a ton of work” doesn’t single you out nearly as much as you’d otherwise think.

I can get into this if you’d like, but it’d just be more meta shit, and at this point my solution is starting to converge with yours: “do the damn write up or shut up, jimmy”

See above for why I haven't considered it likely; the reason I haven't (given that) addressed it is that there's never time to address everything.

I agree that you can’t address everything (nor have I), but this one stands out as the one big one I keep getting back to - and one where if you addressed it, this whole thing would resolve pretty much right away.

It seems like now that you have, we’re probably gonna end up at something more or less along the lines of “we disagree whether “mutual respect” and “knowably unable to progress on the object level” go together to a non-negligable amount, at least as it applies here, and gjm is uninterested in resolving this disagreement”. That’s an acceptable ending for me, so long as you know that it is a genuine belief of mine and that I’m not just trying to weasel around denying that I've been showing disrespect and shit.

No, it presupposes that it could be wrong.

I thought I addressed that possibility with the "err, or this" bit.

When one is suspected, look at it up close and see whether it really is one. Which, y'know, is what I'm suggesting here.

I was talking about the ones where that won’t work, which I see as a real thing though you might not.

If the only way for you to explain all my serious misunderstandings of what you wrote is for you to write an effortful lengthy essay about your general view ... well, I expect it would be interesting.

If I ever end up writing it up, I’ll let you know.

But on the face of it that seems like more effort than it should actually take. And if the reason why it should take all that effort is that, in essence, I have (at least in your opinion) understood so little of your position that there's no point trying to correct me rather than trying again from scratch at much greater length then I honestly don't know why you're still in this discussion.

:)

That’d probably have to be a part of the write up, as it calls on all the same concepts

Comment author: gjm 31 January 2017 11:30:24PM 0 points [-]

I just honestly don't know how to square these things.

Whereas I honestly don't know how to help you square them, because I don't see anything in what I wrote that seems like it would make a reasonable person conclude that I think it's impossible to be on your "step 2" honestly, or that I think you "must be trying to hide from engagement" (as opposed to might be, which I do think).

If [...] I honestly believe that [...] you would likely prematurely assume that you get it [...] what's your prescription? [...] What could I do to make clear that I am arguing in good faith [...]?

My general prescription for this sort of situation (and I remark that not only do I hope I would apply it with roles reversed, but that's pretty much what I am doing in this discussion) is: proceed on the working assumption that the other guy isn't too stupid/blinkered/crazy/whatever to appreciate your points, and get on with it; or, if you can't honestly give that assumption high enough probability to make it worth trying, drop the discussion altogether.

(This is also, I think, the best thing you could do to make it clear, or at any rate markedly more probable to doubtful onlookers, that you're arguing in good faith.)

If you can tell me where to start that doesn't presuppose that my beliefs are wrong or that I've been arguing in bad faith, I would love to. Where would you have me start?

The same place as I've been asking you to start for a while: you say I haven't understood some important parts of your position, so clarify those parts of your position for me. Adopt the working assumption that I'm not crazy, evil or stupid but that I've missed or misunderstood something, and Sure, it might not work: I might just be too obtuse to get it; in that case that fact will become apparent (at least to you) and you can stop wasting your time. Or it might turn out -- as, outside view, it very frequently does when someone smart has partially understood something and you explain to them the things you think they've missed -- that I will understand; or -- as, outside view, is also not so rare -- that actually I understood OK already and there was some sort of miscommunication. In either of those cases we can get on with addressing whatever actual substantive disagreements we turn out to have, and maybe at least one of us will learn something.

(In addition to the pessimistic option of just giving up, and the intermediate option of making the working assumption that I've not understood your position perfectly but am correctible, there is also the optimistic option of making the working assumption that actually I've understood it better than you think, and proceeding accordingly. I wouldn't recommend that option given my impression of your impression of my epistemic state, but there are broadly-similar situations in which I would so I thought I should mention it.)

Comment author: jimmy 01 February 2017 05:40:50PM *  0 points [-]

My general prescription for this sort of situation [...] is: proceed on the working assumption that the other guy isn't too stupid/blinkered/crazy/whatever to appreciate your points, and get on with it; or, if you can't honestly give that assumption high enough probability to make it worth trying, drop the discussion altogether.

All of the options you explicitly list imply disrespect. If I saw all other options as implying disrespect as well, I would agree that “if you can't honestly give that assumption high enough probability to make it worth trying, [it’s best to] drop the discussion altogether”.

However, I see it as possible to have both mutual respect and predictably counterproductive object level discussion. Because of this, I see potential for fruitful avenues other than “plow on the object level and hope it works out, or bail”. I have had many conversations with people whom I respect (and who by all means seem to feel respected by me) where we have done this to good results - and I’ve been on the other side too, again, without feeling like I was being disrespected.

Your responses have all been consistent with acting like I must be framing you as stupid/blinkered/crazy/otherwise-unworthy-of-respect if I don’t think object level discussion is the best next step. Is there a reason you haven’t addressed the possibility that I’m being sincere and that my disinterest in “just explaining my view” at this point isn’t predicated on me concluding that you’re stupid/blinkered/crazy/otherwise-unworthy-of-respect? Even to say that you hear me but conclude that I must be lying/crazy since that’s obviously too unlikely to be worth considering?

The same place as I've been asking you to start for a while: [...] clarify those parts of your position for me. Adopt the working assumption that I'm not crazy, evil or stupid but that I've missed or misunderstood something, and Sure, it might not work: I might just be too obtuse to get it; in that case that fact will become apparent (at least to you) and you can stop wasting your time.

The thing is, that does presuppose that my belief that “in this case, as with many others with large inferential distance, trying to simply clarify my position will result in more misunderstanding than understanding, on expectation, and therefore is not a good idea - even if the other person isn’t stupid/blinkered/crazy/otherwise-undeserving-of-respect” is wrong. Er.. unless you’re saying “sure, you might be right, and maybe it could work your way and couldn’t work my way, but I’m still unwilling to take that seriously enough to even consider doing things your way. My way or it ain’t happenin’.”

If it’s the latter case, and if, as you seem to imply, this is a general rule you live by, I’m not sure what your plan is for dealing with the possibility of object level blind spots - but I guess I don’t have to. Either way, it’s a fair response here, if that’s the decision you want to make - we can agree to disagree here too.

Anyway, if you’re writing all these words because you actually want to know how the heck I see it, then I’ll see what I can do. It might take a while because I expect it to take a decent amount of work and probably end up long, but I promise I will work at it. If, on the other hand, you’re just trying to do an extremely thorough job at making it clear that you’re not closed to my arguments, then I’d be happy to leave it as “you’re unwilling to consider doing things my way”+”I’m unwilling to do things your way until we can agree that your way is the better choice”, if that is indeed a fair description of your stance.

(Sorta separately, I’m sure I’d have a bunch of questions on how you see things, if you’d have any interest in explaining your perspective)

Comment author: gjm 31 January 2017 03:21:53AM 0 points [-]

On "being seen as rude": I beg your pardon, I was misremembering exactly what I had written at each point. However, I still can't escape the feeling that you are either misunderstanding or (less likely) being deliberately obscure, because what you actually say about this seems to me to assume that I was presenting "being seen as rude" as a drawback of doing what I called "external #2", whereas what I was actually saying is that one problem with "external #2" is that it forces someone who disagrees to do something that could be seen as rude; that's one mechanism by which the social pressure you mentioned earlier is applied.

To the extent that it actually seems we can come to the bottom of our disagreement, I am interested in continuing.

Except that what you are actually doing is repeatedly telling me that I have not understood you correctly, and not lifting a finger to indicate what a correct understanding might be and how it might differ from mine. You keep talking about inferential distances that might prevent me understanding you, but seem to make no effort even to begin closing the alleged gap.

In support of this, in the other half of your reply you say I "seem to be acting as if it’s impossible to be on step two honestly and that I must be trying to hide from engagement if I am not yet ready to move on to step three"; well, if you say that's how it seems to you then I dare say it's true, but I am pretty sure I haven't said it's "impossible to be on step two honestly" because I don't believe that, and I'm pretty sure I haven't said that you "must be trying to hide from engagement" because my actual position is that you seem to be behaving in a way consistent with that but of course there are other possibilities. And you say that I "should probably make room for both possibilities" (i.e., that you do, or that you don't, see things I don't); which is odd because I do in fact agree that both are possibilities.

So. Are you interested in actually making progress on any of this stuff, or not?

Comment author: jimmy 31 January 2017 07:18:54PM 0 points [-]

In support of this, in the other half of your reply you say I "seem to be acting as if it’s impossible to be on step two honestly and that I must be trying to hide from engagement if I am not yet ready to move on to step three"; well, if you say that's how it seems to you then I dare say it's true, but I am pretty sure I haven't said it's "impossible to be on step two honestly" because I don't believe that, and I'm pretty sure I haven't said that you "must be trying to hide from engagement" because my actual position is that you seem to be behaving in a way consistent with that but of course there are other possibilities. And you say that I "should probably make room for both possibilities" (i.e., that you do, or that you don't, see things I don't); which is odd because I do in fact agree that both are possibilities.

Right. I’m not accusing you of doing it. You didn’t say it outright, I don’t expect you to endorse that description, and I don’t see any reason even to start to form an opinion on whether it accurately describes your behavior or not. I was saying it as more of a “hey, here’s what you look like to me. I know (suspect?) this isn’t what you look like to you, so how do you see it and how do I square this with that?”. I just honestly don’t know how to square these things.

If, hypothetically, I’m on step two because I honestly believe that if I tried to explain my views you would likely prematurely assume that you get it and that it makes more sense to address this meta level first, and if, hypothetically, I’m even right and have good reasons to believe I’m right… what’s your prescription? What should I do, if that were the case? What could I do to make it clear that am arguing in good faith, if that were the case?

So. Are you interested in actually making progress on any of this stuff, or not?

If you can tell me where to start that doesn’t presuppose that my beliefs are wrong or that I’ve been arguing in bad faith, I would love to. Where would you have me start?

Comment author: jimmy 31 January 2017 03:38:15AM 2 points [-]

Polled.

I don't read much here anymore, and comment less (7 comment threads in the last year). I'm commenting now mostly because you specifically mentioned appreciating any response, and because of having known and respecting you personally, not because I'd normally read and comment on something like this.

I'm not aware of any other place with more shellingness on this stuff than here, but I am also skeptical of recent efforts to bring more discussion back to LW.

Comment author: gjm 31 January 2017 03:24:16AM 0 points [-]

I don't think this is fair to take away gjm's entire reputation based on one disagreement or even one confirmed counterexample.

I would just like to mention that I see what you did there.

In any case, I am not greatly worried that snark from Yet Another Eugine Sockpuppet is going to "take away gjm's entire reputation".

Comment author: jimmy 31 January 2017 03:36:19AM 0 points [-]

I'm guessing that you think I'm passive aggressively hinting that this more of a confirmed counter example than an honest disagreement? I promise you that is not my intent. My intent is that it applies even if it were confirmed, since I suspect that user:math might see it that way, while saying nothing about how I see it. To clarify, no, I see it as a disagreement.

I was also not aware that it was Eugine. (and of course, even if it wasn't, that wouldn't remove your reputation in anyone else's eyes, and I was talking about it as an internal move)

Comment author: math 31 January 2017 12:11:51AM 1 point [-]

I also think it's premature to conclude that satt is biased here due to tribal beliefs, because I think the comment satt made is perfectly consistent with a low to nonexistent amount of tribal bias, as well as consistent with a good ability to acknowledge and correct for tribal biases when pointed out. It's consistent with the alternative too, of course, but I'd want to see some distinguishing evidence before making a point of it.

Well, sat's reply to my comment should make it clear something, quite possibly tribal bias, it preventing him from being able to argue in good faith.

Comment author: jimmy 31 January 2017 12:36:19AM *  0 points [-]

I think that "tribal bias" is the norm, not the exception, and accusing someone of having their reasoning messed with, to some extent, by tribal biases is a little like accusing them of having shit that stinks. I'd much rather hold off and only criticize people when they deal with visible bias poorly, and It's legitimately hard enough to see your own tribal biases and how they affect your thinking that I'm a little hesitant to accuse someone of being blatantly dishonest because they don't see and correct for what looks like a bias to me. Especially since sometimes what looks like a bias is actually just noticing that they're using a valid heuristic that you don't understand because you're not part of their tribe.

That said, it's clear that satt wasn't offering Lumifer the amount of charity that I think Lumifer deserves, and was more focused on finding holes in Lumifer's relatively (albeit intentionally and not overly, in my opinion) imprecise arguments than on finding the merits of Lumifer's arguments, which I'd argue is a much better way of going about things, in general.

Comment author: satt 29 January 2017 05:49:13PM 2 points [-]

Just in case anyone other than us is reading this,

For whatever little it's worth, I read the first few plies of these subthreads, and skimmed the last few.

From my partial reading, it's unclear to me that Lumifer is/was actually lying (being deliberately deceptive). More likely, in my view, is/was that Lumifer sincerely thinks spurious your distinction between (1) criminalizing disbelief in global warming, and (2) criminalizing the promulgation of assertions that global warming isn't real in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage in a marketplace. I think Lumifer is being wrong & silly about that, but sincerely wrong & silly. On the "crimethink" accusation as applied to the paper specifically, Lumifer plainly made a cheap shot, and you were right to question it.

As for your disagreement with jimmy, I'm inclined to say you have the better of the argument, but I might be being overly influenced by (1) my dim view of jimmy's philosophy/sociology of argument, at least as laid out above, (2) my incomplete reading of the discussion, and (3) my knowledge of your track record as someone who is relatively often correct, and open to dissecting disagreement with others, often to a painstaking extent.

Comment author: jimmy 30 January 2017 11:12:18PM *  0 points [-]

I, also, appreciate this comment.

I would like to quibble here that I'm not trying to argue anything, and that if gjm had said "I don't think the authors are doing anything nearly equivalent to crimethink and would like to see you argue that they are", I wouldn't have engaged because I'm not interested in asserting that they are.

I'd call it more "[...] of deliberately avoiding argument in favor of "sharing honestly held beliefs for what they're taken to be worth", to those that are interested". If they're taken (by you, gjm, whoever) to be worth zero and there's no interest in hearing them and updating on them, that's totally cool by me.

Comment author: math 29 January 2017 07:27:36PM 2 points [-]

(1) criminalizing disbelief in global warming, and (2) criminalizing the promulgation of assertions that global warming isn't real in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage in a marketplace.

OK, and how is this distinction supposed to manifest in practice? First it's not entirely clear how the whole "promulgation of assertions that global warming isn't real in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage in a marketplace" is supposed to work, but in any case when (2) happens who exactly will be forbidden to assert that global worming isn't real? Does it matter if they believe it is in fact not real, does it matter if they have evidence? Note that the people doing the prosecution haven't presented any evidence of "promulgation of assertions that global warming isn't real in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage in a marketplace" beyond the fact that the people in question are asserting that global warming isn't real. Thus it is clear that (2) is little more than a fairly transparent excuse to do (1).

As for your disagreement with jimmy, I'm inclined to say you have the better of the argument, but I might be being overly influenced by (1) my dim view of jimmy's philosophy/sociology of argument, at least as laid out above, (2) my incomplete reading of the discussion, and (3) my knowledge of your track record as someone who is relatively often correct, and open to dissecting disagreement with others, often to a painstaking extent.

Given that gjm has just demonstrated that (3) is false, I'm inclined to believe the real reason for your bias is that you belong to a tribe where agreeing with gjm's conclusion is high status.

Comment author: jimmy 30 January 2017 10:59:34PM *  1 point [-]

I upvoted you because I think your explanation of Lumifer's point there is correct and needed to be said.

However, I'd like to comment on this bit:

Given that gjm has just demonstrated that (3) is false, I'm inclined to believe the real reason for your bias is that you belong to a tribe where agreeing with gjm's conclusion is high status.

I don't think this is fair to take away gjm's entire reputation based on one disagreement or even one confirmed counterexample.

I also think it's premature to conclude that satt is biased here due to tribal beliefs, because I think the comment satt made is perfectly consistent with a low to nonexistent amount of tribal bias, as well as consistent with a good ability to acknowledge and correct for tribal biases when pointed out. It's consistent with the alternative too, of course, but I'd want to see some distinguishing evidence before making a point of it.

View more: Next