Most of the objectionable statements I encounter online are not flat out wrong -- they are ambiguous. EY might say that there is a mismatch between denotation and connotation. It's reasonable to respond to such statements with a polite request for clarification; for terms to be defined; for examples to be provided; etc.
Also, much of the time when people contradict me, they are not actually contradicting anything I have said -- they are arguing against a position they have imagined or invented.
So my suggestion is that if you see something which you believe is wrong, first make sure you understand exactly what is being said.
Corollary: if you feel that something is wrong, and you need to speak out against it, be clear what you're speaking out against. Maybe what the author was wrong about is simply how people would perceive their post. That's a serious failure, assuming the goal was to communicate an idea, but it doesn't invalidate the idea.
Yes, there's a risk of permitting motte-and-bailey if you allow them to say "no, that's not what I was talking about at all". However, one such retreat does not constitute evidence that they will return to their motte and that the supposed bailey really isn't their intended ground. Regardless of whether it's a true misunderstanding of position or not, though, they have not refuted your counterpoint; that is an acknowledgement that you are right..
It costs you very little, but potentially informs everybody involved, to identify the position you're arguing against. It's worth doing.
This would become a little clearer if you were more explicit about distinguishing between two senses of "contradiction": (1) what happens when one person contradicts another, versus (2) what happens when one person says two things that are inconsistent with one another.
I'm afraid I have the same impression overall as Lumifer: that you wrote this because you are fed up with having people disagree with you, and would like to put a roadblock in the way of that.
It would indeed be nice if everyone always carefully researched every factual claim they make, and carefully reasoned through every argument they make. But I don't think that's a reasonable burden to demand that everyone bear. If it applied to every comment, then (I hope it's clear) scarcely anything would ever get said. And I don't really see a good reason for thinking it should apply only when disagreeing with someone else.
(And it really does sometimes happen that someone puts a lot of effort into writing something, but it still contains errors that another person can spot quickly. When that happens, we do not want the other person to be forbidden -- or even reluctant -- to point them out.)
I'm afraid I have the same impression overall as Lumifer: that you wrote this because you are fed up with having people disagree with you, and would like to put a roadblock in the way of that.
I'm fed up with people not putting effort into their disagreements. I'm fed up with people finding the first minor flaw and treating that as invalidation of everything, instead of seeing if there is a slight variation of what I'm saying that works.
I know that people can find flaws in things quickly sometimes. And these can be major flaws that cause the entire argument to collapse. That's not nearly as common, though.
If it applied to every comment, then (I hope it's clear) scarcely anything would ever get said.
One Google query of research would raise the quality of discussion without being too burdensome.
I'm fed up with people finding the first minor flaw and treating that as invalidation of everything, instead of seeing if there is a slight variation of what I'm saying that works.
Let me provide an example for you :-) I read this sentence as you actively expecting people to be charitable to you and wanting people to steelman your comments.
I'm fed up with people finding the first minor flaw and treating that as invalidation of everything, instead of seeing if there is a slight variation of what I'm saying that works.
I my experience what's actually happening in those kinds on situations is that there are two different variations of what the person wrote and the argument relies on equivocation between the two.
Sometimes (though by no means always) that is the case. In such situations, isn't it better to point out the difference between the variations, the falseness of the equivocation, and the fact that the argument relies on that equivocation? That seems much more productive than simply latching onto one point you disagree with and claiming it invalidates the entire argument. By pointing out the reliance on false equivocation, you have actually countered the argument itself instead of merely weakening the evidence for it.
(I think that's what the GP is arguing against people doing. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. Also, today I learned that "equivocation" is nearly as fun to write as it is to say.)
I find that asking people to clarify their argument until its flaws are obvious works better then clarifying it yourself in a way they'll perceive as uncharitable.
That places the onus on them to keep the conversation going. They gain the option of either just not responding, or saying "I really don't see how this could be misinterpreted" or similar and just re-stating their view.
With that said, though, it does seem more likely to work, if the goal is a functional community rather than making a particular point.
/waves :-D
Half a second of thought and two minutes to craft a reply containing nothing but a contradiction, versus two hours of unpaid research.
First, it's your choice. If you choose to spend your time this way, don't complain. Second, I see the labour theory of value raising its head again :-)
All in all, it seems you just don't like when people do not agree with you. Sorry about that.
I'm requesting that people follow a simple guide
Request denied.
I see the labour theory of value raising its head again :-)
Your half a second of thought is unlikely to be worth as much as two hours of my time. You're not that brilliant.
All in all, it seems you just don't like when people do not agree with you.
I don't like it when people disagree. I get over it when I'm proven wrong.
You're not that brilliant.
There is an obvious counter which I'll skip, but the point isn't that I'm not that brilliant -- the point is that I'm different from you.
I don't like it when people disagree.
That's fine, but why should your preference impose obligations on other people?
the point isn't that I'm brilliant -- the point is that I'm different from you.
Which is useful in finding logical flaws and glaring oversights. If I am doing factual research, your differences must be pure magic to make half a second of your time worth as much as two hours of mine. Unless you're able to rattle off a dozen citations at the drop of a hat, which is rather improbable.
why should your preference impose obligations on other people?
My preference alone doesn't.
I'd like to find a community in which people actually try to get the right answers. This takes effort. I have been trying to put forth that effort. I want to ensure that others do the same. I've seen very good examples and some that aren't so good.
I am not interested in comparing the worth of time. If you feel my comments are factually wrong, I always welcome corrections as being wrong (and finding out about it) is actually more useful than being right.
Posting something and being shown that it's wrong is an effective method of updating your worldview.
people actually try to get the right answers
Provided they exist. A lot of times the right answer is "it depends". Rationality has its own uncanny valley, be careful not to end up there.
My initial reading of this is that you are claiming a desire to have other people perform, for you, a service which you do not agree to perform for them (providing corrections, as opposed to simply contradicting the person). Is that an incorrect interpretation of your intent?
I wish to properly understand your point of view here, because it feels like defecting (or stating an intention to do so) in a prisoner's dilemma where the benefit of mutual cooperation is that everybody learns more and that discussions are furthered without so much digression. We know what happens in a PD where one side is expected to defect, so - if you do, in fact, welcome factual corrections - why would you indicate an intention to do so? I expect that's not actually your intention but do not see a more charitable explanation for your behavior.
If you think somebody is wrong on the Internet, and you can't be bothered to actually look up why and make a strong claim to their wrongness, why mention it at all? What utility does that provide, and is it a net positive?
My initial reading of this is that you are claiming a desire to have other people perform, for you, a service which you do not agree to perform for them (providing corrections, as opposed to simply contradicting the person). Is that an incorrect interpretation of your intent?
Yes, incorrect. I don't think I have a habit of saying "You're wrong", full stop. Normally I either explain why do I think so or at least point to relevant reasons. Now, offering corrections is a bit of a different matter as this is easy to do only if the disagreement is free-standing, so to say, that is, sufficiently isolated from the rest of the argument. Usually that is not the case and (all IMHO, of course) the adjustments need to be multiple and done at a lower level which leads to a whole cascade of consequences.
However my desires in this respect are quite symmetric -- I do not expect other people to write out full analyses of my errors or provide solutions. "X is not true because of Y and Z" is all I hope to get.
it feels like defecting in a prisoner's dilemma
I don't think that the PD is a good framework for the great majority of forum discussions.
If you think somebody is wrong on the Internet, and you can't be bothered to actually look up why
What you are assuming isn't true. I am generally bothered enough to look up why. Even though I may not write a wall of text about it, my opinions have reasons for existing -- this is easy enough to check by continuing the conversation and digging deeper.
I have consciously avoided looking up what other stuff you've posted on to know whether you personally have any commenting habits I do or don't approve of (though I did notice your name at top of the 30 day contributor list, so obviously many people approve of your writing). I don't know whether you have a habit of just saying "you're wrong" with no justification or explanation. Nor do I know (or have any way of knowing, except possibly as a lower bound) how often or to what degree you look things up before commenting (and I'm aware of the fact that I'm not looking up your comment history here; but I am trying to minimize bias. Not sure if I'm doing it right, of course).
The fact that you chose to engage with the OP on the subject implied a defensiveness towards the behavior of writing unexplained and unsupported contradictory posts. That may be a completely off-base interpretation of your comments, but the fact that you didn't address claims such as spending "a half second" [to come up with a response] suggested that you did not, in practice, look up or provide explanations / references. This influenced my view of what you wrote in the comment I replied to.
I am fully in favor of the position you advocate in the comment I'm replying to now. I agree that PD wasn't a proper analogy (among other problems, the cost weightings don't match a classic PD because mutual cooperation is, in many ways, better than being the defector while the other party cooperates; there's also the fact that "the other party" is an entire body of people rather than an individual) but didn't come up with a better way to point out what looked like a failure of symmetry that produces greater personal utility at the cost of collective utility.
The fact that you chose to engage with the OP on the subject implied a defensiveness towards the behavior of writing unexplained and unsupported contradictory posts.
Well, actually no. The reason I chose to engage with the OP is that I had a brief comment exchange with the OP a couple of days before his post and to me his post was recognizable as an extended whine about that exchange and so, me.
Sorry, are you seeking to correct my mistaken impression, or was "implied" just a poor word choice? "Suggested" may have been better; I didn't mean to indicate a high-confidence conclusion but rather that it was the impression I got at the time. Your explanation makes sense but it wasn't apparent to me from your and the OP's comments in this thread alone, and I didn't know anything about your past except that there probably was history between you.
I'm trying to learn how to signal the actual degree to which I support a statement. I can't tell if you're saying that "no, it doesn't imply that" (presumably using "imply" in the logical, "A implies B" sense), which would mean I screwed up by using the word "imply" where I didn't mean to indicate a strong conclusion. Alternatively you may have just meant "no, that conclusion is incorrect" (in which case I would have omitted the first sentence, but that could be stylistic choice).
Well, if we are going to be that precise, I have to admit that my "actually, no" wasn't exactly accurate. That the fact of engagement here implies defensiveness is, generally speaking, true. It's just happens to be not true in my particular case about which I had privileged information (being able to peek inside my head) and you didn't.
So your "implied" was a fine word choice and I don't think there was a way for you to figure out beforehand that your conclusion will turn out to be incorrect.
I get over it when I'm proven wrong.
He should give up his beliefs when I find a flaw, you should give up yours when the balance of probability tips against, I'll give up mine when presented with a proof.
For what it's worth, I often wonder whether, when a given post has no comments or votes, it's because nobody cared what it said or because it was wrong but nobody could be bothered to point out why. On the other hand, I consider substance-less attempts to refute a post to be weak evidence that it is correct (but makes people uncomfortable for some reason, usually discernible); if that's the best counterargument the detractor came up with then they probably don't have a very strong position.
Self reply - With all that said, if you truly believe this would be beneficial to the pursuit of rationalism, you could have expressed it better. The biggest flaw, I think, is repeatedly claiming the personal time investment of "two hours" (that phrase occurs four times in the original post and your initial replies, not counting instances where it's quoted). Two hours of research is unlikely to produce a significantly better post (in most cases) than a few minutes, although it may result in you personally learning more. If your goal is to convince the other person (as opposed to being to educate yourself and future readers who see your post) then it is almost completely wasted time. This is an irrational behavior, and it sounds like you are encouraging us to join you in it.
Whether or not you actually say so, you imply an expectation that we pay the same cost in time that you pay for the privilege of being right on the Internet. It is possible that you have no such intention, and that your talk of how long you spend is instead meant to either impress us or evoke sympathy for your poor time management skills (or something else entirely), but the way the post was written will lead people to equate "two hours" with "adequate amount of research to be worth of posting a counterargument".
That, I think, may well be why some people are experiencing such a strong negative reaction to your post. Two hours is not a reasonable amount of time to spend (in most cases), and it is by no means a reasonable amount of time to expect people to spend. If you focus on the core position that unsupported counterarguments are undesirable, I suspect you'd have a more favorable reaction.
If you want help learning to recognize an appropriate amount of time to spend researching a post before making it, that would be a good question to ask in a discussion post. It's something I've battled myself. The temptation to be unassailably right is strong. So is the temptation to have the last word, though, because then you can imagine yourself to be right whether you are or not. Beware of that one.
If the objection made is obviously wrong, you should just ignore it, since everyone (else) will understand why it is wrong. It costs you nothing; you have no obligation to correct the person (and in any case, someone else may do it for you.) If the objection is wrong but not obviously wrong, then you should anticipate this and make the case in your original post. If you neglect to do so, then a lot of people are probably making the same mistake, and you are doing something productive in correcting it.
There are arbitrarily many complex theories that are falsified by simple and relatively known facts. These facts may be very easy for people to remember and reply with. This does NOT mean they are not treating your complex theory with the due amount of time and energy, but that you are probably wasting your hours of research in unproductive ways.
One example from reality: Lamarckian Evolution. If for a moment we ignore epigenetics and stick to pure differential multiplication of replicators, Lamarckian Evolution is just something that does not take place on earth. Creatures are not able to alter their germ-line DNA based on things they learn or what they experience in life. And yet, until we knew about genetics, the theory was both interesting and extremely thoroughly developed. If someone today were to come up with an equivalent theory based on their own intuition, even if they spent two hours writing about it, a brief reply on the lines of "sorry, that's not how genes work" would be completely in line.
If you want people to stick around, and you're brusquely denying their points until they do hours of work to prove them, they're going to view lesswrong as a source of stress. This is not likely to encourage them to return.
This has been my relationship with LW over the past year or so. Almost everyone here is quite nice, but there are a few 'power' users (for lack of a better term) who essentially skim over all the latest comments and threads and make quick responses without understanding the arguments at all. Or worse - understanding them, but using minor flaws as justification for complete disagreement.
Slashdot has a very nice system where those who spend too much time on the site are not given moderation points (they aren't allowed to up/down vote anyone. Not that votes are that important anyway, it's just a kind of psychological de-incentivization). Maybe that system should be considered here.
EDIT:s/few/a few
Some of my guidelines for commenting at less wrong include...
If it a comment about less wrong, it is meta and I tend to not comment. If it is about an idea expressed at less wrong I might comment. This comment of course goes against that guideline.
If I can express appreciation, especially for having an error of mine identified, I am more likely to comment. Thanks for the prompt!
If I can promote my book Confessions of a Failed Egoist, I do so. It's the Egoist thing to do.
I'm requesting that people follow a simple guide when determining whether to respond to a post. This simple algorithm should raise the quality of discussion here.
Why should you follow these rules?
Fairness.
It takes very little effort to post a contradictory assertion. You just have to skim a post, find an assertion (preferably one that isn't followed or preceded immediately by paragraphs of backing evidence, but that's an optional filter), and craft a sentence indicating that that assertion is wrong or flawed. Humans can do this almost by instinct. It's magical.
Refuting a contradiction takes effort. I typically spend at least five minutes of research and five minutes of writing to make a reply refuting a bare contradiction when I have already studied the issue thoroughly and know which sources I want to use. I go to this effort because I care about these statements I've made and because I care about what other people believe. I want to craft a reply that is sufficiently thorough to be convincing. And, I'll admit, I want to crush my opponents with my impeccable data. I'm a bit petty sometimes.
If I haven't researched the issue well -- if my sources are second-hand, or if I'm using personal experience -- I might spend two hours researching a simple topic and ten to fifteen minutes creating a response. This is a fair amount of time invested. I don't mind doing it; it makes me learn more. It's a time investment, though.
So, let's compare. Half a second of thought and two minutes to craft a reply containing nothing but a contradiction, versus two hours of unpaid research. This is a huge imbalance. Let's address this by trying to research people's claims before posting a contradiction, shall we?
Trust.
You are convinced that someone's argument is flawed. This means that they have not looked into the issue sufficiently, or their reasoning is wrong. As a result, you can't trust their argument to be a good example of arguments for their position. You can look for flaws of reasoning, which is easy. You can look for cases where their data is misleading or wrong -- but that requires actual effort. You have to either find a consensus in the relevant authorities that differs from what this other person is saying, or you have to look at their specific data in some detail. That means you have to do some research.
Community.
If you want people to stick around, and you're brusquely denying their points until they do hours of work to prove them, they're going to view lesswrong as a source of stress. This is not likely to encourage them to return. If you do the legwork yourself, you seem knowledgeable. If you're careful with your phrasing, you can also seem helpful. (I expect that to be the tough part.) This reduces the impact of having someone contradict you.
Advancing the argument.
From what I've seen, the flow of argument goes something like: argument → contradiction of two or three claims → proof of said claims → criticism of proof → rebuttal → acceptance, analysis of argument. By doing some research on your own rather than immediately posting a contradiction, you are more quickly getting to the meat of the issue. You aren't as likely to get sidetracked. You can say things like: "This premise seems a bit contentious, but it's a widely supported minority opinion for good reasons. Let's take it as read for now and see if your conclusions are supported, and we can come back to it if we need to."
Bonus: "You're contradicting yourself."
Spoiler: they're not contradicting themselves.
We read here a lot about how people's brains fail them in myriad interesting ways. Compartmentalization is one of them. People's beliefs can contradict each other. But people tend to compartmentalize between different contexts, not within the same context.
One post or article probably doesn't involve someone using two different compartments. What looks like a contradiction is more likely a nuance that you don't understand or didn't bother to read, or a rhetorical device like hyperbole. (I've seen someone here say I'm contradicting myself when I said "This group doesn't experience this as often, and when they do experience it, it's different." Apparently "not as often" is the same as "never"?) Read over the post again. Look for rhetorical devices. Look for something similar that would make sense. If you're uncertain, try to express that similar argument to the other person and ask if that's what they mean.
If you still haven't found anything besides a bare contradiction, a flat assertion that they're contradicting themselves is a bad way to proceed. If you're wrong and they aren't contradicting themselves, they will be annoyed at you. That's bad enough. They will have to watch everything they say very carefully so that they do not use rhetorical devices or idioms or anything that you could possibly lawyer into a contradiction. This takes a lot more effort than simply writing an argument in common modes of speech, as everyone who's worked on a journal article knows.
Arguing with you is not worth that amount of effort. Don't make it harder than it needs to be.