This person’s post, while containing some overlap with the more true and useful criticism here, is also not the sort of thing I expect people to cite on LW and not, I think, a useful entry in the back and forth here.
On the other hand, the difference in our levels of endorsement of it explains a lot about why our interaction went south in a hurry.
Quoting Qiaochu:
I would like everyone posting criticism, especially heated criticism, to keep very firmly in mind that Duncan did not have to write this. Whatever your opinion of him, at least make sure you’ve factored in the evidence that he wrote this whole, weird thing, complete with references to Ender’s Game, Fight Club, etc. instead of writing either 1) nothing or 2) something much more reassuring.
There are critics who think Duncan is incompetent and overconfident, and about this hypothesis I can say at least that it is consistent with Duncan having written this post. Then there are critics who think Duncan is, I dunno, evil or power-hungry or something, and I think those people are mostly failing to see what is in front of them.
I was tentatively willing to give you some benefit of the doubt even though I don’t know you but I’m really disappointed that you feel the need to score points against a rationalist-adjacent posting to her Tumblr about how your post looks to her from her outside vantage point. I brought a similar-amount-of-adjacent friend to the seder and it freaked her out. Rationalist shit looks bizarre from a couple steps away. You do not have to slam my friend for not being impressed with you.
Fair point. I will edit the above to remove point-scoring criticism; if this person wanted to be exposed to it, they would’ve posted here directly. I’ll ask you to leave your comment so it’s clear what originally occurred.
That being said, they certainly have no qualms about tearing into me. Like, my response to them was not a response to “I am unimpressed” or “I have a negative reaction to this,” and I think it’s a little disingenuous or unfair of you to summarize their content thusly. It’s … an asymmetric expectation of charity? Holding a double standard? Or something like that. I’d hope you’d offer feedback to them similar to what you said to me here, to see how they respond.
I know her and she has earned some charity from me. You’re a stranger soliciting a line of credit. Also, her task is “opine on Tumblr” and yours is “benevolent dictatorship”. If you want me to convey to her that your feelings were hurt I could do that for you, I suppose.
It’s less that my feelings were hurt (they were, a little, but I’ve developed a pretty thick skin around “strangers are wrong about me”), and more that you’re saying, to me, “hey, please don’t be uncharitable or overly critical or focus on point-scoring,” and I think the point-scoring exhibited in that post would cause me, in your shoes, to make a symmetric point to my friend. It’s a consistency thing, of supporting the norms I want to see in all places, ignoring partisan or loyalty lines (being willing to call out my allies as much as I’m willing to call out a stranger or an enemy).
I guess if I were to ask you to convey a message, it would be “this person thinks you’ve jumped to unfounded conclusions, and wonders what odds you’d put on ‘I might be wrong.’”
This person’s post, while containing some overlap with the more true and useful criticism here, is also not the sort of thing I expect people to cite on LW and not, I think, a useful entry in the back and forth here.
On the other hand, the difference in our levels of endorsement of it explains a lot about why our interaction went south in a hurry.
Quoting Qiaochu:
I was tentatively willing to give you some benefit of the doubt even though I don’t know you but I’m really disappointed that you feel the need to score points against a rationalist-adjacent posting to her Tumblr about how your post looks to her from her outside vantage point. I brought a similar-amount-of-adjacent friend to the seder and it freaked her out. Rationalist shit looks bizarre from a couple steps away. You do not have to slam my friend for not being impressed with you.
That’s kind of unfair, considering the sheer amount of point-scoring going on in the original post.
Fair point. I will edit the above to remove point-scoring criticism; if this person wanted to be exposed to it, they would’ve posted here directly. I’ll ask you to leave your comment so it’s clear what originally occurred.
That being said, they certainly have no qualms about tearing into me. Like, my response to them was not a response to “I am unimpressed” or “I have a negative reaction to this,” and I think it’s a little disingenuous or unfair of you to summarize their content thusly. It’s … an asymmetric expectation of charity? Holding a double standard? Or something like that. I’d hope you’d offer feedback to them similar to what you said to me here, to see how they respond.
I know her and she has earned some charity from me. You’re a stranger soliciting a line of credit. Also, her task is “opine on Tumblr” and yours is “benevolent dictatorship”. If you want me to convey to her that your feelings were hurt I could do that for you, I suppose.
It’s less that my feelings were hurt (they were, a little, but I’ve developed a pretty thick skin around “strangers are wrong about me”), and more that you’re saying, to me, “hey, please don’t be uncharitable or overly critical or focus on point-scoring,” and I think the point-scoring exhibited in that post would cause me, in your shoes, to make a symmetric point to my friend. It’s a consistency thing, of supporting the norms I want to see in all places, ignoring partisan or loyalty lines (being willing to call out my allies as much as I’m willing to call out a stranger or an enemy).
I guess if I were to ask you to convey a message, it would be “this person thinks you’ve jumped to unfounded conclusions, and wonders what odds you’d put on ‘I might be wrong.’”
I don’t really see the situations as symmetrical or calling for identical norms.