I think one key in not being offended is being secure in your own person and position
I am very new to LW, but this seems like a dangerous position to take for a rationalist! From “What Do We Mean By ‘Rationality’”: [Italics Mine]
This is why we have a whole site called “Less Wrong”, rather than simply stating the formal axioms and being done. There’s a whole further art to finding the truth and accomplishing value from inside a human mind: we have to learn our own flaws, overcome our biases, prevent ourselves from self-deceiving, get ourselves into good emotional shape to confront the truth and do what needs doing, etcetera etcetera and so on.
It seems that being completely secure in a position makes it impossible to for you to challenge that position, which works against acting in a more rational fashion.
An alternative way to not be offended might be found here. In summary, the author argues that ‘If people can’t think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.’
It is sometimes useful not to artificially exclude the middle when using natural language.
In this case, for example, I suspect it’s possible to have a level of what we’re calling “security” here that is not so high that it precludes updating on evidence (supposing you’re correct that too high a level of security leads to the inability to update), while at the same time being high enough to avoid offense (supposing bobneumann is correct that too low a level of security leads to an increased chance of taking offense).
I do agree that keeping your identity small is also helpful, though.
I am very new to LW, but this seems like a dangerous position to take for a rationalist! From “What Do We Mean By ‘Rationality’”: [Italics Mine]
It seems that being completely secure in a position makes it impossible to for you to challenge that position, which works against acting in a more rational fashion.
An alternative way to not be offended might be found here. In summary, the author argues that ‘If people can’t think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.’
It is sometimes useful not to artificially exclude the middle when using natural language.
In this case, for example, I suspect it’s possible to have a level of what we’re calling “security” here that is not so high that it precludes updating on evidence (supposing you’re correct that too high a level of security leads to the inability to update), while at the same time being high enough to avoid offense (supposing bobneumann is correct that too low a level of security leads to an increased chance of taking offense).
I do agree that keeping your identity small is also helpful, though.