Christians substitute the heavy yoke of the law for a lighter burden (faith and hope) in Christ. So yes, you can appreciate a more rigorous ethical code, but Christians wish not to live under the law. You can call it weakness but I think it is humility grounded in the realization that we all know the good we ought to do but fail in doing, and the bad we hate we find ourselves doing.
If a superior ethical framework makes it easy to do that good and shun that evil, we’re back to keeping contracts with God and herein lies the real challenge—contracts are hard to keep and easy to break. What you have is a student with a textbook who has to get a perfect score on a test. I’d prefer a test where I don’t need a perfect score to pass, and even better if the professor (Jesus) takes it for me. This my concept of Christianity and I hope other Christians will agree.
I wouldn’t turn away arbitrary Christians, but this one in particular at least needs to lurk more and would probably be better served by a different website with more basic material and a different mix in the audience.
Well, he just wrote one comment so I’m wondering how you arrived at that conclusion. Wouldn’t it be better to give some positive reinforcement to newcomers?
Yaro’s comment is entirely about theology. It’s actually an on-topic response to its immediate parent, but it appears completely isolated from any other context or relevance. It makes assertions and states opinions without demonstrating the underlying comprehension of productive argument that is necessary for a theist, or anyone, to make worthwhile comments (at least within a topic which is this kind of substantive matter of fact.)
Positive reinforcement is to reward behaviors that I would like to see continue. I think the gap between yaro’s level and the level I want to see on this site is big enough that it is not worth a reinforcement project.
Good effort, you are almost there, if you used the explanation you gave above to Yaro he probably would be more enlightened than by “this is not the right website for you.”
The reason you should ignore poor performance if you say “No, you’re doing it wrong!” you are inadvertently punishing the effort. A better response to a mistake would be to reinforce the effort: “Good effort! You’re almost there! Try once more.”
In spite of his comment being not in line, why not praise the effort, especially considering that this was his first comment on LW. I’m assuming he did an honest effort to present his point of view, why not praise that and point out the way this site works?
I do not wish to reward yaro’s effort, and thereby get more of it. I believe that more of yaro’s effort here would result in more comments that are of comparable quality and topicality at least for a prolonged learning curve, and do not believe that the project of nudging them towards improvement is worth community time.
Please don’t use an article about the use of reward to encourage good behavior as a way to say that all behavior is worth rewarding.
I do not wish to reward yaro’s effort, and thereby get more of it. I believe that more of yaro’s effort here would result in more comments that are o
Straw man, I’m not talking about rewarding his comment, but his participation. Isn’t one of the goals of LW to raise the sanity waterline?
do not believe that the project of nudging them towards improvement is worth community time.
I agree here but I see you are wasting precious community time(actually it’s your time) by engaging in a discussion with me. You would have wasted less of our time if you were to give a more constructive reply in the first place.
Please don’t use an article about the use of reward to encourage good behavior as a way to say that all behavior is worth rewarding.
Another straw man, I didn’t say that.
Please don’t use straw men when arguing with me.
I won’t waste any more time with this, so I’ll leave you the last answer.
We hardly have enough evidence after just one attempt. Additionally, subtlety is a form of deceit, and not generally encouraged in rational discussion.
Anyway, my complaint would have to be toward the out-of-hand dismissal of yaro’s post, rather than offering a substantive disagreement or at least a link regarding the perceived flaws in yaro’s argument. That’s proper rationalist encouragement. No subtlety required.
Reinforcement is for things one wants more off. I can’t say I want more posts without knowing something about the content. In this case, I think Alicorn is right that this poster is not ready to contribute things this community would find valuable.
I agree that the comment is not in line with the thinking of LW, but why not point it out to the commenter in a polite manner if you want to say anything at all?
Not especially. I want better participation. Not absolutely ridiculous religious tripe. The person Yaro is welcome to stay, so long as he leaves his bullshit at the door. Making that kind of comment will, and should, prompt a negative response.
I would disagree with you completely on this. You are outright dismissing a point of view with no supporting evidence other than a vague, insulting comment. It appears you haven’t actually learned what this site is promoting. It’s one thing to disagree with Yaro here, it’s another to outright insult his beliefs and simply raise his barriers in agreeing with anything you believe.
I’ve seen similar instances occur enough times to know (within a reasonable margin of doubt) that if you want to actually make a person agree with you, you start by making yourself agreeable.
Christians substitute the heavy yoke of the law for a lighter burden (faith and hope) in Christ. So yes, you can appreciate a more rigorous ethical code, but Christians wish not to live under the law. You can call it weakness but I think it is humility grounded in the realization that we all know the good we ought to do but fail in doing, and the bad we hate we find ourselves doing.
If a superior ethical framework makes it easy to do that good and shun that evil, we’re back to keeping contracts with God and herein lies the real challenge—contracts are hard to keep and easy to break. What you have is a student with a textbook who has to get a perfect score on a test. I’d prefer a test where I don’t need a perfect score to pass, and even better if the professor (Jesus) takes it for me. This my concept of Christianity and I hope other Christians will agree.
This probably isn’t the website for you.
Are you sure Alicorn? As a former christian now atheist thanks to LW(especially EY’s writings) I’ve learned a lot here.
I wouldn’t turn away arbitrary Christians, but this one in particular at least needs to lurk more and would probably be better served by a different website with more basic material and a different mix in the audience.
Well, he just wrote one comment so I’m wondering how you arrived at that conclusion. Wouldn’t it be better to give some positive reinforcement to newcomers?
Yaro’s comment is entirely about theology. It’s actually an on-topic response to its immediate parent, but it appears completely isolated from any other context or relevance. It makes assertions and states opinions without demonstrating the underlying comprehension of productive argument that is necessary for a theist, or anyone, to make worthwhile comments (at least within a topic which is this kind of substantive matter of fact.)
Positive reinforcement is to reward behaviors that I would like to see continue. I think the gap between yaro’s level and the level I want to see on this site is big enough that it is not worth a reinforcement project.
Alicorn,
Good effort, you are almost there, if you used the explanation you gave above to Yaro he probably would be more enlightened than by “this is not the right website for you.”
Quoting from The Power of Reinforcement:
In spite of his comment being not in line, why not praise the effort, especially considering that this was his first comment on LW. I’m assuming he did an honest effort to present his point of view, why not praise that and point out the way this site works?
I do not wish to reward yaro’s effort, and thereby get more of it. I believe that more of yaro’s effort here would result in more comments that are of comparable quality and topicality at least for a prolonged learning curve, and do not believe that the project of nudging them towards improvement is worth community time.
Please don’t use an article about the use of reward to encourage good behavior as a way to say that all behavior is worth rewarding.
...
Dude. Subtlety?
Straw man, I’m not talking about rewarding his comment, but his participation. Isn’t one of the goals of LW to raise the sanity waterline?
I agree here but I see you are wasting precious community time(actually it’s your time) by engaging in a discussion with me. You would have wasted less of our time if you were to give a more constructive reply in the first place.
Another straw man, I didn’t say that.
Please don’t use straw men when arguing with me.
I won’t waste any more time with this, so I’ll leave you the last answer.
You quoted this:
and previously said of the larger passage:
But when you tried it out:
this was her response:
Didn’t work. Shall I praise your effort and urge you to do better next time? Would that work for you any better than it did for Alicorn?
We hardly have enough evidence after just one attempt. Additionally, subtlety is a form of deceit, and not generally encouraged in rational discussion.
Anyway, my complaint would have to be toward the out-of-hand dismissal of yaro’s post, rather than offering a substantive disagreement or at least a link regarding the perceived flaws in yaro’s argument. That’s proper rationalist encouragement. No subtlety required.
Reinforcement is for things one wants more off. I can’t say I want more posts without knowing something about the content. In this case, I think Alicorn is right that this poster is not ready to contribute things this community would find valuable.
Doesn’t LW want more participation?
I agree that the comment is not in line with the thinking of LW, but why not point it out to the commenter in a polite manner if you want to say anything at all?
Not especially. I want better participation. Not absolutely ridiculous religious tripe. The person Yaro is welcome to stay, so long as he leaves his bullshit at the door. Making that kind of comment will, and should, prompt a negative response.
I would disagree with you completely on this. You are outright dismissing a point of view with no supporting evidence other than a vague, insulting comment. It appears you haven’t actually learned what this site is promoting. It’s one thing to disagree with Yaro here, it’s another to outright insult his beliefs and simply raise his barriers in agreeing with anything you believe.
I’ve seen similar instances occur enough times to know (within a reasonable margin of doubt) that if you want to actually make a person agree with you, you start by making yourself agreeable.
In the way that skepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not, supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who, like the skeptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many ways consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.
--Carl Sagan