To take your comment as an example… on one level, it’s a series of claims. “X is the more important question.” “Y is an effective way to discourage rational discussion.” “The rate of false positives in Y is very high.” Etc. And I could respond to it on that level, discussing whether those claims are accurate or not. And that seems to be the kind of discussion you’re encouraging.
Had you instead responded by saying “The average rainfall in Missouri is 3.5 inches per year” I could similarly discuss whether that claim is accurate or not.
But that would be an utterly bizarre response. Why would it be bizarre? Because I would have no idea what the intention behind citing that fact could possibly be. Your comment, by contrast, seems to have a fairly clear intention behind it, so it’s not bizarre at all.
So far, I don’t think I’ve said anything in the least bit controversial. (If you disagree with any of the above, probably best to pause here and resolve that disagreement before continuing.)
Continuing… so, OK. You have certain intentions in making the comment you made… call those intentions I1. I have inferred certain intentions on your part… call those I2. And, as above, were I to lack a plausible I2, I would be utterly bewildered by the whole conversation, as in the Missouri rainfall example… which I’m not.
Now… if I understand your view correctly, you believe that if I articulate I2 I will effectively discourage rational discussion and cause mindkill, because I’m likely to be mistaken… that is, I2 is not likely to equal I1. It’s better, on your view, for me to continue holding I2 without articulating it.
Yes? Or have I misunderstood your view?
If I’ve understood your view correctly, I disagree with it completely.
I tried to focus on people attacking negative intentions/connotations. I was expressing myself poorly and my comment had a lot of hidden assumptions. My comment was not even wrong. Your response is clear and helpful, thanks. I’m not sure I can improve upon my original comment, but here are some thoughts on the matter:
I think it would be useful to categorize intentions/connotations further. I see no problem in articulating hostile intentions behind a comment rudely stating that someone is fat for example. I think the reason for this is that the connotations of that kind of a statement are common knowledge and high probability. If you disapprovingly point out such connotations, nobody can claim that you’re trying to sneak them into the other person’s comment to dismiss it unfairly.
Then again I think there’s this category of statements where it seems to me that connotations can vary wildly. Even if you have a good reason to think that some particular connotation is the most probable, it’s just one option among many. Here the rate of false positives will be high. I feel in such situations attacking one connotation over another seems like a dishonest way to dismiss a statement.
I acknowledge that situational factors complicate matters further.
Even if you have a good reason to think that some particular connotation is the most probable, it’s just one option among many. Here the rate of false positives will be high.
Sure, that’s true. We might disagree about how high my confidence in a particular most-probable-interpretation of the motives behind a particular statement can legitimately be, but it’s clear that for some statements that confidence will be fairly low.
I feel in such situations attacking one connotation over another seems like a dishonest way to dismiss a statement.
Do you have any sense of why you feel this way?
For example, do you believe it is a dishonest way to dismiss a statement? Or just that it seems that way? (Seems that way to whom?)
I don’t think I agree.
To take your comment as an example… on one level, it’s a series of claims. “X is the more important question.” “Y is an effective way to discourage rational discussion.” “The rate of false positives in Y is very high.” Etc. And I could respond to it on that level, discussing whether those claims are accurate or not. And that seems to be the kind of discussion you’re encouraging.
Had you instead responded by saying “The average rainfall in Missouri is 3.5 inches per year” I could similarly discuss whether that claim is accurate or not.
But that would be an utterly bizarre response. Why would it be bizarre? Because I would have no idea what the intention behind citing that fact could possibly be. Your comment, by contrast, seems to have a fairly clear intention behind it, so it’s not bizarre at all.
So far, I don’t think I’ve said anything in the least bit controversial. (If you disagree with any of the above, probably best to pause here and resolve that disagreement before continuing.)
Continuing… so, OK. You have certain intentions in making the comment you made… call those intentions I1. I have inferred certain intentions on your part… call those I2. And, as above, were I to lack a plausible I2, I would be utterly bewildered by the whole conversation, as in the Missouri rainfall example… which I’m not.
Now… if I understand your view correctly, you believe that if I articulate I2 I will effectively discourage rational discussion and cause mindkill, because I’m likely to be mistaken… that is, I2 is not likely to equal I1. It’s better, on your view, for me to continue holding I2 without articulating it.
Yes? Or have I misunderstood your view?
If I’ve understood your view correctly, I disagree with it completely.
I tried to focus on people attacking negative intentions/connotations. I was expressing myself poorly and my comment had a lot of hidden assumptions. My comment was not even wrong. Your response is clear and helpful, thanks. I’m not sure I can improve upon my original comment, but here are some thoughts on the matter:
I think it would be useful to categorize intentions/connotations further. I see no problem in articulating hostile intentions behind a comment rudely stating that someone is fat for example. I think the reason for this is that the connotations of that kind of a statement are common knowledge and high probability. If you disapprovingly point out such connotations, nobody can claim that you’re trying to sneak them into the other person’s comment to dismiss it unfairly.
Then again I think there’s this category of statements where it seems to me that connotations can vary wildly. Even if you have a good reason to think that some particular connotation is the most probable, it’s just one option among many. Here the rate of false positives will be high. I feel in such situations attacking one connotation over another seems like a dishonest way to dismiss a statement.
I acknowledge that situational factors complicate matters further.
Sure, that’s true. We might disagree about how high my confidence in a particular most-probable-interpretation of the motives behind a particular statement can legitimately be, but it’s clear that for some statements that confidence will be fairly low.
Do you have any sense of why you feel this way?
For example, do you believe it is a dishonest way to dismiss a statement? Or just that it seems that way? (Seems that way to whom?)