Well I mean let him have his jab, the point of the site is to rise above too much unproductive object-level stuff. For an unproductive debate to be avoided, someone usually has to rise above it. Let that person be you.
I wouldn’t go ad-hominem against Gleb_Tsipursky, ad-hominem is never a good idea. He seems to me to be an earnest debater with a lot to offer, but even if he wasn’t I would still attack his arguments rather than attack the man.
It’s still ad-hominem to bring it up as an argument, and probably counterproductive to try and follow the guy around bringing up his mistakes everywhere he goes. Unless he is doing something directly connected with those criticisms.
Those criticisms are extremely relevant here. We aren’t having an abstract debate about rationality in politics, we are commenting on a post which announced a new project led by Gleb Tsipursky to try to bring rationality to politics. If you want to predict what this project is likely to end up doing, or how successful it will be, then one of the most relevant pieces of information that you have is Gleb’s track record.
Yeah I mean cargo cult rationality is definitely a risk. But still, it’s better to sink the argument than chase the guy, and as I said in a ‘no political debate’ setting, someone has to rise above it a bit.
I have actually been thinking about posting about politics here, I think there are interesting things going on in our politics but people making personal attacks against other commenters makes it harder to have a good debate.
Well if you have to choose between attacking someone’s object-level arguments about politics or attacking their person, I would say the latter is a greater evil even when the topic is controversial.
In the comments to this post I would avoid both, it’s reasonable to agree to disagree or just take the argument to PMs or something, or maybe have a special ‘politics’ thread. I mean you can even say “I disagree with X and took it to PMs” to avoid giving the impression that his assertion was unchallenged.
“I disagree with X and took it to PMs” to avoid giving the impression that his assertion was unchallenged.
What would be the point of that. To convince the other guy to see his mistakes? That only works if the person you’re debating is well meaning and exceptionally rational.
Otherwise, the point of debating in public is so that observers can see for themselves who’s being rational.
Yeah but that kind of debating tends to massively incentivize techniques for sophistry, leads to long pointless debates that take up time and yield no new knowledge. Here on LW we aim higher than that, and that is why there are norms to try and prevent it.
Meta-level discussion is never intended to “rise above” ground-level politics—that is indeed an illusion as you say. Rather, it’s intended to side-step the former temporarily, while still being useful by creating better frameworks for deliberation, mediation and similar good practices. It’s very important to understand this—any talk of “rising above” the actual, real-world issues is illusory and potentially dangerous.
Rather, it’s intended to side-step the former temporarily, while still being useful by creating better frameworks for deliberation, mediation and similar good practices
The problem is that it’s frequently used as an attempt to reach conclusions while side-stepping the whole messy “looking at the facts on the ground” thing.
Well I mean let him have his jab, the point of the site is to rise above too much unproductive object-level stuff. For an unproductive debate to be avoided, someone usually has to rise above it. Let that person be you.
Attempting to “rise above” object level discussion does not get you closer to truth. It means the conversation gets dominated by charlatans like Gab.
I wouldn’t go ad-hominem against Gleb_Tsipursky, ad-hominem is never a good idea. He seems to me to be an earnest debater with a lot to offer, but even if he wasn’t I would still attack his arguments rather than attack the man.
I agree that for the vast majority of cases stick to the object level rather than the psychology. But in this particular case, see this about Gleb and his organisation (detailing his dubious ethical practices and general misinformation): http://effective-altruism.com/ea/12z/concerns_with_intentional_insights/
It’s still ad-hominem to bring it up as an argument, and probably counterproductive to try and follow the guy around bringing up his mistakes everywhere he goes. Unless he is doing something directly connected with those criticisms.
Those criticisms are extremely relevant here. We aren’t having an abstract debate about rationality in politics, we are commenting on a post which announced a new project led by Gleb Tsipursky to try to bring rationality to politics. If you want to predict what this project is likely to end up doing, or how successful it will be, then one of the most relevant pieces of information that you have is Gleb’s track record.
This seems perfectly legitimate to post as a top level comment.
EDIT: though you will notice that the criticism by Jeff Kaufman, Gregory Lewis, Oliver Habryka, Carl Shulman, and Claire Zabel is very measured and I don’t see any insults or even any judgements about Gleb as a person in there. I would take a leaf out of their book.
Well, right here I’m not debating Gleb, I’m debating you.
Really, to me he looks like a standard cargo cult rationalist of the kind that Rational Wiki is full of.
Yeah I mean cargo cult rationality is definitely a risk. But still, it’s better to sink the argument than chase the guy, and as I said in a ‘no political debate’ setting, someone has to rise above it a bit.
I have actually been thinking about posting about politics here, I think there are interesting things going on in our politics but people making personal attacks against other commenters makes it harder to have a good debate.
Didn’t you also just say you don’t want object level political discussions?
Well if you have to choose between attacking someone’s object-level arguments about politics or attacking their person, I would say the latter is a greater evil even when the topic is controversial.
In the comments to this post I would avoid both, it’s reasonable to agree to disagree or just take the argument to PMs or something, or maybe have a special ‘politics’ thread. I mean you can even say “I disagree with X and took it to PMs” to avoid giving the impression that his assertion was unchallenged.
What would be the point of that. To convince the other guy to see his mistakes? That only works if the person you’re debating is well meaning and exceptionally rational.
Otherwise, the point of debating in public is so that observers can see for themselves who’s being rational.
Yeah but that kind of debating tends to massively incentivize techniques for sophistry, leads to long pointless debates that take up time and yield no new knowledge. Here on LW we aim higher than that, and that is why there are norms to try and prevent it.
Meta-level discussion is never intended to “rise above” ground-level politics—that is indeed an illusion as you say. Rather, it’s intended to side-step the former temporarily, while still being useful by creating better frameworks for deliberation, mediation and similar good practices. It’s very important to understand this—any talk of “rising above” the actual, real-world issues is illusory and potentially dangerous.
The problem is that it’s frequently used as an attempt to reach conclusions while side-stepping the whole messy “looking at the facts on the ground” thing.