I think it is strawmanning Zack’s post still has some useful frames and it’s reasonable for it to be fairly upvoted. [...] I think the amount of strawmanning here is just not bad enough
Why do you think it’s strawmanning, though? What, specifically, do you think I got wrong? This seems like a question you should be able to answer!
As I’ve explained, I think that strawmanning accusations should be accompanied by an explanation of how the text that the critic published materially misrepresents the text that the original author published. In a later comment, I gave two examples illustrating what I thought the relevant evidentiary standard looks like.
If I had a more Said-like commenting style, I would stop there, but as a faithful adherent of the church of arbitrarily large amounts of interpretive labor, I’m willing to do your work for you. When I imagine being a lawyer hired to argue that “‘Rationalist Discourse’ Is Like ‘Physicist Motors’” engages in strawmanning, and trying to point to which specific parts of the post constitute a misrepresentation, the two best candidates I come up with are (a) the part where the author claims that “if someone did [speak of ‘physicist motors’], you might quietly begin to doubt how much they really knew about physics”, and (b) the part where the author characterizes Bensinger’s “defeasible default” of “role-playing being on the same side as the people who disagree with you” as being what members of other intellectual communities would call “concern trolling.”
However, I argue that both examples (a) and (b) fail to meet the relevant standard, of the text that the critic published materially misrepresenting the text that the original author published.
In the case of (a), while the most obvious reading of the text might be characterized as rude or insulting insofar as it suggests that readers should quietly begin to doubt Bensinger’s knowledge of rationality, insulting an author is not the same thing as materially misrepresenting the text that the author published. In the case of (b), “concern-trolling” is pejorative term; it’s certainly true that Bensinger would not self-identify as engaging in concern-trolling. But that’s not what the text is arguing: the claim is that the substantive behavior that Bensinger recommends is something that other groups would identify as “concern trolling.” I continue to maintain that this is true.
Regarding another user’s claim that the “entire post” in question “is an overt strawman”, that accusation was rebutted in the comments by both myself and Said Achmiz.
In conclusion, I stand by my post.
If you disagree with my analysis here, that’s fine: I want people to be able to criticize my work. But I think you should be able to say why, specifically. I think it’s great when people make negative-valence claims about my work, and then back up those claims with specific arguments that I can learn from. But I think it’s bad when people make negative-valence claims about my work that they don’t argue for, and then I have to do their work for them as part of my service to the church of arbitrarily large amounts of interpretive labor (as I’ve done in this comment).
I meant the primary point of my previous comment to be “Duncan’s accusation in that thread is below the threshold of ‘deserves moderator response’ (i.e. Duncan wishes the LessWrong moderators would intervene on things like that on his behalf [edit: reliably and promptly], and I don’t plan to do that, because I don’t think it’s that big a deal. (I edited the previous comment to say “kinda” strawmanning, to clarify the emphasis more)
My point here was just explaining to Vladimir why I don’t find it alarming that the LW team doesn’t prioritize strawmanning the way Duncan wants (I’m still somewhat confused about what Vlad meant with his question though and am honestly not sure what this conversation thread is about)
I’m still somewhat confused about what Vlad meant with his question though and am honestly not sure what this conversation thread is about
I see Vlad as saying “that it’s even on your priority list, given that it seems impossible to actually enforce, is worrying” not “it is worrying that it is low instead of high on your priority list.”
I don’t plan to do that, because I don’t think it’s that big a deal
I think it plausibly is a big deal and mechanisms that identify and point out when people are doing this (and really, I think a lot of the time it might just be misunderstanding) would be very valuable.
I don’t think moderators showing up and making and judgment and proclamation is the right answer. I’m more interested in making it so people reading the thread can provide the feedback, e.g. via Reacts.
Just noting that “What specifically did it get wrong?” is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and is one I would have (in most cases) been willing to answer, patiently and at length.
That I was unwilling in that specific case is an artifact of the history of Zack being quick to aggressively misunderstand that specific essay, in ways that I considered excessively rude (and which Zack has also publicly retracted).
Given that public retraction, I’m considering going back and in fact answering the “what specifically” question, as I normally would have at the time. If I end up not doing so, it will be more because of opportunity costs than anything else. (I do have an answer; it’s just a question of whether it’s worth taking the time to write it out months later.)
Why do you think it’s strawmanning, though? What, specifically, do you think I got wrong? This seems like a question you should be able to answer!
As I’ve explained, I think that strawmanning accusations should be accompanied by an explanation of how the text that the critic published materially misrepresents the text that the original author published. In a later comment, I gave two examples illustrating what I thought the relevant evidentiary standard looks like.
If I had a more Said-like commenting style, I would stop there, but as a faithful adherent of the church of arbitrarily large amounts of interpretive labor, I’m willing to do your work for you. When I imagine being a lawyer hired to argue that “‘Rationalist Discourse’ Is Like ‘Physicist Motors’” engages in strawmanning, and trying to point to which specific parts of the post constitute a misrepresentation, the two best candidates I come up with are (a) the part where the author claims that “if someone did [speak of ‘physicist motors’], you might quietly begin to doubt how much they really knew about physics”, and (b) the part where the author characterizes Bensinger’s “defeasible default” of “role-playing being on the same side as the people who disagree with you” as being what members of other intellectual communities would call “concern trolling.”
However, I argue that both examples (a) and (b) fail to meet the relevant standard, of the text that the critic published materially misrepresenting the text that the original author published.
In the case of (a), while the most obvious reading of the text might be characterized as rude or insulting insofar as it suggests that readers should quietly begin to doubt Bensinger’s knowledge of rationality, insulting an author is not the same thing as materially misrepresenting the text that the author published. In the case of (b), “concern-trolling” is pejorative term; it’s certainly true that Bensinger would not self-identify as engaging in concern-trolling. But that’s not what the text is arguing: the claim is that the substantive behavior that Bensinger recommends is something that other groups would identify as “concern trolling.” I continue to maintain that this is true.
Regarding another user’s claim that the “entire post” in question “is an overt strawman”, that accusation was rebutted in the comments by both myself and Said Achmiz.
In conclusion, I stand by my post.
If you disagree with my analysis here, that’s fine: I want people to be able to criticize my work. But I think you should be able to say why, specifically. I think it’s great when people make negative-valence claims about my work, and then back up those claims with specific arguments that I can learn from. But I think it’s bad when people make negative-valence claims about my work that they don’t argue for, and then I have to do their work for them as part of my service to the church of arbitrarily large amounts of interpretive labor (as I’ve done in this comment).
I meant the primary point of my previous comment to be “Duncan’s accusation in that thread is below the threshold of ‘deserves moderator response’ (i.e. Duncan wishes the LessWrong moderators would intervene on things like that on his behalf [edit: reliably and promptly], and I don’t plan to do that, because I don’t think it’s that big a deal. (I edited the previous comment to say “kinda” strawmanning, to clarify the emphasis more)
My point here was just explaining to Vladimir why I don’t find it alarming that the LW team doesn’t prioritize strawmanning the way Duncan wants (I’m still somewhat confused about what Vlad meant with his question though and am honestly not sure what this conversation thread is about)
I see Vlad as saying “that it’s even on your priority list, given that it seems impossible to actually enforce, is worrying” not “it is worrying that it is low instead of high on your priority list.”
I think it plausibly is a big deal and mechanisms that identify and point out when people are doing this (and really, I think a lot of the time it might just be misunderstanding) would be very valuable.
I don’t think moderators showing up and making and judgment and proclamation is the right answer. I’m more interested in making it so people reading the thread can provide the feedback, e.g. via Reacts.
Just noting that “What specifically did it get wrong?” is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and is one I would have (in most cases) been willing to answer, patiently and at length.
That I was unwilling in that specific case is an artifact of the history of Zack being quick to aggressively misunderstand that specific essay, in ways that I considered excessively rude (and which Zack has also publicly retracted).
Given that public retraction, I’m considering going back and in fact answering the “what specifically” question, as I normally would have at the time. If I end up not doing so, it will be more because of opportunity costs than anything else. (I do have an answer; it’s just a question of whether it’s worth taking the time to write it out months later.)