I claim an important missing piece between 3 and 4 is “Said spent literally thousands of words uncharitably psychoanalyzing me in a subthread under the LW moderation policy post, and mods did not care to intervene.”
For what it’s worth, I think you’re unusually uncomfortable with people doing this. I’ve not read the specific thread you’re referring to, but I recall you expressing especially and unusually high dislike for other performing analysis of your mind and motivations.
I’m not sure what to do with this, only that I think it’s important background for folks trying to understand the situation. Most people dislike psychoanalyzing to some extent, but you seem like P99 in your degree of dislike. And, yes, I realize that annoyingly my comment is treading in the direction of analyzing you, but I’m trying to keep it just to external observations.
(I also note that I’m a bit sensitive after that one time that a prominent Jewish member of the rationality community falsely accused me on LW of wanting to ghettoize people and the comment was highly upvoted and there was no mod response for over a week. I imagine it’s rather easier for other people to forget the impact of that than for me to.)
I don’t mind people forming hypotheses, as long as they flag that what they’ve got is a hypothesis.
I don’t like it when people sort of … skim social points off the top? They launch a social attack with the veneer that it’s just a hypothesis (“What, am I not allowed to have models and guesses?”), but (as gjm pointed out in that subthread) they don’t actually respond to information, and update. Observably, Said was pretending to represent a reasonable prior, but then refusing to move to a posterior.
That’s the part I don’t like. If you gamble with someone else’s reputation and prove wrong, you should lose, somehow; it shouldn’t be a free action to insinuate negative things about another person and just walk away scot-free if they were all false and unjustified.
Not sure if this is a crux, but my impression is Said in particular is not accruing social credit for his comments. I agree that other people pulling similar maneuvers probably do, and that’s often bad, but my impression is Said in particular has just gone too far.
He was successful enough that Vaniver took it seriously and, in a highly upvoted comment on this thread, fell for what I believe is a privileging-the-hypothesis gambit (details above under Vaniver’s comment).
I claim an important missing piece between 3 and 4 is “Said spent literally thousands of words uncharitably psychoanalyzing me in a subthread under the LW moderation policy post, and mods did not care to intervene.”
For what it’s worth, I think you’re unusually uncomfortable with people doing this. I’ve not read the specific thread you’re referring to, but I recall you expressing especially and unusually high dislike for other performing analysis of your mind and motivations.
I’m not sure what to do with this, only that I think it’s important background for folks trying to understand the situation. Most people dislike psychoanalyzing to some extent, but you seem like P99 in your degree of dislike. And, yes, I realize that annoyingly my comment is treading in the direction of analyzing you, but I’m trying to keep it just to external observations.
(I also note that I’m a bit sensitive after that one time that a prominent Jewish member of the rationality community falsely accused me on LW of wanting to ghettoize people and the comment was highly upvoted and there was no mod response for over a week. I imagine it’s rather easier for other people to forget the impact of that than for me to.)
I don’t mind people forming hypotheses, as long as they flag that what they’ve got is a hypothesis.
I don’t like it when people sort of … skim social points off the top? They launch a social attack with the veneer that it’s just a hypothesis (“What, am I not allowed to have models and guesses?”), but (as gjm pointed out in that subthread) they don’t actually respond to information, and update. Observably, Said was pretending to represent a reasonable prior, but then refusing to move to a posterior.
That’s the part I don’t like. If you gamble with someone else’s reputation and prove wrong, you should lose, somehow; it shouldn’t be a free action to insinuate negative things about another person and just walk away scot-free if they were all false and unjustified.
Not sure if this is a crux, but my impression is Said in particular is not accruing social credit for his comments. I agree that other people pulling similar maneuvers probably do, and that’s often bad, but my impression is Said in particular has just gone too far.
He was successful enough that Vaniver took it seriously and, in a highly upvoted comment on this thread, fell for what I believe is a privileging-the-hypothesis gambit (details above under Vaniver’s comment).
Thanks, I retract the comment
More on this here