You are actually being a little bit of a bully yourself—Eliezer.
I would have thought that dialogues and conversations were an important part of being a rationalist. And disagreement. I would not have thought that underexplained decrees and conformity played so high a role.
But I have your word for it, that I am wrong.
So be it.
From now on I will always smile, when I hear the word rationalist.
He didn’t give you his word that you are wrong. He stated that your claim was not rigorous and that crucial parts of it required supporting evidence that you failed to provide.
He also claimed that you do not understand evolutionary psychology. (Edit) You have provided no evidence to dispute this claim. Of course you are probably not making an evpsych argument, so this comment is probably not necessary, but if it’s wrong and you are, you might consider rebutting it.
Rational responses to this would include providing evidence in support of your claim or explaining how a this predisposition might form. “Maybe we just don’t like overdogs” explains exactly nothing, except that we don’t like overdogs, which has already been stated.
Conversations are important, but making statements with no evidenciary claim and, well, no claim that adds meaning, are not.
“Maybe we just don’t like overdogs” explains exactly nothing, except that we don’t like overdogs...
One could interpret the phrase to suggest that focus in this forum may be being misleadingly directed towards the idea of support of underdogs rather than opposition of overdogs (Vandello’s “top dog”s), to which underdog support may be secondary. The phenomena are not inversions of each other. At least, I haven’t taken dislike of overdogs as being granted by the assertions of tendency for support of underdogs.
Perspective changes are often useful. This interpretable alternate notion may lead somewhere, while conflict resulting from an ungenerous (if accurate) understanding may not always be as fruitful as this particular incident appears to (heartwarmingly) be.
The linked paper says:
Although not directly examining underdog support, research on attitudes toward high achievers (what Feather, 1991, has labeled tall poppies) is also relevant. For instance, high achievers often elicit envy and resentment from others, particularly when the achievement is seen as undeserved … and people often experience pleasure in seeing the mighty fall...
[edit: Note further discussion of “schadenfreude” on page 1614.]
My opinion of overdog spite, without having conducted or surveyed studies: I think it exists and has a not insubstantial effect on underdog support, but my guess is that the primary factor or factors in underdog support are not dependent on it. Thanks anyway, Marshall, for the idea, whether you intended it. I’ll keep it nearby as I consider underdog support.
Thanks for trying to explain the rules of the game to me.
I have not at any point equated rationality with the scientific model. Scientific psychology is trivial (and 20% wrong) and inapplicable to living. Trying to stumble on happiness after reading Stumbling on Happiness if you don’t believe me.
I do not think the long list of just so stories from the comments with various tailored scripts is evidence of anything other than following the bandwagon.
My story is taken from the schoolyard. My evidence is present to everyone, who has been to school and seen bullies at work. The evidence of your own eyes and your own experience.
But this is not your language-game. Fair enough. And stupid of me to try to extend the rules. Incommenserability is the name of that game.
As I said in a comment under “Truels”. You have the option of metacommenting and being shot, or you can run away.
I regret that no-one criticises Eliezers highhandedness—that does not speak well of your community. And it puts to shame all thoughts of FRIENDLINESS under his tutelage.
You are actually being a little bit of a bully yourself—Eliezer.
I would have thought that dialogues and conversations were an important part of being a rationalist. And disagreement. I would not have thought that underexplained decrees and conformity played so high a role.
But I have your word for it, that I am wrong.
So be it.
From now on I will always smile, when I hear the word rationalist.
He didn’t give you his word that you are wrong. He stated that your claim was not rigorous and that crucial parts of it required supporting evidence that you failed to provide.
He also claimed that you do not understand evolutionary psychology. (Edit) You have provided no evidence to dispute this claim. Of course you are probably not making an evpsych argument, so this comment is probably not necessary, but if it’s wrong and you are, you might consider rebutting it.
Rational responses to this would include providing evidence in support of your claim or explaining how a this predisposition might form. “Maybe we just don’t like overdogs” explains exactly nothing, except that we don’t like overdogs, which has already been stated.
Conversations are important, but making statements with no evidenciary claim and, well, no claim that adds meaning, are not.
One could interpret the phrase to suggest that focus in this forum may be being misleadingly directed towards the idea of support of underdogs rather than opposition of overdogs (Vandello’s “top dog”s), to which underdog support may be secondary. The phenomena are not inversions of each other. At least, I haven’t taken dislike of overdogs as being granted by the assertions of tendency for support of underdogs.
Perspective changes are often useful. This interpretable alternate notion may lead somewhere, while conflict resulting from an ungenerous (if accurate) understanding may not always be as fruitful as this particular incident appears to (heartwarmingly) be.
The linked paper says:
[edit: Note further discussion of “schadenfreude” on page 1614.]
My opinion of overdog spite, without having conducted or surveyed studies: I think it exists and has a not insubstantial effect on underdog support, but my guess is that the primary factor or factors in underdog support are not dependent on it. Thanks anyway, Marshall, for the idea, whether you intended it. I’ll keep it nearby as I consider underdog support.
Yes—that was one of my points.
Thanks for trying to explain the rules of the game to me.
I have not at any point equated rationality with the scientific model. Scientific psychology is trivial (and 20% wrong) and inapplicable to living. Trying to stumble on happiness after reading Stumbling on Happiness if you don’t believe me.
I do not think the long list of just so stories from the comments with various tailored scripts is evidence of anything other than following the bandwagon.
My story is taken from the schoolyard. My evidence is present to everyone, who has been to school and seen bullies at work. The evidence of your own eyes and your own experience.
But this is not your language-game. Fair enough. And stupid of me to try to extend the rules. Incommenserability is the name of that game.
As I said in a comment under “Truels”. You have the option of metacommenting and being shot, or you can run away.
I regret that no-one criticises Eliezers highhandedness—that does not speak well of your community. And it puts to shame all thoughts of FRIENDLINESS under his tutelage.