This seems to be the same person (or a person from the same organization) as users “curi” and “elliot_temple”. I apologize for using an ad-hominem argument, but there is something about “past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior”.
In a nutshell, the debating strategy of this person?/group? is to draw people to an unending debate, until the other side decides it is no longer worth their time, in which case this person?/group? declares a moral victory. For everything you say, they will provide a reply, so the ball is always in your court (and they will publicly document this fact). It’s just that after some time you will realize they are neither listening to you, nor updating about anything you said. They just play the game of replying to everything and having the last word in the debate, and then using it as a proof that you are unable to engage in a critical discussion (as apparently is anyone other than themselves).
I disagree with your characterisation. I’d tend to put it as I have done in this comment to avoid being blameful or accusatory in nature when describing the strategy. They follow a set tactic. If you have different prior foundations on that tactic, it’s a game changer for that puzzle.
I agree with the part about not owing an answer (and that considering various costs, not answering may be the rational response). That may indeed be the critical flaw in the steelman of the strategy.
But my previous experience with this person?/group? is that they are not seriously listening at all. I mean, they will always post a response, but it will generally not touch the essence of what you wrote. So it becomes two people talking past each other. (And then the more persistent one declares victory.)
2) accusations of sockpuppetry are boring meta, in general
3) maintaining a disagreement through many iterations of discussion is not remotely the same as a conscious strategy of arguing until exhaustion and then declaring victory. perspectives vary widely and communication is hard. discussions need to be approached with these facts in mind and not burdened by unrealistic expectations of quick results.
4) i posted this to LW because I thought discussion of a robust process to combat intellectual bias would be of PARTICULAR interest to LW people, and not as part of an elaborate strategy of wanting to appear intellectually/morally superior.
I’m not offended or anything btw. i merely wanted to confront these claims head on.
This seems to be the same person (or a person from the same organization) as users “curi” and “elliot_temple”. I apologize for using an ad-hominem argument, but there is something about “past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior”.
In a nutshell, the debating strategy of this person?/group? is to draw people to an unending debate, until the other side decides it is no longer worth their time, in which case this person?/group? declares a moral victory. For everything you say, they will provide a reply, so the ball is always in your court (and they will publicly document this fact). It’s just that after some time you will realize they are neither listening to you, nor updating about anything you said. They just play the game of replying to everything and having the last word in the debate, and then using it as a proof that you are unable to engage in a critical discussion (as apparently is anyone other than themselves).
I disagree with your characterisation. I’d tend to put it as I have done in this comment to avoid being blameful or accusatory in nature when describing the strategy. They follow a set tactic. If you have different prior foundations on that tactic, it’s a game changer for that puzzle.
I agree with the part about not owing an answer (and that considering various costs, not answering may be the rational response). That may indeed be the critical flaw in the steelman of the strategy.
But my previous experience with this person?/group? is that they are not seriously listening at all. I mean, they will always post a response, but it will generally not touch the essence of what you wrote. So it becomes two people talking past each other. (And then the more persistent one declares victory.)
1) i am not a sockpuppet
2) accusations of sockpuppetry are boring meta, in general
3) maintaining a disagreement through many iterations of discussion is not remotely the same as a conscious strategy of arguing until exhaustion and then declaring victory. perspectives vary widely and communication is hard. discussions need to be approached with these facts in mind and not burdened by unrealistic expectations of quick results.
4) i posted this to LW because I thought discussion of a robust process to combat intellectual bias would be of PARTICULAR interest to LW people, and not as part of an elaborate strategy of wanting to appear intellectually/morally superior.
I’m not offended or anything btw. i merely wanted to confront these claims head on.