When people say they appreciate rationalists for their non-judgmentalism, I think they mean more than just that rationalists tend not to moralize. What they also mean is that rationalists are responsive to people’s actual statements and opinions. This is separate from moralizing and in my opinion is more important, both because it precedes it in conversation and because I think people care about it more.
Being responsive to people means not (being interpreted as [inappropriately or] incorrectly) assuming what a person you are listening to thinks.
If someone tells says “I think torture, such as sleep deprivation, is effective in getting information,” and they support, say, both the government doing such and legalizing it, judging them to be a bad person for that and saying so won’t build communal ties, but it’s unlikely to be frustrating for the first person.
If, on the other hand, they don’t support the legalization or morality of it despite their claim it is effective, indignation will irritate them because it will be based on false assumptions about their beliefs.
If someone says “I’m thinking of killing myself”, responding with “That violates my arbitraty and ridiculous deontological system”, or some variation thereof, is probably unwelcome.
On the other hand, responding with “You’ll get over being depressed”, when your interlocutor does not feel depressed, will frustrate them. “Being depressed is a sin” would be an even worse response, combining both misinterpretation and moralizing.
Refraining from filling in the blanks in others’ arguments happens to be a good way to avoid moralizing, since in order to be indignant about something you have to believe in its existence.
Scott Adams has a good example of something that only causes offense to some people, supposedly dependent on their general penchant for smashing distinct statements together, which is one way people inappropriately fill in blanks.
The dog might eat your mom’s cake if you leave it out. A dog also might eat his own turd.
When you read those two statements, do you automatically suppose I am comparing your mom’s cake to a dog turd? Or do you see it as a statement that the dog doesn’t care what it eats, be it a delicious cake or something awful?
In this pair, it is easy to get someone to agree with both statements and also say they think they would hypothetically feel offense towards the speaker were it not a mere test...at least I am one for one, and I imagine it would work for others. I also think the person I asked actually felt real offense
Something like this pair would be good for teaching because the student agrees with the component statements. Offense is a result of inappropriately combining them to infer a particular intent by the speaker.
If you are offended, ask yourself: “What am I assuming about the other person (that makes me think they are innately evil)?
My usual method when confronted with a situation where a speaker appears to be stupid, crazy, or evil is to assume I misunderstood what they said. Usually by the time I understand what the opposite party is saying, I no longer have any problematic affective judgment.
My usual method when confronted with a situation where a speaker appears to be stupid, crazy, or evil is to assume I misunderstood what they said. Usually by the time I understand what the opposite party is saying, I no longer have any problematic affective judgment.
I usually find that I do understand what they are saying and it belongs in one of the neglected categories of ‘bullshit’ or “”.
Those don’t usually give me much trouble—I find that the nonsense people propose is usually self-consistent in an interesting way, much like speculative fiction. On reflection, what really gives me trouble is viewpoints I understand and disagree with all within five seconds, like [insert politics here].
Presumably “things that people say that aren’t really actionable beliefs”; though this reply feels awkward in a discussion about misunderstanding, I’m pretty sure that was the intended phrase.
When people say they appreciate rationalists for their non-judgmentalism, I think they mean more than just that rationalists tend not to moralize. What they also mean is that rationalists are responsive to people’s actual statements and opinions. This is separate from moralizing and in my opinion is more important, both because it precedes it in conversation and because I think people care about it more.
Being responsive to people means not (being interpreted as [inappropriately or] incorrectly) assuming what a person you are listening to thinks.
If someone tells says “I think torture, such as sleep deprivation, is effective in getting information,” and they support, say, both the government doing such and legalizing it, judging them to be a bad person for that and saying so won’t build communal ties, but it’s unlikely to be frustrating for the first person.
If, on the other hand, they don’t support the legalization or morality of it despite their claim it is effective, indignation will irritate them because it will be based on false assumptions about their beliefs.
If someone says “I’m thinking of killing myself”, responding with “That violates my arbitraty and ridiculous deontological system”, or some variation thereof, is probably unwelcome.
On the other hand, responding with “You’ll get over being depressed”, when your interlocutor does not feel depressed, will frustrate them. “Being depressed is a sin” would be an even worse response, combining both misinterpretation and moralizing.
Refraining from filling in the blanks in others’ arguments happens to be a good way to avoid moralizing, since in order to be indignant about something you have to believe in its existence.
Scott Adams has a good example of something that only causes offense to some people, supposedly dependent on their general penchant for smashing distinct statements together, which is one way people inappropriately fill in blanks.
In this pair, it is easy to get someone to agree with both statements and also say they think they would hypothetically feel offense towards the speaker were it not a mere test...at least I am one for one, and I imagine it would work for others. I also think the person I asked actually felt real offense
Something like this pair would be good for teaching because the student agrees with the component statements. Offense is a result of inappropriately combining them to infer a particular intent by the speaker.
If you are offended, ask yourself: “What am I assuming about the other person (that makes me think they are innately evil)?
My usual method when confronted with a situation where a speaker appears to be stupid, crazy, or evil is to assume I misunderstood what they said. Usually by the time I understand what the opposite party is saying, I no longer have any problematic affective judgment.
I usually find that I do understand what they are saying and it belongs in one of the neglected categories of ‘bullshit’ or “”.
This sounds interesting, but I can’t parse it.
That’s because you are using an English parser while my words were not valid English.
Those don’t usually give me much trouble—I find that the nonsense people propose is usually self-consistent in an interesting way, much like speculative fiction. On reflection, what really gives me trouble is viewpoints I understand and disagree with all within five seconds, like [insert politics here].
My experience is opposite. On one hand you’ll have people who do job that require a sort of met
“things that people say that” what? The grammar gets a little odd toward the latter half of that.
Presumably “things that people say that aren’t really actionable beliefs”; though this reply feels awkward in a discussion about misunderstanding, I’m pretty sure that was the intended phrase.
Fixed.
Thanks!