Many of those questions seem rather unreasonable replies to the context.
“Artists can’t help us … only a human can help us”—so artists aren’t humans?
That would be an unreasonable (hostile) interpretation.
Do humans really have general intelligence? (okay, I usually grant this one)
Well, at least you disclaimed.
Does general intelligence allow you to do anything?
Within limits. The post includes nothing that would necessitate that retort (or make it particularly relevant.)
Do only humans have general intelligence?
Right now, yes. It would be reasonable to assume that the post allows for the possibility that things other than humans could possess general intelligence. It’s talking about what is useful building one.
Did anyone think that identifying with labels causes one to gain the ability to use the skills associated with the label?
The article doesn’t claim, imply or require that they do.
Does associating oneself with a label cause one to lose the ability to freely use other skills?
An actual relevant question. The post (and [the post that probably should have been included as a reference) certainly claim that they do, to a certain extent.
Does associating oneself with a label cause one to lose the ability to behave non-stereotypically?
Another actual claim in the post.
Does moving away from the label’s cluster in thing-space make one a less good member of one’s category? (Are penguins and ostriches bad birds?)
More relevant is the belief of the person (not) moving about the likely perception of others when observing such a move.
Is that really the reason why associating oneself with a label causes one to lose those abilities?
Ok, so the last 4 questions were all decent. It was just the first five that made me suspect that if you made these challenges to a post that wasn’t already the subject of social abuse they would be declared disingenuous and you would be punished for being aggressive. As it happens you can probably get away with it (or just about anything that attacks Vassar’s post) since the impulse to not join the person being bullied is so strong.
Many of those questions seem rather unreasonable replies to the context.
Regarding the claims about general intelligence, I do indeed find them dubious. Especially that general intelligence allows you to do anything—a lot of the things you can do with general intelligence require something else (some skill, for example), and a lot of them can be done without general intelligence. So it’s really not helpful to claim that general intelligence allows you to do anything, and I especially don’t see its usefulness in this context.
That would be an unreasonable (hostile) interpretation.
Well, that was my actual interpretation, so there it is. And I could certainly see less charitable folks get mad and stop reading right there, especially artists to whom this post is presumably somewhat directed.
Did anyone think that identifying with labels causes one to gain the ability to use the skills associated with the label?
The article doesn’t claim, imply or require that they do
Yes it does:
When people identify with labels, they don’t primarily gain the ability to use the skills they have that they associate with those labels.
This is kindly informing the reader that identifying with a label doesn’t grant you the ability to use the label’s skills. What other interpretation is there?
It was just the first five that made me suspect that if you made these challenges to a post that wasn’t already the subject of social abuse they would be declared disingenuous and you would be punished for being aggressive.
I usually don’t get ‘punished’ for apt criticism, and my criticism seems to usually be considered apt. I was not being disingenuous; I didn’t bother stating these specific objections to that passage when the article was posted because it didn’t seem high-quality enough to merit a response. But komponisto singled out that passage as containing something high-quality, so I felt the need to point out its obvious flaws. YMMV I guess.
That whole point seemed especially wrong for the reasons I stated at the end of that comment. Particularly, I know lots of people who call themselves “artists” or other such labels (I don’t think I know anyone who doesn’t associate with any labels at all, ever) and they all seem perfectly capable of “doing stuff”, even non-stereotypical stuff. The passage struck me as the assertion of a string of dubious statements mixed with obvious falsehoods, and I could not find a charitable way out; at best, it was terrible communication.
And, as I explained originally (and maintain), the early questions were not apt and would not be accepted at all if it not for the fact that they constitute soldiers for the winning army.
at best, it was terrible communication.
It was terrible communication. And, as is often the case with social dynamics, the part of the communication that allowed you to get away with this response to this particular paragraph is not the paragraph itself but rather the surrounding context which sets the bounds around how it is appropriate to interact with M.Vassar.
the surrounding context which sets the bounds around how it is appropriate to interact with M.Vassar.
Maybe that’s the source of the confusion. I was responding to komponisto.
There isn’t confusion, there is disagreement and social objection. Yes, your text written to komponisto. The conversation about Vassar’s communication and how it changes the bounds of how much leeway must be granted to those acting against Vassar in the discussion thread remains the same.
Aha. Yes, I think there was confusion. I wasn’t focused on the “people stuff” parts of your comment, and I wasn’t thinking of it as something adversarial. Entirely my mistake—there were enough markers in your comment to see that’s what you were getting at.
I was mostly trying to disabuse komponisto (and future readers) of a falsehood.
Aha. Yes, I think there was confusion. I wasn’t focused on the “people stuff” parts of your comment, and I wasn’t thinking of it as something adversarial. Entirely my mistake—there were enough markers in your comment to see that’s what you were getting at.
Ok, I’m not entirely sure I understand (since I already unchached the conversation—ie. I remember what was said but not what I believe is believed about belief) but I’ll take your word for it!
Many of those questions seem rather unreasonable replies to the context.
That would be an unreasonable (hostile) interpretation.
Well, at least you disclaimed.
Within limits. The post includes nothing that would necessitate that retort (or make it particularly relevant.)
Right now, yes. It would be reasonable to assume that the post allows for the possibility that things other than humans could possess general intelligence. It’s talking about what is useful building one.
The article doesn’t claim, imply or require that they do.
An actual relevant question. The post (and [the post that probably should have been included as a reference) certainly claim that they do, to a certain extent.
Another actual claim in the post.
More relevant is the belief of the person (not) moving about the likely perception of others when observing such a move.
Ok, so the last 4 questions were all decent. It was just the first five that made me suspect that if you made these challenges to a post that wasn’t already the subject of social abuse they would be declared disingenuous and you would be punished for being aggressive. As it happens you can probably get away with it (or just about anything that attacks Vassar’s post) since the impulse to not join the person being bullied is so strong.
Regarding the claims about general intelligence, I do indeed find them dubious. Especially that general intelligence allows you to do anything—a lot of the things you can do with general intelligence require something else (some skill, for example), and a lot of them can be done without general intelligence. So it’s really not helpful to claim that general intelligence allows you to do anything, and I especially don’t see its usefulness in this context.
Well, that was my actual interpretation, so there it is. And I could certainly see less charitable folks get mad and stop reading right there, especially artists to whom this post is presumably somewhat directed.
Yes it does:
This is kindly informing the reader that identifying with a label doesn’t grant you the ability to use the label’s skills. What other interpretation is there?
I usually don’t get ‘punished’ for apt criticism, and my criticism seems to usually be considered apt. I was not being disingenuous; I didn’t bother stating these specific objections to that passage when the article was posted because it didn’t seem high-quality enough to merit a response. But komponisto singled out that passage as containing something high-quality, so I felt the need to point out its obvious flaws. YMMV I guess.
That whole point seemed especially wrong for the reasons I stated at the end of that comment. Particularly, I know lots of people who call themselves “artists” or other such labels (I don’t think I know anyone who doesn’t associate with any labels at all, ever) and they all seem perfectly capable of “doing stuff”, even non-stereotypical stuff. The passage struck me as the assertion of a string of dubious statements mixed with obvious falsehoods, and I could not find a charitable way out; at best, it was terrible communication.
And, as I explained originally (and maintain), the early questions were not apt and would not be accepted at all if it not for the fact that they constitute soldiers for the winning army.
It was terrible communication. And, as is often the case with social dynamics, the part of the communication that allowed you to get away with this response to this particular paragraph is not the paragraph itself but rather the surrounding context which sets the bounds around how it is appropriate to interact with M.Vassar.
Maybe that’s the source of the confusion. I was responding to komponisto.
Maybe that’s the source of the confusion. I was responding to komponisto.
There isn’t confusion, there is disagreement and social objection. Yes, your text written to komponisto. The conversation about Vassar’s communication and how it changes the bounds of how much leeway must be granted to those acting against Vassar in the discussion thread remains the same.
Aha. Yes, I think there was confusion. I wasn’t focused on the “people stuff” parts of your comment, and I wasn’t thinking of it as something adversarial. Entirely my mistake—there were enough markers in your comment to see that’s what you were getting at.
I was mostly trying to disabuse komponisto (and future readers) of a falsehood.
Ok, I’m not entirely sure I understand (since I already unchached the conversation—ie. I remember what was said but not what I believe is believed about belief) but I’ll take your word for it!