To the extent I understand peter_hurford’s comment, its exorbitantly positive reception disappoints me even more than the post’s negative reception. It seems to miss the point of the “general intelligence” remark, which was that sorting humans in the manner referred to is not helpful, at least in this context. The fact that a term like “artist” may indeed be efficient for describing the results of this unhelpful sorting process is beside the point.
Fair cop on ‘counterpoint’; Merriam-Webster suggests you’re losing that particular definitional battle, but I get annoyed when people refer to crackers as “hackers”, so I definitely sympathize. Edited.
To the broader point, if peter_hurford’s argument-by-dialogue doesn’t click for you, you might try grouchymusicologist’s more detailed explanation.
To the extent I understand peter_hurford’s comment, its positive reception disappoints me even more than the post’s negative reception. It seems to miss the point of the “general intelligence” remark, which was that sorting humans in the manner referred to is not helpful, at least in this context.
The point of peter_hurford’s comment, as I understand it, is that knowing “X is a human” gives one less information than “X is an artist.” Of course Vassar isn’t looking for mere humans, but because he phrased it this way, the content of the article became “offensive” to several groups of people. So peter_hurford didn’t “miss the point of the ‘general intelligence’ remark.” He offered a somewhat amusing explanation of why “It turns out only a human can help us” was patently ridiculous.
(Also, how dangerous, how unsafe is the phrase, “it turns out”! I forget who first pointed this out to me, but oh, what horrible things can it conceal...!)
I found the parent comment “offensive” for a couple of reasons: (1) it contained a reference that is unfamiliar to me (“Fight Club”)
There’s a good chance you haven’t read, seen, or heard even 1% of the cultural output of the world. Being “offended” by unfamiliar references is not productive. This was even a nice reference in so far as the content of the reference was explained directly afterward.
The point of peter_hurford’s comment, as I understand it, is that knowing “X is a human” gives one less information than “X is an artist.
That, believe it or not, was actually Vassar’s point: artists are, in particular, humans. Which means that they have general intelligence and are not necessarily confined to stereotypical “artist” tasks. Which I find to be a rather uplifting point, personally.
He offered a somewhat amusing explanation of why “It turns out only a human can help us” was patently ridiculous
It is only ridiculous if you confuse a statement with its converse: “only a human” is not the same as “every human”. But the actual nature of the statement is of course rhetorical: “to help us, you should be thinking of yourself as a human—something with general intelligence, and not something terribly more specific”.
There’s a good chance you haven’t read, seen, or heard even 1% of the cultural output of the world. Being “offended” by unfamiliar references
It wasn’t just the reference. It was the conjunction of the reference with the “counterpoint” thing, a combination that produced the effect of an aggressive (or at least ostentatious) “I AM IN A DIFFERENT TRIBE FROM YOU” signal.
That, believe it or not, was actually Vassar’s point: artists are, in particular, humans. Which means that they have general intelligence and are not necessarily confined to stereotypical “artist” tasks. Which I find to be a rather uplifting point, personally.
Continue this thread with thomblake, who has identified the issue more precisely than I can.
It is only ridiculous if you confuse a statement with its converse: “only a human” is not the same as “every human”.
“Those that can help us are humans” is logically equivalent to “Only a human can help us.” Both are effectively zero-information sentences. No converse fallacy here.
But the actual nature of the statement is of course rhetorical: “to help us, you should be thinking of yourself as a human—something with general intelligence, and not something terribly more specific”.
[...]
It wasn’t just the reference. It was the conjunction of the reference with the “counterpoint” thing, a combination that produced the effect of an aggressive (or at least ostentatious) “I AM IN A DIFFERENT TRIBE FROM YOU” signal.
I guess the lesson here is that signal mismatches happen to everyone!
Continue this thread with thomblake, who has identified the issue more precisely than I can.
I have been working on a reply to thomblake for a while, but I do not really have much of a desire to continue this thread: it is causing me to get upset at LW, a state I do not wish to be in.
“Those that can help us are humans” is logically equivalent to “Only a human can help us.” Both are effectively zero-information sentences. No converse fallacy here.
The converse fallacy occurred when you took “only a human can help us” to mean “every human can help us”—your “ridiculous” criticism, which is distinct from your “zero-information” criticism—here:
Of course Vassar isn’t looking for mere humans
/
I guess the lesson here is that signal mismatches happen to everyone!
Are you implying that you didn’t comprehend the rhetorical meaning of Vassar’s statement? I find that implausible.
The converse fallacy occurred when you took “only a human can help us” to mean “every human can help us”—your “ridiculous” criticism, which is distinct from your “zero-information” criticism—here:
Of course Vassar isn’t looking for mere humans
I don’t understand your confusion. I’m only making one criticism. The statement is ridiculous because it has no informational content. I stated that in the sentence prior to the quoted one. I never assumed “only a human can help us” meant “every human can help us”.
Are you implying that you didn’t comprehend the rhetorical meaning of Vassar’s statement? I find that implausible.
It was the second meaning I found, after I judged the first one to be improbable. I’m pointing out the irony of you being disappointed at others finding an offensive-but-probably-unintentional subtext in Vassar’s work, while also yourself finding an offensive-but-probably-unintentional subtext in the previous comment.
(Also, how dangerous, how unsafe is the phrase, “it turns out”! I forget who first pointed this out to me, but oh, what horrible things can it conceal...!)
I don’t think so, but that explains the problem really well. I think it was a person who was complaining about a claim made using that phrase in an academic paper that later turned out to be false, hyuk hyuk...
To the extent I understand peter_hurford’s comment, its exorbitantly positive reception disappoints me even more than the post’s negative reception. It seems to miss the point of the “general intelligence” remark, which was that sorting humans in the manner referred to is not helpful, at least in this context. The fact that a term like “artist” may indeed be efficient for describing the results of this unhelpful sorting process is beside the point.
[EDIT: paragraph removed]
Fair cop on ‘counterpoint’; Merriam-Webster suggests you’re losing that particular definitional battle, but I get annoyed when people refer to crackers as “hackers”, so I definitely sympathize. Edited.
To the broader point, if peter_hurford’s argument-by-dialogue doesn’t click for you, you might try grouchymusicologist’s more detailed explanation.
As it happens, I liked grouchymusicologist’s comment and thought it was a fair response.
The point of peter_hurford’s comment, as I understand it, is that knowing “X is a human” gives one less information than “X is an artist.” Of course Vassar isn’t looking for mere humans, but because he phrased it this way, the content of the article became “offensive” to several groups of people. So peter_hurford didn’t “miss the point of the ‘general intelligence’ remark.” He offered a somewhat amusing explanation of why “It turns out only a human can help us” was patently ridiculous.
(Also, how dangerous, how unsafe is the phrase, “it turns out”! I forget who first pointed this out to me, but oh, what horrible things can it conceal...!)
There’s a good chance you haven’t read, seen, or heard even 1% of the cultural output of the world. Being “offended” by unfamiliar references is not productive. This was even a nice reference in so far as the content of the reference was explained directly afterward.
That, believe it or not, was actually Vassar’s point: artists are, in particular, humans. Which means that they have general intelligence and are not necessarily confined to stereotypical “artist” tasks. Which I find to be a rather uplifting point, personally.
It is only ridiculous if you confuse a statement with its converse: “only a human” is not the same as “every human”. But the actual nature of the statement is of course rhetorical: “to help us, you should be thinking of yourself as a human—something with general intelligence, and not something terribly more specific”.
It wasn’t just the reference. It was the conjunction of the reference with the “counterpoint” thing, a combination that produced the effect of an aggressive (or at least ostentatious) “I AM IN A DIFFERENT TRIBE FROM YOU” signal.
Continue this thread with thomblake, who has identified the issue more precisely than I can.
“Those that can help us are humans” is logically equivalent to “Only a human can help us.” Both are effectively zero-information sentences. No converse fallacy here.
I guess the lesson here is that signal mismatches happen to everyone!
I have been working on a reply to thomblake for a while, but I do not really have much of a desire to continue this thread: it is causing me to get upset at LW, a state I do not wish to be in.
The converse fallacy occurred when you took “only a human can help us” to mean “every human can help us”—your “ridiculous” criticism, which is distinct from your “zero-information” criticism—here:
/
Are you implying that you didn’t comprehend the rhetorical meaning of Vassar’s statement? I find that implausible.
I don’t understand your confusion. I’m only making one criticism. The statement is ridiculous because it has no informational content. I stated that in the sentence prior to the quoted one. I never assumed “only a human can help us” meant “every human can help us”.
It was the second meaning I found, after I judged the first one to be improbable. I’m pointing out the irony of you being disappointed at others finding an offensive-but-probably-unintentional subtext in Vassar’s work, while also yourself finding an offensive-but-probably-unintentional subtext in the previous comment.
Could it have been this?
I don’t think so, but that explains the problem really well. I think it was a person who was complaining about a claim made using that phrase in an academic paper that later turned out to be false, hyuk hyuk...