The “semantic bounty” fallacy occurs when you argue semantics, and you think that if you win an argument that X counts as Y, your interlocutor automatically gives up all the properties of Y as a bounty.
What actually happens is: your interlocutor may yield that X technically counts as Y, but since it’s a borderline example of Y, most of Y doesn’t apply to it. Unfortunately, as the argument gets longer, you may feel you deserve a bigger bounty if you win, when really your interlocutor is revealing to your their P(X is not Y) is quite high, and if they do yield, it’s more likely they’re yielding that X is a borderline Y.
This is a “leaky generalizations” and more specifically a “noncentral” fallacy. It happens, for instance, when someone tries to prove something is racist so as to imply behavior should change and gets resistance. In fact, you might consider that gap between “technically a Y” and “typically a Y” as a sort of semantic deficit. If the point of something being in Y is that it’s bad, consider arguing that it’s bad without even bringing up Y.
This applies even to some of the most drastic, moralized words we have, like “slavery,” “genocide” and “fascism.” However you feel about any issue in one of those topics, I will inform you that proving to someone that that thing is in that category, is not going to have the effect you want. There is no semantic bounty.
Claude 3.7 is too balanced, too sycophantic, buries the lede
me: VA monitor v IPS monitor for coding, reducing eye strain
It wrote a balanced answer, said “IPS is generally better” but it’s kind of sounding like 60⁄40 here, and it misses the obvious fact that VA monitors are generally the curved ones. My older coworkers with more eye strain problems don’t have curved monitors.
I hope on reddit/YT and the answer gets clear really fast. Claude’s info was accurate yet missed the point and I wound up only getting the answer on reddit/YT.
The “semantic bounty” fallacy occurs when you argue semantics, and you think that if you win an argument that X counts as Y, your interlocutor automatically gives up all the properties of Y as a bounty.
What actually happens is: your interlocutor may yield that X technically counts as Y, but since it’s a borderline example of Y, most of Y doesn’t apply to it. Unfortunately, as the argument gets longer, you may feel you deserve a bigger bounty if you win, when really your interlocutor is revealing to your their P(X is not Y) is quite high, and if they do yield, it’s more likely they’re yielding that X is a borderline Y.
This is a “leaky generalizations” and more specifically a “noncentral” fallacy. It happens, for instance, when someone tries to prove something is racist so as to imply behavior should change and gets resistance. In fact, you might consider that gap between “technically a Y” and “typically a Y” as a sort of semantic deficit. If the point of something being in Y is that it’s bad, consider arguing that it’s bad without even bringing up Y.
This applies even to some of the most drastic, moralized words we have, like “slavery,” “genocide” and “fascism.” However you feel about any issue in one of those topics, I will inform you that proving to someone that that thing is in that category, is not going to have the effect you want. There is no semantic bounty.
Claude 3.7 is too balanced, too sycophantic, buries the lede
me: VA monitor v IPS monitor for coding, reducing eye strain
It wrote a balanced answer, said “IPS is generally better” but it’s kind of sounding like 60⁄40 here, and it misses the obvious fact that VA monitors are generally the curved ones. My older coworkers with more eye strain problems don’t have curved monitors.
I hope on reddit/YT and the answer gets clear really fast. Claude’s info was accurate yet missed the point and I wound up only getting the answer on reddit/YT.