Fascinating, why was this voted down so harshly? Yes, I implied that Mencius Moldbug is not particularly well known, respected, or deserving of respect. Is it wrong to express this sentiment? If you’re curious why I lack great respect for Mencius, it is because I don’t believe he argues in good faith. He doesn’t argue respectfully or carefully. See Robin Hanson take him apart.
I was also making a more general point about the use of quotations and authority so it was not merely a case of gratuitous attacks on an individual.
I voted it down because, among rationalists, the value of an idea shouldn’t depend much on the author (although sometimes the author’s identity sheds more light on the quote). I mean, hell, Eliezer found an interesting quote from Piers Anthony.
I agree the value of an idea shouldn’t depend too much on the author if we can evaluate the idea more directly. But I think the value of a quotation, a particular wording of an idea, is more dependent on who authored it.
If I were to use the Moldbug quote above in a positive light I fear how the reader would react:
Readers who like the quote would get a falsely positive impression of the author.
Readers who knew, and didn’t like the author, would slightly lower their assessment of me “even if he is right this time, why does he think Moldbug is an authority?”
I think most people use quotes with the understanding that readers often feel an implicit appeal to authority unless they explicitly state otherwise. Quoting someone also causes readers to perceive the author to be deserving of engagement. I’d rather not reward people I don’t respect in that way.
Maybe I’m weird, but I don’t use or interpret quotes that way (as an appeal to authority). I use quotes that express an idea succinctly or cleverly, and the point for me is the language, not the source. I’m careful not to accidentally imply that the wording is mine, but other than that quotes are pretty independent of their originators in my mind.
(But I do frequently introduce a quote by saying “as someone said” to avoid derailing the conversation to be about that person)
I can’t speak for others, but I find the value of a quote to be almost completely independent of its originator. (exception being when the originator is someone like Hitler; that’s a short list, though)
I’m not a fan of this particular quote, though, because I can’t tell if it’s sarcastic or serious. (I’ve never played the lottery, but I wouldn’t expect it to make me feel rich; voting doesn’t make me feel powerful. I’m just not sure what it’s attempting to communicate.)
EDIT: what orthonormal said. Also, before anyone docks me for the same reason, the reason I would refrain from quoting Hitler (assuming he ever said anything worth quoting) is because I know that many, many other people can’t separate ideas from sources. Plus why would I be reading Mien Kampf??
I find the value of a quote to be highly dependent on the identity of its originator.
This allows me to quickly filter out all kinds of nonsense by known idiots—for example by using killfiles.
Surely you guys are not claiming that there is no correlation between author and value! That would seem like “everyone’s equal” political correctness taken to extremes!
I agree, if we’re talking about books. Further, I agree that some people are way better at making good quotes than others.
But even a broken clock is right twice a day—and if someone has taken the trouble to excerpt a quote from an author (i.e., they have pre-filtered it for me), it does not take me significantly more time to read the quote than it does to verify that I like the originator. (Unless I know I’m unlikely to agree with the aesthetics of the person who made the excerpt, but that’s a different story entirely!)
“The people who are already born into money never know a real struggle, and for the others so often this struggle is so hard that it kills all pity. Our own painful struggle, that the selfish say we need, destroys our feelings for the misery we cause on our rise to become this so called success. I was forced back into a world of material insecurity, this fact has removed the curtain of this narrow minded and selfish world, and after reading, writing, searching, and questioning, that I may not have been able to do if distracted by the relentless pursuit of material wealth that seems to be the driving force in most people’s lives, did I truly come to know humanity...
“I don’t know what is worse, intention to social misery or inattention to it. We see both everyday among those who have been favored in fortune by birth or luck, or those who have risen to it by their own efforts. Or else the snobs, or at times the tactless and obtrusive condescension of the social elite who apparently ‘feel’ for the people. In any case these people sin against moral justice farther than their narrow little minds and twisted hearts are probably even capable of understanding or feeling. Consequently and much to their amazement, the results of their pathetic social charity efforts is next to nil, frequently infact an indignant rebuf, though this is passed off by them as proof of the ingratitude of the ‘lazy street bums’, that they themselves are partly responsible for helping to create in the first place.”
I tagged that as a loser’s rant of resentment before I scrolled far enough to reveal the name (although it wasn’t a surprise given the comment it is a reply to). If I’d read it on someone’s blog, I wouldn’t bother with anything else they wrote.
Were I a gambling man, I’d be willing to bet that the downvotes were due to people not knowing what “ceteris paribus” means and not bothering to look it up. If you remove that from your statement, it seems like something most people here would disagree with. However, several people have suggested in the comments that they agree with your statement:
I find the value of a quote to be almost completely independent of its originator.
the value of an idea shouldn’t depend much on the author
(emphasis added).
These quotes suggest to me that people put some weight on who the author is, which presumably either implies your statement, or a statement that ceteris paribus, one prefers quotes from people who don’t have those qualities.
I (rather stupidly) thought [i]ceteris paribus[/i] was a user MichaelBishop was replying to, since I only happened to see this in recent comments.
But having looked it up, it doesn’t change my mind—I don’t see how it can apply: the whole point of a quote is that it is unique, therefore all other things won’t ever be equal...
The whole point of saying “ceteris paribus” or “all else equal,” is precisely that all else is not everyone will agree that all else is equal. In other words, saying “all else equal” implies “there may be other factors which matter.”
In cases you are curious, those factors include: length, literal meaning, eloquence, humor, trustworthiness of author, wisdom of author, context in which it was written, persuasiveness, memorability, and more.
Writing “ceteris paribus” or “all else equal” is useful when it increases the precision of a statement.
I guess I can’t imagine how two quotes could exist such that, if I could score them (on whatever attributes I find valuable in quote-space), they would come out equal enough that I would prefer one over the other based on the originator of the quote. I think this is due to the way I think of quotes, as unique things (i.e., apples and oranges. One could say, “I prefer fruit grown by a well-pedigreed gardener, all else being equal,” and it would (possibly) be true for lots of people. But it doesn’t really tell us what kind of fruit you like, assuming poorly-pedigreed gardeners have a non-zero chance of growing good fruit).
It could also be interpreted as a failure of my imagination, I’m sure.
In certain contexts, I take ceteris paribus to serve the same social function as “IMHO”, and I do not interpret it literally. In particular, I think Michael would have been displeased by the inclusion of a quote from Moldbug no matter how interesting or pithy it was on its own (and probably more displeased by quotes of higher value, as they would serve to raise Moldbug’s status further, which Michael believes would be harmful).
In certain contexts, I take ceteris paribus to serve the same social function as “IMHO”
I’ve never heard of that, and I have no idea why you would want to do that. Does anyone else actually use ceteris paribus to mean something like “IMHO”?
Both are often used to imply some measure of humility, in order to ward off criticism when making a statement which one expects to be controverted. Ditto for “It seems to me”, etc.
Like thomblake, I’m surprised that someone would read “Ceteris paribus” this way. It is a preemptive way to ward off criticism, yes, but not by expressing humilty, at least not in any use I recall seeing.
Besides, whatever impressions one might give by saying “Ceteris paribus”, humility is not one of them. First of all, one is more likely to come across as pompous for using Latin when the English “All else being equal” works just as well. Second, even saying “All else being equal” signals that you’ve analyzed the phenomenon into many potentially independent parameters. That is, it’s a way to claim deeper understanding, which, ceteris paribus, does not signal humility.
I suppose I don’t mean humility so much as some other kind of defense. Among rationalists, perhaps, I should by default presume ceteris paribus means what it says; but outside that realm, e.g,
“All else being equal, Greens are more moral than Blues”
is knowingly used with the connotation
“Greens are more moral than Blues”
and the ceteris paribus only comes into play once the statement is challenged (raising the standard of proof for those who disagree).
But as I admitted to Michael, I should have given him more credence than that.
I used the term ceteris paribus because its literal definition is precisely what I meant. Going forward I will simply write, “all else equal.” Ha, here’s a chance to use it:
All else equal, I prefer people quoting Moldbug choose interesting, pithy, and most importantly, enlightening, quotes. Its true this has the, IMO, unfortunate side effect of increasing Moldbug’s status, but I consider that to be of secondary importance.
Note, I was making other points as well, e.g. a quote is more useful to me if people know and respect its author.
Upon further reflection, it was uncharitable of me to disregard your ceteris paribus for the reason I did (which has nothing to do with Latin versus English; I’m one of those who prefer ceteris paribus to “all else equal”).
Fascinating, why was this voted down so harshly? Yes, I implied that Mencius Moldbug is not particularly well known, respected, or deserving of respect. Is it wrong to express this sentiment? If you’re curious why I lack great respect for Mencius, it is because I don’t believe he argues in good faith. He doesn’t argue respectfully or carefully. See Robin Hanson take him apart.
I was also making a more general point about the use of quotations and authority so it was not merely a case of gratuitous attacks on an individual.
I voted it down because, among rationalists, the value of an idea shouldn’t depend much on the author (although sometimes the author’s identity sheds more light on the quote). I mean, hell, Eliezer found an interesting quote from Piers Anthony.
It’s a very bad habit to let your assessment of a person affect your valuations of isolated remarks to that degree.
I agree the value of an idea shouldn’t depend too much on the author if we can evaluate the idea more directly. But I think the value of a quotation, a particular wording of an idea, is more dependent on who authored it.
If I were to use the Moldbug quote above in a positive light I fear how the reader would react:
Readers who like the quote would get a falsely positive impression of the author.
Readers who knew, and didn’t like the author, would slightly lower their assessment of me “even if he is right this time, why does he think Moldbug is an authority?”
I think most people use quotes with the understanding that readers often feel an implicit appeal to authority unless they explicitly state otherwise. Quoting someone also causes readers to perceive the author to be deserving of engagement. I’d rather not reward people I don’t respect in that way.
Maybe I’m weird, but I don’t use or interpret quotes that way (as an appeal to authority). I use quotes that express an idea succinctly or cleverly, and the point for me is the language, not the source. I’m careful not to accidentally imply that the wording is mine, but other than that quotes are pretty independent of their originators in my mind.
(But I do frequently introduce a quote by saying “as someone said” to avoid derailing the conversation to be about that person)
I agree that the language of a quotation is of utmost importance. Everything you’re saying seems reasonable.
I can’t speak for others, but I find the value of a quote to be almost completely independent of its originator. (exception being when the originator is someone like Hitler; that’s a short list, though)
I’m not a fan of this particular quote, though, because I can’t tell if it’s sarcastic or serious. (I’ve never played the lottery, but I wouldn’t expect it to make me feel rich; voting doesn’t make me feel powerful. I’m just not sure what it’s attempting to communicate.)
EDIT: what orthonormal said. Also, before anyone docks me for the same reason, the reason I would refrain from quoting Hitler (assuming he ever said anything worth quoting) is because I know that many, many other people can’t separate ideas from sources. Plus why would I be reading Mien Kampf??
I find the value of a quote to be highly dependent on the identity of its originator.
This allows me to quickly filter out all kinds of nonsense by known idiots—for example by using killfiles.
Surely you guys are not claiming that there is no correlation between author and value! That would seem like “everyone’s equal” political correctness taken to extremes!
I agree, if we’re talking about books. Further, I agree that some people are way better at making good quotes than others.
But even a broken clock is right twice a day—and if someone has taken the trouble to excerpt a quote from an author (i.e., they have pre-filtered it for me), it does not take me significantly more time to read the quote than it does to verify that I like the originator. (Unless I know I’m unlikely to agree with the aesthetics of the person who made the excerpt, but that’s a different story entirely!)
Hmmm...
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”—Mao Zedong
-- Adolf Hitler
I tagged that as a loser’s rant of resentment before I scrolled far enough to reveal the name (although it wasn’t a surprise given the comment it is a reply to). If I’d read it on someone’s blog, I wouldn’t bother with anything else they wrote.
Thanks for your reply, since you liked the way orthonormal put it better, I responded to his reply. Please see it.
Were I a gambling man, I’d be willing to bet that the downvotes were due to people not knowing what “ceteris paribus” means and not bothering to look it up. If you remove that from your statement, it seems like something most people here would disagree with. However, several people have suggested in the comments that they agree with your statement:
(emphasis added).
These quotes suggest to me that people put some weight on who the author is, which presumably either implies your statement, or a statement that ceteris paribus, one prefers quotes from people who don’t have those qualities.
I (rather stupidly) thought [i]ceteris paribus[/i] was a user MichaelBishop was replying to, since I only happened to see this in recent comments.
But having looked it up, it doesn’t change my mind—I don’t see how it can apply: the whole point of a quote is that it is unique, therefore all other things won’t ever be equal...
-The quotable Thom Blake
Oddly enough, googling that (in quotes) turns up only this page, hehe
To wit:
Google search
Nothing like paraphrasing Oscar Wilde to seem profound.
The whole point of saying “ceteris paribus” or “all else equal,” is precisely that all else is not everyone will agree that all else is equal. In other words, saying “all else equal” implies “there may be other factors which matter.”
In cases you are curious, those factors include: length, literal meaning, eloquence, humor, trustworthiness of author, wisdom of author, context in which it was written, persuasiveness, memorability, and more.
Writing “ceteris paribus” or “all else equal” is useful when it increases the precision of a statement.
I guess I can’t imagine how two quotes could exist such that, if I could score them (on whatever attributes I find valuable in quote-space), they would come out equal enough that I would prefer one over the other based on the originator of the quote. I think this is due to the way I think of quotes, as unique things (i.e., apples and oranges. One could say, “I prefer fruit grown by a well-pedigreed gardener, all else being equal,” and it would (possibly) be true for lots of people. But it doesn’t really tell us what kind of fruit you like, assuming poorly-pedigreed gardeners have a non-zero chance of growing good fruit).
It could also be interpreted as a failure of my imagination, I’m sure.
In certain contexts, I take ceteris paribus to serve the same social function as “IMHO”, and I do not interpret it literally. In particular, I think Michael would have been displeased by the inclusion of a quote from Moldbug no matter how interesting or pithy it was on its own (and probably more displeased by quotes of higher value, as they would serve to raise Moldbug’s status further, which Michael believes would be harmful).
I’ve never heard of that, and I have no idea why you would want to do that. Does anyone else actually use ceteris paribus to mean something like “IMHO”?
Both are often used to imply some measure of humility, in order to ward off criticism when making a statement which one expects to be controverted. Ditto for “It seems to me”, etc.
Like thomblake, I’m surprised that someone would read “Ceteris paribus” this way. It is a preemptive way to ward off criticism, yes, but not by expressing humilty, at least not in any use I recall seeing.
Besides, whatever impressions one might give by saying “Ceteris paribus”, humility is not one of them. First of all, one is more likely to come across as pompous for using Latin when the English “All else being equal” works just as well. Second, even saying “All else being equal” signals that you’ve analyzed the phenomenon into many potentially independent parameters. That is, it’s a way to claim deeper understanding, which, ceteris paribus, does not signal humility.
fixed spelling
I suppose I don’t mean humility so much as some other kind of defense. Among rationalists, perhaps, I should by default presume ceteris paribus means what it says; but outside that realm, e.g,
“All else being equal, Greens are more moral than Blues”
is knowingly used with the connotation
“Greens are more moral than Blues”
and the ceteris paribus only comes into play once the statement is challenged (raising the standard of proof for those who disagree).
But as I admitted to Michael, I should have given him more credence than that.
I used the term ceteris paribus because its literal definition is precisely what I meant. Going forward I will simply write, “all else equal.” Ha, here’s a chance to use it: All else equal, I prefer people quoting Moldbug choose interesting, pithy, and most importantly, enlightening, quotes. Its true this has the, IMO, unfortunate side effect of increasing Moldbug’s status, but I consider that to be of secondary importance.
Note, I was making other points as well, e.g. a quote is more useful to me if people know and respect its author.
Upon further reflection, it was uncharitable of me to disregard your ceteris paribus for the reason I did (which has nothing to do with Latin versus English; I’m one of those who prefer ceteris paribus to “all else equal”).
thanks.