That was my impression of Perplexed’s comment, also. I think it makes far too many assumptions about your state of mind and views, and is also directly contradicted by your own words (“grant” implies agency). Perplexed’s comment makes you sound like a passive-aggressive schemer using a veneer of tact to implement your sinister female-unfriendly agenda. I can’t reconcile his impression with what you’ve actually said, and I can’t even reconcile it with the most strident responses you’ve received from women, which at least don’t accuse you of intentionally trying to be a creep and even explicitly disclaim that accusation.
To satisfy my own curiosity, could you clarify you original thoughts when making the comment you got jumped on for? What did you think might make it controversial? What do you now think of the comment, and what have you learned from the responses to it?
I’m tired of folks projecting motives and views onto you that aren’t entailed by what you’ve actually said merely because your words triggered an association with people who do have bad motives who’ve said somewhat similar things. The fact that some people may have trouble imagining any charitable explanations of what you said could be due to undue cynicism or errors of reasoning, but it could also be partly due to a lot of inferential distance, which isn’t their fault or yours.
Similarly, I think a big part of the reason you made the original comment was because of your own inferential distance from those who were upset by it. You understood that people could have problems with it, but you didn’t understand exactly the nature of those problems. I also wonder whether you were aware of the history of Bad People saying stuff that sounds similar to what you said, and if so, how distinct you thought your argument was from theirs. Also, I don’t think you fully anticipated some of the inferences could be drawn. If you had realized these things, I think you would have made your original comment differently, and included disclaimers like the one you made later (that you think it would be bad to encourage people to do things they don’t want to do).
Of course, I’m speculating here, and you are inviting to fill me in. But I think my speculation is a much more parsimonious explanation for your comments than Perplexed’s. It’s also more charitable, and would have provided a better foundation for a dialogue with you to change your mind.
Even intelligent, tactful, thoughtful people such as yourself can not know things, not know that Bad People exist who say similar things, not anticipate all the potential implications of their words, and fail to anticipate the reactions of different people with different life experiences. That does not make them Bad People, or even bad rationalists. It’s called inferential distance, folks!
a much more parsimonious explanation for your comments than Perplexed’s.
Perplexed’s explanation is more parsimonious, given a much higher prior for trolling. My intentions at this site, combined with my experiences here, lead me to expect a near-complete lack of attempts to generate controversy for its own sake. Perplexed’s experiences and intentions may lead him to expect otherwise.
That last paragraph was a disingenuous jab at Perplexed, but after reading through the comments on this post I feel indignant at his take on the proper use of indignation, and I’m going to signal that.
Perplexed’s explanation is more parsimonious, given a much higher prior for trolling.
Yeah, I agree that it would make more sense if there was a different history with Komponisto, and some evidence to think he was trolling. None of the women in the thread seemed to think he was trolling, and Alicorn explicitly acknowledged in her initial response that she considered him a decent person. That’s why I’m wondering whether Perplexed is reading the same thread that everyone else is reading.
Perplexed’s explanation is more parsimonious, given a much higher prior for trolling.
My initial “gut feel” explanation, and the one which I think justifies community indignation, is more parsimonious. But Hugh’s is probably more parsimonious than my current hypothesis that the behavior was part of an act.
Your point regarding priors for trolling is a valid one. I should probably take my unfamiliarity with the mores here into account much more when estimating probabilities as to what is really happening.
I’m tired of folks projecting motives and views onto you that aren’t entailed by what you’ve actually said merely because your words triggered an association with people who do have bad motives who’ve said somewhat similar things.
Yes indeed—it’s the phenomenon of pattern-completion, the same thing that Eliezer talks about all the time in the context of his views on the Singularity. People expect certain opinions or characteristics to go together, so that when a person exhibits a subset of these, people’s brains complete the pattern and automatically fill in the rest, regardless of whether or not the rest is actually there.
It’s incredibly frustrating, but also predictable. I should have seen it coming.
To satisfy my own curiosity, could you clarify you original thoughts when making the comment you got jumped on for? What did you think might make it controversial? What do you now think of the comment, and what have you learned from the responses to it?
There’s a limit to how much I can say without breaking my vow to never again discuss the underlying topic. Basically, it was an honest passing thought that should have been censored. In the context of explaining specific reservations about a portion of a comment by SarahC, I briefly took a broader view, focused on a more general human problem, and more-or-less offhandedly wondered whether a solution could be found by tweaking in a certain direction.
I expected it to be controversial in the sense that I thought people would be strongly inclined to reject the proposal. It sounds incredibly naïve now, but I thought people would reply by saying “no, that wouldn’t work” or “that’s not the real source of the problem” or “you won’t find a solution by going down that particular path”. I had little or no notion that I was at risk of being treated like the next Sexist Villain. If I had to verbalize my unconscious, automatic thought processes, I suppose what I thought was that I had built up too much of a reputation here as a reasonable person for that!
I had forgotten how many different people read this site, and how little of a detailed model of me they have.
That was my impression of Perplexed’s comment, also. I think it makes far too many assumptions about your state of mind and views, and is also directly contradicted by your own words (“grant” implies agency). Perplexed’s comment makes you sound like a passive-aggressive schemer using a veneer of tact to implement your sinister female-unfriendly agenda. I can’t reconcile his impression with what you’ve actually said, and I can’t even reconcile it with the most strident responses you’ve received from women, which at least don’t accuse you of intentionally trying to be a creep and even explicitly disclaim that accusation.
To satisfy my own curiosity, could you clarify you original thoughts when making the comment you got jumped on for? What did you think might make it controversial? What do you now think of the comment, and what have you learned from the responses to it?
I’m tired of folks projecting motives and views onto you that aren’t entailed by what you’ve actually said merely because your words triggered an association with people who do have bad motives who’ve said somewhat similar things. The fact that some people may have trouble imagining any charitable explanations of what you said could be due to undue cynicism or errors of reasoning, but it could also be partly due to a lot of inferential distance, which isn’t their fault or yours.
Similarly, I think a big part of the reason you made the original comment was because of your own inferential distance from those who were upset by it. You understood that people could have problems with it, but you didn’t understand exactly the nature of those problems. I also wonder whether you were aware of the history of Bad People saying stuff that sounds similar to what you said, and if so, how distinct you thought your argument was from theirs. Also, I don’t think you fully anticipated some of the inferences could be drawn. If you had realized these things, I think you would have made your original comment differently, and included disclaimers like the one you made later (that you think it would be bad to encourage people to do things they don’t want to do).
Of course, I’m speculating here, and you are inviting to fill me in. But I think my speculation is a much more parsimonious explanation for your comments than Perplexed’s. It’s also more charitable, and would have provided a better foundation for a dialogue with you to change your mind.
Even intelligent, tactful, thoughtful people such as yourself can not know things, not know that Bad People exist who say similar things, not anticipate all the potential implications of their words, and fail to anticipate the reactions of different people with different life experiences. That does not make them Bad People, or even bad rationalists. It’s called inferential distance, folks!
Perplexed’s explanation is more parsimonious, given a much higher prior for trolling. My intentions at this site, combined with my experiences here, lead me to expect a near-complete lack of attempts to generate controversy for its own sake. Perplexed’s experiences and intentions may lead him to expect otherwise.
That last paragraph was a disingenuous jab at Perplexed, but after reading through the comments on this post I feel indignant at his take on the proper use of indignation, and I’m going to signal that.
Yeah, I agree that it would make more sense if there was a different history with Komponisto, and some evidence to think he was trolling. None of the women in the thread seemed to think he was trolling, and Alicorn explicitly acknowledged in her initial response that she considered him a decent person. That’s why I’m wondering whether Perplexed is reading the same thread that everyone else is reading.
My initial “gut feel” explanation, and the one which I think justifies community indignation, is more parsimonious. But Hugh’s is probably more parsimonious than my current hypothesis that the behavior was part of an act.
Your point regarding priors for trolling is a valid one. I should probably take my unfamiliarity with the mores here into account much more when estimating probabilities as to what is really happening.
Signal received and noted. Thank you.
Yes indeed—it’s the phenomenon of pattern-completion, the same thing that Eliezer talks about all the time in the context of his views on the Singularity. People expect certain opinions or characteristics to go together, so that when a person exhibits a subset of these, people’s brains complete the pattern and automatically fill in the rest, regardless of whether or not the rest is actually there.
It’s incredibly frustrating, but also predictable. I should have seen it coming.
There’s a limit to how much I can say without breaking my vow to never again discuss the underlying topic. Basically, it was an honest passing thought that should have been censored. In the context of explaining specific reservations about a portion of a comment by SarahC, I briefly took a broader view, focused on a more general human problem, and more-or-less offhandedly wondered whether a solution could be found by tweaking in a certain direction.
I expected it to be controversial in the sense that I thought people would be strongly inclined to reject the proposal. It sounds incredibly naïve now, but I thought people would reply by saying “no, that wouldn’t work” or “that’s not the real source of the problem” or “you won’t find a solution by going down that particular path”. I had little or no notion that I was at risk of being treated like the next Sexist Villain. If I had to verbalize my unconscious, automatic thought processes, I suppose what I thought was that I had built up too much of a reputation here as a reasonable person for that!
I had forgotten how many different people read this site, and how little of a detailed model of me they have.
The illusion of transparency strikes again!