I have consciously avoided looking up what other stuff you’ve posted on to know whether you personally have any commenting habits I do or don’t approve of (though I did notice your name at top of the 30 day contributor list, so obviously many people approve of your writing). I don’t know whether you have a habit of just saying “you’re wrong” with no justification or explanation. Nor do I know (or have any way of knowing, except possibly as a lower bound) how often or to what degree you look things up before commenting (and I’m aware of the fact that I’m not looking up your comment history here; but I am trying to minimize bias. Not sure if I’m doing it right, of course).
The fact that you chose to engage with the OP on the subject implied a defensiveness towards the behavior of writing unexplained and unsupported contradictory posts. That may be a completely off-base interpretation of your comments, but the fact that you didn’t address claims such as spending “a half second” [to come up with a response] suggested that you did not, in practice, look up or provide explanations / references. This influenced my view of what you wrote in the comment I replied to.
I am fully in favor of the position you advocate in the comment I’m replying to now. I agree that PD wasn’t a proper analogy (among other problems, the cost weightings don’t match a classic PD because mutual cooperation is, in many ways, better than being the defector while the other party cooperates; there’s also the fact that “the other party” is an entire body of people rather than an individual) but didn’t come up with a better way to point out what looked like a failure of symmetry that produces greater personal utility at the cost of collective utility.
The fact that you chose to engage with the OP on the subject implied a defensiveness towards the behavior of writing unexplained and unsupported contradictory posts.
Well, actually no. The reason I chose to engage with the OP is that I had a brief comment exchange with the OP a couple of days before his post and to me his post was recognizable as an extended whine about that exchange and so, me.
Sorry, are you seeking to correct my mistaken impression, or was “implied” just a poor word choice? “Suggested” may have been better; I didn’t mean to indicate a high-confidence conclusion but rather that it was the impression I got at the time. Your explanation makes sense but it wasn’t apparent to me from your and the OP’s comments in this thread alone, and I didn’t know anything about your past except that there probably was history between you.
I’m trying to learn how to signal the actual degree to which I support a statement. I can’t tell if you’re saying that “no, it doesn’t imply that” (presumably using “imply” in the logical, “A implies B” sense), which would mean I screwed up by using the word “imply” where I didn’t mean to indicate a strong conclusion. Alternatively you may have just meant “no, that conclusion is incorrect” (in which case I would have omitted the first sentence, but that could be stylistic choice).
Well, if we are going to be that precise, I have to admit that my “actually, no” wasn’t exactly accurate. That the fact of engagement here implies defensiveness is, generally speaking, true. It’s just happens to be not true in my particular case about which I had privileged information (being able to peek inside my head) and you didn’t.
So your “implied” was a fine word choice and I don’t think there was a way for you to figure out beforehand that your conclusion will turn out to be incorrect.
I have consciously avoided looking up what other stuff you’ve posted on to know whether you personally have any commenting habits I do or don’t approve of (though I did notice your name at top of the 30 day contributor list, so obviously many people approve of your writing). I don’t know whether you have a habit of just saying “you’re wrong” with no justification or explanation. Nor do I know (or have any way of knowing, except possibly as a lower bound) how often or to what degree you look things up before commenting (and I’m aware of the fact that I’m not looking up your comment history here; but I am trying to minimize bias. Not sure if I’m doing it right, of course).
The fact that you chose to engage with the OP on the subject implied a defensiveness towards the behavior of writing unexplained and unsupported contradictory posts. That may be a completely off-base interpretation of your comments, but the fact that you didn’t address claims such as spending “a half second” [to come up with a response] suggested that you did not, in practice, look up or provide explanations / references. This influenced my view of what you wrote in the comment I replied to.
I am fully in favor of the position you advocate in the comment I’m replying to now. I agree that PD wasn’t a proper analogy (among other problems, the cost weightings don’t match a classic PD because mutual cooperation is, in many ways, better than being the defector while the other party cooperates; there’s also the fact that “the other party” is an entire body of people rather than an individual) but didn’t come up with a better way to point out what looked like a failure of symmetry that produces greater personal utility at the cost of collective utility.
Well, actually no. The reason I chose to engage with the OP is that I had a brief comment exchange with the OP a couple of days before his post and to me his post was recognizable as an extended whine about that exchange and so, me.
Sorry, are you seeking to correct my mistaken impression, or was “implied” just a poor word choice? “Suggested” may have been better; I didn’t mean to indicate a high-confidence conclusion but rather that it was the impression I got at the time. Your explanation makes sense but it wasn’t apparent to me from your and the OP’s comments in this thread alone, and I didn’t know anything about your past except that there probably was history between you.
I’m trying to learn how to signal the actual degree to which I support a statement. I can’t tell if you’re saying that “no, it doesn’t imply that” (presumably using “imply” in the logical, “A implies B” sense), which would mean I screwed up by using the word “imply” where I didn’t mean to indicate a strong conclusion. Alternatively you may have just meant “no, that conclusion is incorrect” (in which case I would have omitted the first sentence, but that could be stylistic choice).
Well, if we are going to be that precise, I have to admit that my “actually, no” wasn’t exactly accurate. That the fact of engagement here implies defensiveness is, generally speaking, true. It’s just happens to be not true in my particular case about which I had privileged information (being able to peek inside my head) and you didn’t.
So your “implied” was a fine word choice and I don’t think there was a way for you to figure out beforehand that your conclusion will turn out to be incorrect.
Thanks for clarifying, and I apologize for getting on your case about it.
Not a problem :-)