No, actually, not angry. I just think you did something of net negative value for crappy reasons.
I don’t think I’m in any danger of getting banned for downvoting things that are blatantly (and self-admittedly) of negative value.
the purpose of this post was to teach
And how effectively do you think you can teach, having just boasted of how you wasted your readers’ time being deliberately stupid at them? What incentive does anyone have to pay attention this time around?
(You might say: Aha, you learned my lesson. But, as it happens, I already knew.)
And how effectively do you think you can teach, having just boasted of how you wasted your readers’ time being deliberately stupid at them?
Depends on whether they’re looking to learn something, or looking for reasons not to learn something.
You might say: Aha, you learned my lesson. But, as it happens, I already knew.
Actually, you are entirely correct: You already knew. I did not, in fact, “mug” you. The mugging was not in the wasting of the readers’ time, that was merely what was lost; it was a conceptual mugging. Every reader who kept insisting on fighting the hypothetical was mugged with each insistence. In real life, they would have kept sticking to the same “I must have planned this wrong” line of reasoning—your first response was that this was the wrong line of reasoning. Which is why I brought up mugging, and focused on that instead; it was a better line of conversation with you.
But my hypothetical situation was no worse than most hypothetical situations, I was simply more honest about it. Hypothetical situations are most usually created to manufacture no-win situations for specific kinds of thought processes. This was no different.
looking to learn something, or looking for reasons not to learn something.
Well, all I can say other than appealing to intuitions that might not be shared is this: I was looking to learn something when I read this stuff; I was disappointed that it seemed to consist mostly of bad thinking; after your confession I spent a little while reading your comments before realising that I couldn’t and shouldn’t trust them to be written with any intention of helping (or even not to be attempts at outright mental sabotage, given what you say this is all meant to be analogous to), at which point I gave up.
(If you’re wondering, I’m continuing here mostly because it might be useful to other readers. I’m not very hopeful that it will, though, and will probably stop soon.)
No, actually, not angry. I just think you did something of net negative value for crappy reasons.
I don’t think I’m in any danger of getting banned for downvoting things that are blatantly (and self-admittedly) of negative value.
And how effectively do you think you can teach, having just boasted of how you wasted your readers’ time being deliberately stupid at them? What incentive does anyone have to pay attention this time around?
(You might say: Aha, you learned my lesson. But, as it happens, I already knew.)
Depends on whether they’re looking to learn something, or looking for reasons not to learn something.
Actually, you are entirely correct: You already knew. I did not, in fact, “mug” you. The mugging was not in the wasting of the readers’ time, that was merely what was lost; it was a conceptual mugging. Every reader who kept insisting on fighting the hypothetical was mugged with each insistence. In real life, they would have kept sticking to the same “I must have planned this wrong” line of reasoning—your first response was that this was the wrong line of reasoning. Which is why I brought up mugging, and focused on that instead; it was a better line of conversation with you.
But my hypothetical situation was no worse than most hypothetical situations, I was simply more honest about it. Hypothetical situations are most usually created to manufacture no-win situations for specific kinds of thought processes. This was no different.
Well, all I can say other than appealing to intuitions that might not be shared is this: I was looking to learn something when I read this stuff; I was disappointed that it seemed to consist mostly of bad thinking; after your confession I spent a little while reading your comments before realising that I couldn’t and shouldn’t trust them to be written with any intention of helping (or even not to be attempts at outright mental sabotage, given what you say this is all meant to be analogous to), at which point I gave up.
(If you’re wondering, I’m continuing here mostly because it might be useful to other readers. I’m not very hopeful that it will, though, and will probably stop soon.)