I don’t want to use the word “steelman” since Aella might not agree that this is a better version of her post.
But here’s a post that I would have strongly agreed with, if Aella had written it.
----
When presented with criticism, we can think of a range of possible responses.
At one end of the range is acceptance: “Oh wow, the fact that you think I’m doing bad things is strong evidence that I’m actually doing bad things, so I’ll think hard about this and try to change.”
At the other end is denial: “No, I’m not doing bad things and you’re wrong to suggest that I am. You should think about what mental errors you are making that is causing you to think that I am wrong.”
Most reasonable people will respond differently to criticism depending on the evidence. Some people are especially receptive to criticism, and will tend toward the “acceptance” end of the range if the criticism is delivered with confidence, even if the evidence provided is weak.
But some people have discovered that they can win any argument by responding to all criticism with confident denial. We can call these people “frame controllers”.
It’s difficult to communicate negative feedback to frame controllers, because they’ll just reflexively deny it. People who are very receptive to criticism may find it unpleasant to communicate with frame controllers at all, because frame controllers spend a lot of time saying “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” which leads to a lot of stressful self-examination. If a person is very receptive to criticism, it may take some time for them to realize that the problem is actually the frame controller, and not some sort of pervasive pattern of wrongness in their own mind.
(Aella is an example of a person who is very receptive to criticism, and therefore she has to take extraordinary measures to avoid interacting with frame controllers.)
We should recognize the reflexive “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” message as an epistemic antipattern, and we should be vigilant against it. If we notice someone persistently sending this message with high confidence and no evidence, we should document this antipattern publicly.
In the meantime, everyone should try to be vigilant about which criticisms they accept. Strong criticisms should require strong evidence and not just strong confidence.
We should recognize the reflexive “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” message as an epistemic antipattern, and we should be vigilant against it.
I strongly object to this stance, for two reasons.
First (and less importantly): “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” is perfectly capable of being true. How, then, can it be an “epistemic antipattern”?
Now, I say this is the less important of my two objections because from a purely epistemic standpoint, the important part of the reply is just the “no” part. The counter-accusation may, of course, also be true—but if we get the defense right, we’re most of the way to successfully keeping our worldview straight.
But if we confine ourselves to the defense, then…
Secondly (and more importantly): by treating “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” as an antipattern, we remove a powerful weapon of rhetorical and conceptual self-defense from precisely the people most in need of it—and we thereby contribute to bad epistemic environments.
Why do I say this?
Suppose that you’re accused of something; and accused unjustly. You know that you are innocent of the charge; what’s more, you know that you actions were, not only unobjectionable, but praiseworthy, or even necessary.
How do you respond? If you merely say “No! I am innocent of the charge! I am in the right!”—well, it may be perfectly true. But rhetorically it will be perceived as weak, in all but the most coolly rational of social spaces (and no, Less Wrong most assuredly does not meet that bar).
What’s more, consider that if you have acted in a good and praiseworthy manner, or if you have done what is necessary, what you would respect someone else for doing… and if you have, then, been accused of wrongdoing, in response… then (unless the whole thing is a thoroughly innocent misunderstanding, which happens rarely!) the one who has accused you has himself transgressed—not only against you, but against the collective.
The way in which such wrongs are made right, is for the accused to be able to respond in such a way that does not give the accuser an asymmetric advantage. That is, if Alice can say “you have done wrong, Bob!”, and Bob can respond only with “no! I haven’t done wrong!” (and at best only clear himself of the charge), then this gives Alice the asymmetric advantage. But it is different if Bob can say: “No, I have done no wrong; indeed, I have acted properly, and would have been at fault, had I done otherwise; and you, Alice, have erred (at the least), by accusing me.”
Of course, the same logic may be applied to the counter-accusation itself—and should be.
Yeah, in retrospect I should have said more about the importance of evidence. “We should recognize the evidence-free “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” as an antipattern.”
And even then, I think some of what Aella is talking about isn’t so much a response to criticism as a general attitude that everyone else is wrong and bad.
I don’t want to use the word “steelman” since Aella might not agree that this is a better version of her post.
But here’s a post that I would have strongly agreed with, if Aella had written it.
----
When presented with criticism, we can think of a range of possible responses.
At one end of the range is acceptance: “Oh wow, the fact that you think I’m doing bad things is strong evidence that I’m actually doing bad things, so I’ll think hard about this and try to change.”
At the other end is denial: “No, I’m not doing bad things and you’re wrong to suggest that I am. You should think about what mental errors you are making that is causing you to think that I am wrong.”
Most reasonable people will respond differently to criticism depending on the evidence. Some people are especially receptive to criticism, and will tend toward the “acceptance” end of the range if the criticism is delivered with confidence, even if the evidence provided is weak.
But some people have discovered that they can win any argument by responding to all criticism with confident denial. We can call these people “frame controllers”.
It’s difficult to communicate negative feedback to frame controllers, because they’ll just reflexively deny it. People who are very receptive to criticism may find it unpleasant to communicate with frame controllers at all, because frame controllers spend a lot of time saying “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” which leads to a lot of stressful self-examination. If a person is very receptive to criticism, it may take some time for them to realize that the problem is actually the frame controller, and not some sort of pervasive pattern of wrongness in their own mind.
(Aella is an example of a person who is very receptive to criticism, and therefore she has to take extraordinary measures to avoid interacting with frame controllers.)
We should recognize the reflexive “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” message as an epistemic antipattern, and we should be vigilant against it. If we notice someone persistently sending this message with high confidence and no evidence, we should document this antipattern publicly.
In the meantime, everyone should try to be vigilant about which criticisms they accept. Strong criticisms should require strong evidence and not just strong confidence.
I was more or less with you until this part:
I strongly object to this stance, for two reasons.
First (and less importantly): “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” is perfectly capable of being true. How, then, can it be an “epistemic antipattern”?
Now, I say this is the less important of my two objections because from a purely epistemic standpoint, the important part of the reply is just the “no” part. The counter-accusation may, of course, also be true—but if we get the defense right, we’re most of the way to successfully keeping our worldview straight.
But if we confine ourselves to the defense, then…
Secondly (and more importantly): by treating “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” as an antipattern, we remove a powerful weapon of rhetorical and conceptual self-defense from precisely the people most in need of it—and we thereby contribute to bad epistemic environments.
Why do I say this?
Suppose that you’re accused of something; and accused unjustly. You know that you are innocent of the charge; what’s more, you know that you actions were, not only unobjectionable, but praiseworthy, or even necessary.
How do you respond? If you merely say “No! I am innocent of the charge! I am in the right!”—well, it may be perfectly true. But rhetorically it will be perceived as weak, in all but the most coolly rational of social spaces (and no, Less Wrong most assuredly does not meet that bar).
What’s more, consider that if you have acted in a good and praiseworthy manner, or if you have done what is necessary, what you would respect someone else for doing… and if you have, then, been accused of wrongdoing, in response… then (unless the whole thing is a thoroughly innocent misunderstanding, which happens rarely!) the one who has accused you has himself transgressed—not only against you, but against the collective.
The way in which such wrongs are made right, is for the accused to be able to respond in such a way that does not give the accuser an asymmetric advantage. That is, if Alice can say “you have done wrong, Bob!”, and Bob can respond only with “no! I haven’t done wrong!” (and at best only clear himself of the charge), then this gives Alice the asymmetric advantage. But it is different if Bob can say: “No, I have done no wrong; indeed, I have acted properly, and would have been at fault, had I done otherwise; and you, Alice, have erred (at the least), by accusing me.”
Of course, the same logic may be applied to the counter-accusation itself—and should be.
Yeah, in retrospect I should have said more about the importance of evidence. “We should recognize the evidence-free “no, it is you who are wrong and bad” as an antipattern.”
And even then, I think some of what Aella is talking about isn’t so much a response to criticism as a general attitude that everyone else is wrong and bad.
I dunno.