Consider the full facts about that comment. It starts thus: “I’m only posting this to play devils advocate”—which is a good reason (see ciphergoth’s forthcoming list of phrases to never use) to not even attempt a rebuttal.
It suffices as an example of what I want an example of, which is someone who is at least trying, and acknowledging groupthink as a technical term. I don’t have to set the bar at “trying and succeeding”, not for cryonics: the debate on cryonics has enough evidence of being a debate, so we already know that groupthink isn’t happening on that particular topic.
Don’t demand particular proof that groupthink isn’t happening, such as someone saying “groupthink!” with strong evidence plus rebuttals of their points.
(Hey, I’m agreeing with Eliezer, and linking to his post. Groupthink!)
I didn’t accuse anyone of groupthink or demand any particular proof opposing or supporting claims of groupthink. I said it warranted a rebuttal before being dismissed as an attempt.
Edited, with strikethrough. I wish one could mark comments as applying to a past version of a post—just making the edit would make this exchange meaningless.
Consider the full facts about that comment. It starts thus: “I’m only posting this to play devils advocate”—which is a good reason (see ciphergoth’s forthcoming list of phrases to never use) to not even attempt a rebuttal.
It suffices as an example of what I want an example of, which is someone who is at least trying, and acknowledging groupthink as a technical term. I don’t have to set the bar at “trying and succeeding”, not for cryonics: the debate on cryonics has enough evidence of being a debate, so we already know that groupthink isn’t happening on that particular topic.
Don’t demand particular proof that groupthink isn’t happening, such as someone saying “groupthink!” with strong evidence plus rebuttals of their points.
(Hey, I’m agreeing with Eliezer, and linking to his post. Groupthink!)
I didn’t accuse anyone of groupthink or demand any particular proof opposing or supporting claims of groupthink. I said it warranted a rebuttal before being dismissed as an attempt.
Calling it an attempt is no dismissal. Successful attempts are a subset of all attempts.
ADBOC—People refer to successful attempts as “successes,” not as “attempts.”
So conceded. Suggest an edit to the post?
I don’t want to disrespect the graciousness of conceding this minor point, but I also don’t have a great suggestion. Maybe something as simple as
becoming
? But up to you, I just wanted to point out that “attempt” was bringing in some probably-unintended judgments.
Edited, with strikethrough. I wish one could mark comments as applying to a past version of a post—just making the edit would make this exchange meaningless.
I can edit my comment, if that helps—“This comment does not apply to the current version of the post.”