While you appear to be right about phil’s incorrect
interpretation, I don’t think he meant any malice
by it...however, you appear to me to have meant malice in return.
So, I think your comment borders on
unnecessary disrespect and if it were me who had
made the comment, I would edit it to make the
same point while sounding less hateful. If people
disagree with me, please down vote this comment. (Though
admittedly, if you edit your comment now, we won’t get good data,
so you probably should leave it as is.)
I admit that I’m not factoring in your entire history with phil much so you may have further justification of which I’m unaware, but my view I would expect to be shared even more by casual readers who don’t know either of you well. Maybe in that case, a comment like yours is fine, but only if delivered privately.
Agreed. Also, saying somebody is wrong and then not bothering to explain how does come across as somewhat rude, as it forces the other person to try to guess what they did wrong instead of providing more constructive feedback.
Phil does this a lot, usually in ways which present me with the dilemma of spending a lot of time correcting him, or letting others pick up a poor idea of what my positions are (because people have a poor ability to discount this kind of evidence). I’ve said as much to Phil, and he apparently thinks it’s fine to go on doing this—that it’s good for him to force me to correct him, even though others don’t make similar misinterpretations. Whether or not this is done from conscious malice doesn’t change the fact that it’s a behavior that forces me to expend resources or suffer a penalty, which is game-theoretically a hostile act.
So, to discourage this unpleasant behavior, it seems to me that rather than scratching his itch for his benefit (encouraging repetition), I should make some reply which encourages him not to do it again.
I would like to just reply: “Phil Goetz repeatedly misinterprets what I’m saying in an attempt to force me to correct him, which I consider very annoying behavior and have asked him to stop.” If that’s not what Phil intends.… well, see how it feels to be misinterpreted, Phil? Unfortunately this comes too close to lying for my tastes, so I’ll have to figure out some similar standard reply. Maybe even a standard comment to link to each time he does this.
Ok, I soften my critique given your reply which made a point I hadn’t fully considered. It sounds like the public disrespect is intentional, and it does have a purpose..
To be a good thing to do, you need to believe, among other things:
Publicly doing that is more likely to make him stop relative to privately doing it. (Seems plausible).
You’re not losing something greater than the wasted time by other people observing your doing it. (Unclear to me)
It would be better I think if you could just privately charge someone for the time wasted;but it does seem unlikely phil would agree to that.
I think your suggestion of linking to a fairly respectful but forceful reply works pretty well for the time being.
Sure. And my standard reply will be, “Eliezer repeatedly claims that I’m misinterpreting him in order to avoid addressing inconsistencies or ambiguities in what he has said.”
While you appear to be right about phil’s incorrect interpretation, I don’t think he meant any malice by it...however, you appear to me to have meant malice in return. So, I think your comment borders on unnecessary disrespect and if it were me who had made the comment, I would edit it to make the same point while sounding less hateful. If people disagree with me, please down vote this comment. (Though admittedly, if you edit your comment now, we won’t get good data, so you probably should leave it as is.)
I admit that I’m not factoring in your entire history with phil much so you may have further justification of which I’m unaware, but my view I would expect to be shared even more by casual readers who don’t know either of you well. Maybe in that case, a comment like yours is fine, but only if delivered privately.
Agreed. Also, saying somebody is wrong and then not bothering to explain how does come across as somewhat rude, as it forces the other person to try to guess what they did wrong instead of providing more constructive feedback.
Phil does this a lot, usually in ways which present me with the dilemma of spending a lot of time correcting him, or letting others pick up a poor idea of what my positions are (because people have a poor ability to discount this kind of evidence). I’ve said as much to Phil, and he apparently thinks it’s fine to go on doing this—that it’s good for him to force me to correct him, even though others don’t make similar misinterpretations. Whether or not this is done from conscious malice doesn’t change the fact that it’s a behavior that forces me to expend resources or suffer a penalty, which is game-theoretically a hostile act.
So, to discourage this unpleasant behavior, it seems to me that rather than scratching his itch for his benefit (encouraging repetition), I should make some reply which encourages him not to do it again.
I would like to just reply: “Phil Goetz repeatedly misinterprets what I’m saying in an attempt to force me to correct him, which I consider very annoying behavior and have asked him to stop.” If that’s not what Phil intends.… well, see how it feels to be misinterpreted, Phil? Unfortunately this comes too close to lying for my tastes, so I’ll have to figure out some similar standard reply. Maybe even a standard comment to link to each time he does this.
Ok, I soften my critique given your reply which made a point I hadn’t fully considered.
It sounds like the public disrespect is intentional, and it does have a purpose.. To be a good thing to do, you need to believe, among other things:
Publicly doing that is more likely to make him stop relative to privately doing it. (Seems plausible).
You’re not losing something greater than the wasted time by other people observing your doing it. (Unclear to me)
It would be better I think if you could just privately charge someone for the time wasted;but it does seem unlikely phil would agree to that. I think your suggestion of linking to a fairly respectful but forceful reply works pretty well for the time being.
Sure. And my standard reply will be, “Eliezer repeatedly claims that I’m misinterpreting him in order to avoid addressing inconsistencies or ambiguities in what he has said.”
You’re doing it again.
Er, did you misparse? I think you read
Eliezer repeatedly claims that I’m (misinterpreting him in order to avoid addressing inconsistencies or ambiguities in what he has said)
I thnk he meant
Eliezer repeatedly claims (that I’m misinterpreting him) in order to avoid addressing inconsistencies or ambiguities in what he has said
I have to say, I disagree with much of what he says but PhilGoetz has never struck me as one of the site’s ne’er-do-wells.