I agree with your main point of “always keep the basics in mind”, and I found your case study interesting, though I sense some emotional undertones due to phrases like “I don’t like being told I’m wrong any more than anyone else does”, “Nor do I accept the defense”, “declaration of war and a hijack attempt of the train of thought”, etc.
So I’d just like to remind (everyone, not just Yvain) that an upvote does not necessarily mean “agreement”.
I voted the comment up, but not because I “agreed” with it[1], nor because I wanted to “shut up hippies”, but merely because I found it interesting and felt it earned my endorsement as a comment worth reading. I agree with Yvain’s description of the anecdote as “short, witty, flattering, and utterly opaque to reason.” I don’t think “utterly opaque to reason” is sufficient evidence of dark-art-usage.
If I tell a joke, or a pun, they too can be utterly opaque to reason. But that’s fine because I’m not trying to convince anyone of any position, but just to share some entertainment.
That’s how I interpreted that particular comment: an entertaining and interesting anecdote that doesn’t need to actually be true to be entertaining and interesting.
That said, it doesn’t matter what my (or Yvain’s) interpretation of the comment is. If people have made the mistake (been taken in by the fallacies) that Yvain listed in this post, then the post is valuable on LW, because it helps promote rationality.
1: What does it mean to agree with an anecdote? To agree that the events described in the anecdote actually occurred? I certainly don’t know first hand whether or not Steve Jobs actually went to India, actually saw those things, and said what the anecdote claimed he said. I guess in this specific context, “agree” means to be convinced by the anecdote that Crowley (and by extension, Yvain) is wrong. So in that sense, I certainly don’t “agree” with the anecdote. As an aside, I also don’t agree that “the East should look to the West for enlightenment” (but I don’t agree with its converse either, and I don’t agree with “nobody should look to anybody for enlightenment”). I guess, to clarify, I consider “don’t agree” to be a distinct concept from “do disagree”.
I voted the comment up, but not because I “agreed” with it[1], nor because I wanted to “shut up hippies”, but merely because I found it interesting and felt it earned my endorsement as a comment worth reading.
What the point is of attempting to adhere to or advocate for rationality as a human standard if the axiom of your decision to support something is not that it had any real merit, but that you “felt” it was good?
The feeling that I am jumping on nebu and the idea that I am advocating a straw vulcan is you using loaded words to make an extreme judement about my meaning and my motives. First of all, I am not trying to say a rational person has to be emotionless. The fact taht Emotions are important, doesn’t mean that anyone invoking some emotional response is unconditionally right. Supporting something “not because you agree with it” but because you felt some personal attachment is the most common of pyschological reflexes. I am not telling Nebu that he has to be emotionless, or that rationality segregates itself from emtions, but that the way he is using his emotions here is irrational. If you support something how is it something you do not agree with, and why are you supporting something you do not agree with?
when the sentence would work as well with “thought”, is rude as well.
It’s tough for Nebu_2012 to remember what Nebu_2009 was thinking, exactly, when he wrote that comment 3 years ago.
That said, it seems like Nebu_2009 did feel/believe/thought/whatever-word-you-want-to-use that the comment had “real merit”: He claimed that the comment was “interesting” and “entertaining”.
Your use of “support” may be (probably unintentionally) misleading, as it looks like Nebu_2009 was explicitly saying that he did not agree with the statement, and when someone talks about “supporting” a comment, I usually infer them to mean agreeing with the comment. Nebu_2009 seems to be supporting it only insofar that he thinks other people may also find the comment interesting and entertaining, and thus upvoted it to increase its visibility (I’m assuming; I can’t recall exactly what Nebu_2009 was thinking).
But it looks like you may have fallen into that very equivocation trap when you ask, slightly later on in the thread, “If you support something how is it something you do not agree with, and why are you supporting something you do not agree with?”
I’m saying “support” has two meanings in this context: “to agree with” and “to wish for other people to read”.
When I used “support” to mean “I wish for other people to read this comment”, you interpreted that as “I agree with this comment”, and this is where I believe the misunderstanding occurred.
I agree with your main point of “always keep the basics in mind”, and I found your case study interesting, though I sense some emotional undertones due to phrases like “I don’t like being told I’m wrong any more than anyone else does”, “Nor do I accept the defense”, “declaration of war and a hijack attempt of the train of thought”, etc.
So I’d just like to remind (everyone, not just Yvain) that an upvote does not necessarily mean “agreement”.
I voted the comment up, but not because I “agreed” with it[1], nor because I wanted to “shut up hippies”, but merely because I found it interesting and felt it earned my endorsement as a comment worth reading. I agree with Yvain’s description of the anecdote as “short, witty, flattering, and utterly opaque to reason.” I don’t think “utterly opaque to reason” is sufficient evidence of dark-art-usage.
If I tell a joke, or a pun, they too can be utterly opaque to reason. But that’s fine because I’m not trying to convince anyone of any position, but just to share some entertainment.
That’s how I interpreted that particular comment: an entertaining and interesting anecdote that doesn’t need to actually be true to be entertaining and interesting.
That said, it doesn’t matter what my (or Yvain’s) interpretation of the comment is. If people have made the mistake (been taken in by the fallacies) that Yvain listed in this post, then the post is valuable on LW, because it helps promote rationality.
1: What does it mean to agree with an anecdote? To agree that the events described in the anecdote actually occurred? I certainly don’t know first hand whether or not Steve Jobs actually went to India, actually saw those things, and said what the anecdote claimed he said. I guess in this specific context, “agree” means to be convinced by the anecdote that Crowley (and by extension, Yvain) is wrong. So in that sense, I certainly don’t “agree” with the anecdote. As an aside, I also don’t agree that “the East should look to the West for enlightenment” (but I don’t agree with its converse either, and I don’t agree with “nobody should look to anybody for enlightenment”). I guess, to clarify, I consider “don’t agree” to be a distinct concept from “do disagree”.
What the point is of attempting to adhere to or advocate for rationality as a human standard if the axiom of your decision to support something is not that it had any real merit, but that you “felt” it was good?
Relevant to why you’re being downvoted:
Straw Vulcan
Feeling Rational
Jumping on someone for using “felt”, when the sentence would work as well with “thought”, is rude as well.
The feeling that I am jumping on nebu and the idea that I am advocating a straw vulcan is you using loaded words to make an extreme judement about my meaning and my motives. First of all, I am not trying to say a rational person has to be emotionless. The fact taht Emotions are important, doesn’t mean that anyone invoking some emotional response is unconditionally right. Supporting something “not because you agree with it” but because you felt some personal attachment is the most common of pyschological reflexes. I am not telling Nebu that he has to be emotionless, or that rationality segregates itself from emtions, but that the way he is using his emotions here is irrational. If you support something how is it something you do not agree with, and why are you supporting something you do not agree with?
Changing felt for thought is sneaking in connotations
It’s tough for Nebu_2012 to remember what Nebu_2009 was thinking, exactly, when he wrote that comment 3 years ago.
That said, it seems like Nebu_2009 did feel/believe/thought/whatever-word-you-want-to-use that the comment had “real merit”: He claimed that the comment was “interesting” and “entertaining”.
Your use of “support” may be (probably unintentionally) misleading, as it looks like Nebu_2009 was explicitly saying that he did not agree with the statement, and when someone talks about “supporting” a comment, I usually infer them to mean agreeing with the comment. Nebu_2009 seems to be supporting it only insofar that he thinks other people may also find the comment interesting and entertaining, and thus upvoted it to increase its visibility (I’m assuming; I can’t recall exactly what Nebu_2009 was thinking).
But it looks like you may have fallen into that very equivocation trap when you ask, slightly later on in the thread, “If you support something how is it something you do not agree with, and why are you supporting something you do not agree with?”
Could you explain your last paragraph a little more?
I’m saying “support” has two meanings in this context: “to agree with” and “to wish for other people to read”.
When I used “support” to mean “I wish for other people to read this comment”, you interpreted that as “I agree with this comment”, and this is where I believe the misunderstanding occurred.