Having the order-of-evaluations wrong in a piece of writing is evidence, in a Bayesian sense, of having also had the order-of-evaluations wrong in the thinking that generated it.
As I understand it, this is an accusation of an author having written the bottom line first—yes?
If so, it would be good to be clear on that point. In other words, we should be clear that the problem isn’t anything about ordering, but that the author’s stated reasons, and reasoning, were actually not what led them to their stated conclusion.
And there is another point. Nobody[1] starts disliking someone for no reason, as a wholly uncaused act of hate-thought. So there must’ve been some other reason why the author of a post attacking someone (e.g. Eliezer, S. J. Gould, etc.) decided that said person was bad/wrong/whatever. But since the stated reason isn’t (we claim) the real reason, therefore the real reason must be something else which we are not being told.
So the other half of the accusation is that the post author is hiding from us the real reasons why they believe their conclusion (while bamboozling us with fake reasons).
This again has nothing to do with any questions of ordering. Clarity of complaints is paramount here.
As I understand it, this is an accusation of an author having written the bottom line first—yes?
If so, it would be good to be clear on that point. In other words, we should be clear that the problem isn’t anything about ordering, but that the author’s stated reasons, and reasoning, were actually not what led them to their stated conclusion.
And there is another point. Nobody[1] starts disliking someone for no reason, as a wholly uncaused act of hate-thought. So there must’ve been some other reason why the author of a post attacking someone (e.g. Eliezer, S. J. Gould, etc.) decided that said person was bad/wrong/whatever. But since the stated reason isn’t (we claim) the real reason, therefore the real reason must be something else which we are not being told.
So the other half of the accusation is that the post author is hiding from us the real reasons why they believe their conclusion (while bamboozling us with fake reasons).
This again has nothing to do with any questions of ordering. Clarity of complaints is paramount here.
Exceptions might be caused by mental illness or some such, which is irrelevant here.