“Sure, I’ll correct it, even though people are obviously aware of [caricature of your idiotic warning].”
That is, accepting a correction with passive-aggressive jab at the dummy who pointed it out. [Note: edited comment several times, a reply might begin before the latest.]
I think you “hear” the comment in this tone because that’s how you would mean it if you wrote it. But to me, the tone seems reasonable, because when I place myself in lukeprog’s position I don’t imagine myself feeling any kind of aggression.
I don’t think I’m imagining the caricaturing, at least, and this is far from the first time I’ve seen lukeprog blame others anytime anyone mentions anything wrong with a post of his.
Also, this
I think you “hear” the comment in this tone because that’s how you would mean it if you wrote it.
So wait, you can know better what I was thinking, but I can’t know better what lukeprog was thinking?
Anyway, here are your links of the same thing going on:
1: Lukeprog metaphorically kicking and screaming when asked for clarification of a citation, then insulting those who would have found the answer “I just read the abstract” helpful.
2: Lukeprog directing me on fruitless searches of his citations, then, when that doesn’t work, equating his intuition with what his sources say, all to avoid admitting there might be some dissonance between his recommendations that he didn’t realize.
I didn’t want to make this a big referendum about a bad habit of Luke’s—I deleted mention of earlier occurrences from earlier posts so as not to widen the confrontation—but you asked for examples from the past.
I read the threads you linked, and my own assessment of them does not accord with yours. (Perhaps you will not be surprised by this.) This whole exchange and the ones you link have a tone I think of as “typical SilasBarta”: uncharitable and far more argumentative than necessary. It frustrates me because I find it tiring and unpleasant to read and/or participate in, and yet I recognize that you often have good insights that I will have to forgo if I want to avoid dealing with your style of interaction.
You don’t have to trust my judgment on this. See Tyrrell’s input on the first and warpforge’s in the second. Whatever I did or didn’t say, whatever tone I should or shouldn’t have been using, it should be clear that lukeprog’s response in both cases was to give knowably unhelpful replies and divert attention away from the proffered shortcoming, just as he’s doing here, which should satisfy your curiosity about why I would read him that way here.
If you really do think it’s okay to reply as lukeprog did here, when I would think you’d be the first person to criticize the tone of “okay I’ll fix it but I’m going to mock your concern”, then I’ll be sure to keep that in mind for my future interaction with you—but I doubt you actually think that.
This whole exchange and the ones you link have a tone I think of as “typical SilasBarta”: uncharitable and far more argumentative than necessary.
Indeed. I asked a simple question about the sources and didn’t get the simple answer until ~5 rounds of back-and-forth—that was way too much argumentativeness for what I was asking for! I’m glad you’re right on top criticizing Luke for that instead of me!
it should be clear that lukeprog’s response in both cases was to give knowably unhelpful replies and divert attention away from the proffered shortcoming, just as he’s doing here, which should satisfy your curiosity about why I would read him that way here. [emphasis added]
This is precisely the interpretation of lukeprog’s comments that I do not share, especially the bolded text.
Indeed. I asked a simple question about the sources and didn’t get the simple answer until ~5 rounds of back-and-forth...
Actually you got the answers directly [1][2], and, if the timestamps are to be trusted, before any back-and-forth (as JGWeissman noted).
So we’re at least agreed on the replies being knowably unhelpful then?
Actually you got the answers directly [1][2], and, if the timestamps are to be trusted, before any back-and-forth (as JGWeissman noted).
I didn’t get clarification that lukeprog was basing his characterization solely on the first two pages, and didn’t actually read the papers himself, until after the back-and-forth. So JGWeissman is wrong, I just didn’t bother re-re-explaining stuff to him at the time.
So we’re at least agreed on the replies being knowably unhelpful then?
That one is trickier. It depends on what you meant by “knowably”, that is, knowable by who in what state of information.
I didn’t get clarification… re-re-explaining...
I was going to try to dissect this, but rather than getting into the weeds of that exchange, I’ll just say that to me your position seems to be predicated on assertions you take to be obviously factual but that I believe to be uncharitable inferences on your part. At this point my endurance is giving out, so I’m going to leave the question of exactly which assertions I’m talking about as an exercise for the reader.
f you really do think it’s okay to reply as lukeprog did here, when I would think you’d be the first person to criticize the tone of “okay I’ll fix it but I’m going to mock your concern”, then I’ll be sure to keep that in mind for my future interaction with you—but I doubt you actually think that.
I wouldn’t actually be the first person to criticize that tone; I care much more about the effort to make the fix than the mockery. I’d rather the mockery not happen, of course, but for example, if you were to tell me, “I’m sorry that you find reading my arguments hurts your fee-fees, poor blossom; in the future I’ll make an effort to question my inferences about other people’s motivations and states of mind,” I’d totally let the former part of the statement slide in light of the latter.
Hmmm. Well, not the tone I intended. It literally did not occur to me that people would consider taking a Scientology course as a result of my post, but then I updated as a result of David’s comment, and that is why I added the disclaimer to the first paragraph. “Figured” in my comment is past tense on purpose.
Our brains can add in these tones when they feel certain ways without it being consciously available. Tough stuff to keep out of discourse, our language is geared toward opinionated conflict in any case.
That’s a fair point; conversely, there are entire websites (or so I’ve heard) dedicated to obvious warnings, and there are already people making fun of how obvious his warning is. So I’m thinking his pre-emption was pretty close to spot on.
Do you think that “Don’t take this Scientology course, which I just spent half the article praising with nary a bad word for Scientology?” falls into the class of obvious warnings? Also, lukeprog was caricaturing David’s argument.
Wow, so if I say yes, then what? Will we go back and forth for a hundred pages in a good old fashioned internet flame war? No thanks, I have better uses of my time. ;)
We know that scientology is bad, no one here’s in any doubt about their legitimacy or thinks they might be some cool people to hang out with; conversely that course is sounding pretty good, which is what he was praising. Complaining until he adds a warning on the end, saying we shouldn’t take it is pretty silly considering he obviously intends us to take the course or something similar to it.
And so what? He’s entitled to his opinion about scientology too, as well as their courses.
He’s not entitled to caricature people’s concerns though.
Also, it’s kind of interesting all the little details that trickled out afterward: “Oh, by the way, the place was deserted … and I had to practice on a 12 year old girl … and I had already been well-versed in what to expect and so had unusual resistance to their tricks...”
That’s his way of communicating, I took it as a joke personally.
If you’re suspecting that he’s a stooge for scientology, say it outright. I didn’t really think it was that strange that he mentioned the little details; not to mention that all of us here are pretty well versed in scientology by now.
Oh I agree it’s dangerous. The world is filled with dangerous ideas and pointy bits, we’re all adults here and can make our own decisions without child friendly warnings over everything.
True. Nevertheless I’ve always felt common sense to be a hazy subject. I’d prefer to use the words “personal judgement”. They can use their personal judgement ;) to prepare against the risks in order to get the benefits of the course. Or not. Because this stuff sounds pretty similar to what beginner PUAs are taught, those guys hold courses too, although you might end up paying way more.
I don’t think he’s a stooge, not at all. I think, however, after reviewing the exchange and David Gerard’s input, that he lacked a sort of awareness of what was going on, and didn’t appreciate the dangers others would have in his position.
FWIW, I did read his initial article as, “Go take this Scientology course—the exercises are great, just don’t get sucked into the religion.” Which is a much weaker warning than he now gives.
Which tone?
“Sure, I’ll correct it, even though people are obviously aware of [caricature of your idiotic warning].”
That is, accepting a correction with passive-aggressive jab at the dummy who pointed it out. [Note: edited comment several times, a reply might begin before the latest.]
I think you “hear” the comment in this tone because that’s how you would mean it if you wrote it. But to me, the tone seems reasonable, because when I place myself in lukeprog’s position I don’t imagine myself feeling any kind of aggression.
I don’t think I’m imagining the caricaturing, at least, and this is far from the first time I’ve seen lukeprog blame others anytime anyone mentions anything wrong with a post of his.
Also, this
was not the basis for the evaluation I made.
...as far as you are aware.
I detect that I might need to update. Links?
Though this seems to be a matter of your introspection versus SilasBarta’s, right?
Yep. I don’t claim knowledge of lukeprog’s actual mental state when he made the comment.
I mean, your respective introspections regarding SilasBarta’s mental state / processes.
Oh, I see. No, I just intended to express the by-now banal notion that people in general aren’t good at knowing why they think what they think.
...as far as I am aware.
So wait, you can know better what I was thinking, but I can’t know better what lukeprog was thinking?
Anyway, here are your links of the same thing going on:
1: Lukeprog metaphorically kicking and screaming when asked for clarification of a citation, then insulting those who would have found the answer “I just read the abstract” helpful.
2: Lukeprog directing me on fruitless searches of his citations, then, when that doesn’t work, equating his intuition with what his sources say, all to avoid admitting there might be some dissonance between his recommendations that he didn’t realize.
I didn’t want to make this a big referendum about a bad habit of Luke’s—I deleted mention of earlier occurrences from earlier posts so as not to widen the confrontation—but you asked for examples from the past.
I read the threads you linked, and my own assessment of them does not accord with yours. (Perhaps you will not be surprised by this.) This whole exchange and the ones you link have a tone I think of as “typical SilasBarta”: uncharitable and far more argumentative than necessary. It frustrates me because I find it tiring and unpleasant to read and/or participate in, and yet I recognize that you often have good insights that I will have to forgo if I want to avoid dealing with your style of interaction.
You don’t have to trust my judgment on this. See Tyrrell’s input on the first and warpforge’s in the second. Whatever I did or didn’t say, whatever tone I should or shouldn’t have been using, it should be clear that lukeprog’s response in both cases was to give knowably unhelpful replies and divert attention away from the proffered shortcoming, just as he’s doing here, which should satisfy your curiosity about why I would read him that way here.
If you really do think it’s okay to reply as lukeprog did here, when I would think you’d be the first person to criticize the tone of “okay I’ll fix it but I’m going to mock your concern”, then I’ll be sure to keep that in mind for my future interaction with you—but I doubt you actually think that.
Indeed. I asked a simple question about the sources and didn’t get the simple answer until ~5 rounds of back-and-forth—that was way too much argumentativeness for what I was asking for! I’m glad you’re right on top criticizing Luke for that instead of me!
This is precisely the interpretation of lukeprog’s comments that I do not share, especially the bolded text.
Actually you got the answers directly [1][2], and, if the timestamps are to be trusted, before any back-and-forth (as JGWeissman noted).
So we’re at least agreed on the replies being knowably unhelpful then?
I didn’t get clarification that lukeprog was basing his characterization solely on the first two pages, and didn’t actually read the papers himself, until after the back-and-forth. So JGWeissman is wrong, I just didn’t bother re-re-explaining stuff to him at the time.
That one is trickier. It depends on what you meant by “knowably”, that is, knowable by who in what state of information.
I was going to try to dissect this, but rather than getting into the weeds of that exchange, I’ll just say that to me your position seems to be predicated on assertions you take to be obviously factual but that I believe to be uncharitable inferences on your part. At this point my endurance is giving out, so I’m going to leave the question of exactly which assertions I’m talking about as an exercise for the reader.
I wouldn’t actually be the first person to criticize that tone; I care much more about the effort to make the fix than the mockery. I’d rather the mockery not happen, of course, but for example, if you were to tell me, “I’m sorry that you find reading my arguments hurts your fee-fees, poor blossom; in the future I’ll make an effort to question my inferences about other people’s motivations and states of mind,” I’d totally let the former part of the statement slide in light of the latter.
No, I can’t. Hence my need to update. Thanks for the links, by the way.
Hmmm. Well, not the tone I intended. It literally did not occur to me that people would consider taking a Scientology course as a result of my post, but then I updated as a result of David’s comment, and that is why I added the disclaimer to the first paragraph. “Figured” in my comment is past tense on purpose.
Our brains can add in these tones when they feel certain ways without it being consciously available. Tough stuff to keep out of discourse, our language is geared toward opinionated conflict in any case.
When people suggest changes, they’re not saying you’re a failure, and you needn’t suggest flaws on their part as if they were.
That’s a fair point; conversely, there are entire websites (or so I’ve heard) dedicated to obvious warnings, and there are already people making fun of how obvious his warning is. So I’m thinking his pre-emption was pretty close to spot on.
Do you think that “Don’t take this Scientology course, which I just spent half the article praising with nary a bad word for Scientology?” falls into the class of obvious warnings? Also, lukeprog was caricaturing David’s argument.
Wow, so if I say yes, then what? Will we go back and forth for a hundred pages in a good old fashioned internet flame war? No thanks, I have better uses of my time. ;)
We know that scientology is bad, no one here’s in any doubt about their legitimacy or thinks they might be some cool people to hang out with; conversely that course is sounding pretty good, which is what he was praising. Complaining until he adds a warning on the end, saying we shouldn’t take it is pretty silly considering he obviously intends us to take the course or something similar to it.
And so what? He’s entitled to his opinion about scientology too, as well as their courses.
He’s not entitled to caricature people’s concerns though.
Also, it’s kind of interesting all the little details that trickled out afterward: “Oh, by the way, the place was deserted … and I had to practice on a 12 year old girl … and I had already been well-versed in what to expect and so had unusual resistance to their tricks...”
That’s his way of communicating, I took it as a joke personally.
If you’re suspecting that he’s a stooge for scientology, say it outright. I didn’t really think it was that strange that he mentioned the little details; not to mention that all of us here are pretty well versed in scientology by now.
I don’t think he’s in any way a stooge. I do think he’s got hazardous levels of hubris and I do think his post was a danger to others.
Oh I agree it’s dangerous. The world is filled with dangerous ideas and pointy bits, we’re all adults here and can make our own decisions without child friendly warnings over everything.
If common sense were comparatively robust against mind-control techniques, they wouldn’t be mind-control techniques.
True. Nevertheless I’ve always felt common sense to be a hazy subject. I’d prefer to use the words “personal judgement”. They can use their personal judgement ;) to prepare against the risks in order to get the benefits of the course. Or not. Because this stuff sounds pretty similar to what beginner PUAs are taught, those guys hold courses too, although you might end up paying way more.
I don’t think he’s a stooge, not at all. I think, however, after reviewing the exchange and David Gerard’s input, that he lacked a sort of awareness of what was going on, and didn’t appreciate the dangers others would have in his position.
FWIW, I did read his initial article as, “Go take this Scientology course—the exercises are great, just don’t get sucked into the religion.” Which is a much weaker warning than he now gives.
“Sure, I’ll correct it, even though people are obviously aware of [caricature of your (implied) idiotic warning].”