I think it’s very likely I misunderstood (and likely still do)
Okay. I think it’s likely not worth it for me to try again to explain.
I do note that I still don’t know what you think of the examples I gave, or what you think I should have done differently in this situation.
I should give a correction: I suggested that Ben’s comment in this thread was an example of the thing. (I didn’t say so explicitly, but I was thinking it.) That’s not quite right. I claim that Ben’s comment could be an example of the thing, in that someone doing the thing could generate it. But (without having access to Ben’s internals, I assume) it’s probably not the case that Ben generated it by doing the thing I described in “why I’m punching you”. I’m more interested in the thing generated than the generating process, but I do think the generating process matters, and plausibly you think it matters more than I do.
(If it’s still unclear to you what the thing is, then “whether it matters to Dagon more than philh” might be a thing you have no way of evaluating. That’s fine, I’m not asking you to try to evaluate it, I’m just kind of noting this for the record because I said something that was kind of untrue and I want to correct it.)
I’ll also claim Killing Socrates as an example of the thing, based on this comment.
If you don’t, that’s probably a good pointer toward one of our cruxes.
Not really, I just wrote unclearly here. It’s not that I do or don’t think laws against murder are a big pile of exceptions to exceptions. It’s that when you say
it’s all a pile of exceptions to exceptions. At best, you can examine specifics and adjust your baseline, but discussing serious violations purely in the abstract is never effective.
My reaction is, like, “it sounds like this would rule out writing down laws against murder”.
(Gonna limit myself to two more effortful comments after this.)
Willing to take a few more shots at it myself. Let’s stay with the murder topic, and I’ll see if I can tie it back to the original question.
My reaction is, like, “it sounds like this would rule out writing down laws against murder”.
This does rule out writing down rules against murder without context. It rules out trying to determine rules from first principles. It means that any discussion should probably happen in the legislature, and focused mostly on practical problems, rather than on a random message board. A given group may want to (or have to) discuss how to handle a murder that’s not addressed by the legal system, but it’ll almost certainly start with the reasons it wasn’t addressed and hinge on specifics, not generalities.
Likewise for when and how to punch people (in the literal sense, and in the metaphor for verbally attacking a norm defector outside of a formalized sanction system) - in the abstract, just don’t. In the specific, sometimes you probably should.
Also likewise for when to bring up unrelated accusations. Generally, unless it’s relevant to the point or you’re involved in the context, don’t. Sometimes it IS arguably relevant, or most of the audience is involved in the context, in which case do. But that line is very twisty and over-fitted to the data, not cleanly generalizable.
This does rule out writing down rules against murder without context. It rules out trying to determine rules from first principles. It means that any discussion should probably happen in the legislature, and focused mostly on practical problems, rather than on a random message board. A given group may want to (or have to) discuss how to handle a murder that’s not addressed by the legal system, but it’ll almost certainly start with the reasons it wasn’t addressed and hinge on specifics, not generalities.
I think I broadly agree with these as desiderata, but there are other desiderata that are often incompatible with them. I think the original essay elaborates on that a bit, but off the cuff I’d say “the legislature has finite time and maybe the question literal murder is a fine use of that time but other things less so” and “sometimes there are good reasons you don’t want to discuss the specifics”.
Like, this seems super reasonable if we’re only talking about literal murder, but… recall that the context was
[you:] it’s all a pile of exceptions to exceptions. At best, you can examine specifics and adjust your baseline, but discussing serious violations purely in the abstract is never effective.
[me:] My reaction is, like, “it sounds like this would rule out writing down laws against murder”.
So when you say e.g. “It means that any discussion should probably happen in the legislature”, do you just mean discussion of murder? Or do you also include discussion of things that are less bad, and less universally agreed to be bad, than murder; but that match the “pile of exceptions to exceptions” thing?
If the former then this just seems like an irrelevant tangent—the thing that means discussion should probably happen in the legislature, is not the thing that we were talking about previously. If the latter, then I simply disagree.
in the abstract, just don’t. In the specific, sometimes you probably should.
Okay, but how do you know when those times are? My model of you refuses to answer this question, saying there’s no general answer. Honestly this feels to me more like trying to avoid blame than like trying to help people do the right thing? Like, you’d prefer someone to make a mistake because you didn’t say anything, than to make a mistake based on advice you gave, even if you expect your advice to reduce the number and magnitude of mistakes? Not saying that’s what’s going on here, but I get a sense of that kind of dynamic.
But that line is very twisty and over-fitted to the data, not cleanly generalizable.
If I thought the line was cleanly generalizable, I wouldn’t have had to ask this question, or at least I would have asked it very differently. As it was I gave a list of several considerations, and asked people for others. I claim that my behavior here does not look like the behavior of someone who thinks anything like e.g. “I can figure out the answers to three yes-no questions and then I’ll know what I should do”.
I have to admit I’m getting a little lost between generality and specific, and what’s literal “murder” or “punching” and what’s a metaphor for something even less clear, which we’re not willing to specify. Also a bit unsure whether we’re talking about frameworks and actions undertaken by random users/residents and by formal legislative/judicial/administrative rulemaking. I think I’ll bow out for now.
what’s literal “murder” or “punching” and what’s a metaphor for something even less clear, which we’re not willing to specify.
I don’t think I’ve ever been unwilling to specify what these are metaphors for. E.g. the third sentence (or fourth, depending how you count) of “why I’m punching you”:
Things I take as metaphorical punching include name calling, writing angry tweets to or about someone, ejecting them from a group, callout posts, and arguing that we should punch them.
Someone following the advice in that post might use metaphors and be unwilling to specify what they’re metaphors for. But I’d expect them to be willing to specify this particular metaphor, i.e. what kind of punching they’re talking about. (Or more likely I’d expect them to not speak metaphorically about that at all.)
(Actually, I don’t think I’ve used “murder” metaphorically at all. I’ve used it as an example, but that’s not the same.)
for some reason, I don’t seem to be able to edit my previous comment. I’d like to apologize for framing that as accusatory—I don’t believe you’re intentionally causing confusion among different topics and different levels of abstraction. I do mean to say that I’m not able/willing to put in sufficient effort to keep things straight in my mind, and to bring value to the discussion. I am bowing out for that reason.
Okay. I think it’s likely not worth it for me to try again to explain.
I do note that I still don’t know what you think of the examples I gave, or what you think I should have done differently in this situation.
I should give a correction: I suggested that Ben’s comment in this thread was an example of the thing. (I didn’t say so explicitly, but I was thinking it.) That’s not quite right. I claim that Ben’s comment could be an example of the thing, in that someone doing the thing could generate it. But (without having access to Ben’s internals, I assume) it’s probably not the case that Ben generated it by doing the thing I described in “why I’m punching you”. I’m more interested in the thing generated than the generating process, but I do think the generating process matters, and plausibly you think it matters more than I do.
(If it’s still unclear to you what the thing is, then “whether it matters to Dagon more than philh” might be a thing you have no way of evaluating. That’s fine, I’m not asking you to try to evaluate it, I’m just kind of noting this for the record because I said something that was kind of untrue and I want to correct it.)
I’ll also claim Killing Socrates as an example of the thing, based on this comment.
Not really, I just wrote unclearly here. It’s not that I do or don’t think laws against murder are a big pile of exceptions to exceptions. It’s that when you say
My reaction is, like, “it sounds like this would rule out writing down laws against murder”.
(Gonna limit myself to two more effortful comments after this.)
Willing to take a few more shots at it myself. Let’s stay with the murder topic, and I’ll see if I can tie it back to the original question.
This does rule out writing down rules against murder without context. It rules out trying to determine rules from first principles. It means that any discussion should probably happen in the legislature, and focused mostly on practical problems, rather than on a random message board. A given group may want to (or have to) discuss how to handle a murder that’s not addressed by the legal system, but it’ll almost certainly start with the reasons it wasn’t addressed and hinge on specifics, not generalities.
Likewise for when and how to punch people (in the literal sense, and in the metaphor for verbally attacking a norm defector outside of a formalized sanction system) - in the abstract, just don’t. In the specific, sometimes you probably should.
Also likewise for when to bring up unrelated accusations. Generally, unless it’s relevant to the point or you’re involved in the context, don’t. Sometimes it IS arguably relevant, or most of the audience is involved in the context, in which case do. But that line is very twisty and over-fitted to the data, not cleanly generalizable.
I think I broadly agree with these as desiderata, but there are other desiderata that are often incompatible with them. I think the original essay elaborates on that a bit, but off the cuff I’d say “the legislature has finite time and maybe the question literal murder is a fine use of that time but other things less so” and “sometimes there are good reasons you don’t want to discuss the specifics”.
Like, this seems super reasonable if we’re only talking about literal murder, but… recall that the context was
So when you say e.g. “It means that any discussion should probably happen in the legislature”, do you just mean discussion of murder? Or do you also include discussion of things that are less bad, and less universally agreed to be bad, than murder; but that match the “pile of exceptions to exceptions” thing?
If the former then this just seems like an irrelevant tangent—the thing that means discussion should probably happen in the legislature, is not the thing that we were talking about previously. If the latter, then I simply disagree.
Okay, but how do you know when those times are? My model of you refuses to answer this question, saying there’s no general answer. Honestly this feels to me more like trying to avoid blame than like trying to help people do the right thing? Like, you’d prefer someone to make a mistake because you didn’t say anything, than to make a mistake based on advice you gave, even if you expect your advice to reduce the number and magnitude of mistakes? Not saying that’s what’s going on here, but I get a sense of that kind of dynamic.
If I thought the line was cleanly generalizable, I wouldn’t have had to ask this question, or at least I would have asked it very differently. As it was I gave a list of several considerations, and asked people for others. I claim that my behavior here does not look like the behavior of someone who thinks anything like e.g. “I can figure out the answers to three yes-no questions and then I’ll know what I should do”.
I have to admit I’m getting a little lost between generality and specific, and what’s literal “murder” or “punching” and what’s a metaphor for something even less clear, which we’re not willing to specify. Also a bit unsure whether we’re talking about frameworks and actions undertaken by random users/residents and by formal legislative/judicial/administrative rulemaking. I think I’ll bow out for now.
Fair enough. Though to clarify one point:
I don’t think I’ve ever been unwilling to specify what these are metaphors for. E.g. the third sentence (or fourth, depending how you count) of “why I’m punching you”:
Someone following the advice in that post might use metaphors and be unwilling to specify what they’re metaphors for. But I’d expect them to be willing to specify this particular metaphor, i.e. what kind of punching they’re talking about. (Or more likely I’d expect them to not speak metaphorically about that at all.)
(Actually, I don’t think I’ve used “murder” metaphorically at all. I’ve used it as an example, but that’s not the same.)
for some reason, I don’t seem to be able to edit my previous comment. I’d like to apologize for framing that as accusatory—I don’t believe you’re intentionally causing confusion among different topics and different levels of abstraction. I do mean to say that I’m not able/willing to put in sufficient effort to keep things straight in my mind, and to bring value to the discussion. I am bowing out for that reason.
Apology accepted and appreciated :)