The above seems to be the most natural translation of my instinctive evaluation of the suggestion. I expect such a process of codification to have a negative effect on the community. Any reference to such a code would be an obnoxious interruption for reasons similar to those Eliezer recently mentioned.
I’ll be happy to change the title if you have a better suggestion.
I don’t mind the title and don’t even object to your post—I didn’t downvote. I just disagree with you about the value of formal codification of the type you are advocating. My vehement rejection is to your idea, not your expression thereof.
Can you unpack what you think makes apology (un)necessary?
This particular apology was unnecessary because I clearly wasn’t offended. It conveys a frame wherein I was objecting to my time being wasted, as opposed to actually engaging with the topic with a disagreement—distracting from my actual point. A net negative message.
I believe you may be mis-parsing the statement. Apologising when you’ve done nothing wrong is a signal that you consider yourself inferior. This attitude makes ones’ life worse, in general, by reinforcing bullying behaviour. Even people who won’t bully will be less likely to want to hang out with you, because being around someone who does not feel comfortable is unlikely to be fun, and speaking personally, feeling the (metaphorical) urge to kick the puppy makes my skin crawl.
Yes, I’m aware of this. I didn’t mis-parse his statement, I know what he meant, and what his example of a norm was supposed to provoke in me. It doesn’t matter.
The subject matter of the posts that led to me posting this article and my memories apparently affect me more than I had thought they would, which in its own way shows that I am indeed an inferior rationalist. Truth is truth, and denying it does no one any good.
From now on I’ll just concern myself with the local group here, or not, depending on what happens over the next few weeks. In any case, I can let this account lie fallow or delete it. Which would disrupt the chain of comments less?
edit—I do apologize for how you have ended up feeling, as that was an unintended consequence.
The only way we become better at anything is through practice. I’m a pretty shitty instrumental rationalist, as a 27 year old with no great skills or qualifications, and very patchy work experience, but I aspire to better.
If you enjoy participating in the Berkeley rationalist community, keep doing it. Consider continuing to participate here, your posts, Mitigating Social Awkwardness and Insufficiently Awesome mean you have definitively contributed more here than I have. FWIW you didn’t provoke any unfortunate emotions in me; that’s almost exclusively something that happens in person.
I know what he meant, and what his example of a norm was supposed to provoke in me.
You do? Roughly it was supposed to provoke a short term frustration but a net reduction in sensitivity to the real or (more commonly) imagined effects you may have on the internal state of other agents. Also a somewhat reduced impulse to publicly distance yourself from your own (minor) actions and instinctively withdraw.
From now on I’ll just concern myself with the local group here, or not, depending on what happens over the next few weeks. In any case, I can let this account lie fallow or delete it. Which would disrupt the chain of comments less?
For what it is worth people would prefer you to continue engaging with the community here. If you don’t think you would personally benefit from participating here then by all means move along. But for crying out loud, you don’t need to second guess what other people want you to do. Too much tiptoeing about like you’re walking on eggshells is perhaps one of the worst things excessive exposure to religion results in.
Fuck that!
The above seems to be the most natural translation of my instinctive evaluation of the suggestion. I expect such a process of codification to have a negative effect on the community. Any reference to such a code would be an obnoxious interruption for reasons similar to those Eliezer recently mentioned.
Codify concepts not norms.
I’ll be happy to change the title if you have a better suggestion.
I don’t mind the title and don’t even object to your post—I didn’t downvote. I just disagree with you about the value of formal codification of the type you are advocating. My vehement rejection is to your idea, not your expression thereof.
I apologize for wasting your time.
Don’t.
There is an example. At my dojo we have a norm (courtesy of me) wherein anyone who apologizes unnecessarily gets hit (in the mild sparring sense).
Can you unpack what you think makes apology (un)necessary?
This particular apology was unnecessary because I clearly wasn’t offended. It conveys a frame wherein I was objecting to my time being wasted, as opposed to actually engaging with the topic with a disagreement—distracting from my actual point. A net negative message.
I suppose I should be looking forward to getting hit, then. I thank you for the warning.
I believe you may be mis-parsing the statement. Apologising when you’ve done nothing wrong is a signal that you consider yourself inferior. This attitude makes ones’ life worse, in general, by reinforcing bullying behaviour. Even people who won’t bully will be less likely to want to hang out with you, because being around someone who does not feel comfortable is unlikely to be fun, and speaking personally, feeling the (metaphorical) urge to kick the puppy makes my skin crawl.
Yes, I’m aware of this. I didn’t mis-parse his statement, I know what he meant, and what his example of a norm was supposed to provoke in me. It doesn’t matter.
The subject matter of the posts that led to me posting this article and my memories apparently affect me more than I had thought they would, which in its own way shows that I am indeed an inferior rationalist. Truth is truth, and denying it does no one any good.
From now on I’ll just concern myself with the local group here, or not, depending on what happens over the next few weeks. In any case, I can let this account lie fallow or delete it. Which would disrupt the chain of comments less?
edit—I do apologize for how you have ended up feeling, as that was an unintended consequence.
The only way we become better at anything is through practice. I’m a pretty shitty instrumental rationalist, as a 27 year old with no great skills or qualifications, and very patchy work experience, but I aspire to better.
If you enjoy participating in the Berkeley rationalist community, keep doing it. Consider continuing to participate here, your posts, Mitigating Social Awkwardness and Insufficiently Awesome mean you have definitively contributed more here than I have. FWIW you didn’t provoke any unfortunate emotions in me; that’s almost exclusively something that happens in person.
You do? Roughly it was supposed to provoke a short term frustration but a net reduction in sensitivity to the real or (more commonly) imagined effects you may have on the internal state of other agents. Also a somewhat reduced impulse to publicly distance yourself from your own (minor) actions and instinctively withdraw.
For what it is worth people would prefer you to continue engaging with the community here. If you don’t think you would personally benefit from participating here then by all means move along. But for crying out loud, you don’t need to second guess what other people want you to do. Too much tiptoeing about like you’re walking on eggshells is perhaps one of the worst things excessive exposure to religion results in.
Just as soon as you sign up to a suitable martial arts club. I encourage it, the training generalises well. :)