I would prefer a scenario that causes less exclusion and hostility than the above. How about you?
I definitely want less exclusion and hostility, but I’m not sure the above scenario causes them for all values like GEP and BEP, nor for all kinds of examples of their irrationality. Perhaps we’re assuming different values for the moving parts in the scenario, although we’re pretending to be objective.
Many articles here are based on real life examples and this makes them more interesting. This often means picking an outgroup and demonstrating how they’re irrational. To make things personal, I’d say health care has gotten it’s fair share, especially in the OB days. I never thought the problem was that my ingroup was disproportionally targeted, but I was more concerned about strawmen and the fact I couldn’t do much to correct them.
Would it have been better if I had not seen those articles? I don’t think so, since they contained important information about the authors’ biases. They also told me that perhaps characterizations of other groups here are relatively inaccurate too. Secret opinions cannot be intentionally changed. Had their opinions been muted, I would have received information only through inexplicable downvotes when talking about certain topics.
I’m not sure the above scenario causes them for all values like GEP and BEP
I’m not exactly sure what reference class you’re referring to, but I certainly agree that there exist groups in the above scenario for whom negligible amounts of exclusion and hostility are being created.
Perhaps we’re assuming different values for the moving parts in the scenario, although we’re pretending to be objective.
I don’t know what you intend for this sentence to mean.
Would it have been better if I had not seen those articles? I don’t think so, [..] Had their opinions been muted, I would have received information only through inexplicable downvotes when talking about certain topics.
I share your preferences among the choices you lay out here.
Specific ones? Not especially. But it’s hard to know how to respond when someone concludes that C1 is superior to C2 and I agree, but I have no idea what makes the set (C1, C2) interesting compared to (C3, C4, .., Cn).
I mean, I suppose I could have asked you why you chose those two options to discuss, but to be honest, this whole thread has started to feel like I’m trying to nail Jell-O to a tree, and I don’t feel like doing the additional work to do it effectively.
So I settled for agreeing with the claim, which I do in fact agree with.
I have no idea what makes the set (C1, C2) interesting
I find that difficult to believe.
I’m trying to nail Jell-O to a tree,
I suggest this is because all we had was Jell-O and nails in the first place, but of course there are also explanations (E1, E2, .., En) you might find more plausible :)
I definitely want less exclusion and hostility, but I’m not sure the above scenario causes them for all values like GEP and BEP, nor for all kinds of examples of their irrationality. Perhaps we’re assuming different values for the moving parts in the scenario, although we’re pretending to be objective.
Many articles here are based on real life examples and this makes them more interesting. This often means picking an outgroup and demonstrating how they’re irrational. To make things personal, I’d say health care has gotten it’s fair share, especially in the OB days. I never thought the problem was that my ingroup was disproportionally targeted, but I was more concerned about strawmen and the fact I couldn’t do much to correct them.
Would it have been better if I had not seen those articles? I don’t think so, since they contained important information about the authors’ biases. They also told me that perhaps characterizations of other groups here are relatively inaccurate too. Secret opinions cannot be intentionally changed. Had their opinions been muted, I would have received information only through inexplicable downvotes when talking about certain topics.
I’m not exactly sure what reference class you’re referring to, but I certainly agree that there exist groups in the above scenario for whom negligible amounts of exclusion and hostility are being created.
I don’t know what you intend for this sentence to mean.
I share your preferences among the choices you lay out here.
You understood me correctly.
I meant it’s tempting to replace “eye colour” with something less neutral and “irrationality” with something more or less reliably insulting.
I bet you have other choices in mind.
Specific ones? Not especially. But it’s hard to know how to respond when someone concludes that C1 is superior to C2 and I agree, but I have no idea what makes the set (C1, C2) interesting compared to (C3, C4, .., Cn).
I mean, I suppose I could have asked you why you chose those two options to discuss, but to be honest, this whole thread has started to feel like I’m trying to nail Jell-O to a tree, and I don’t feel like doing the additional work to do it effectively.
So I settled for agreeing with the claim, which I do in fact agree with.
I find that difficult to believe.
I suggest this is because all we had was Jell-O and nails in the first place, but of course there are also explanations (E1, E2, .., En) you might find more plausible :)