By making your claim here you are asserting, via the rules of the post, that you believe you understand this better than lesswrong does.
I was asserting that, and I’m delighted to be incorrect.
Apart from being potentially condescending
Granted, but that would be true regardless of the topic. (Every proposition commented to this post implies condescension about the topic in question.)
It is better to act as if people already know this and are working on enhancing their social skills
I’m not sure I agree with that in general. The people who DO know this and are trying to enhance their social skills will simply agree with me (no change); the ones who don’t and aren’t will either continue not trying (no change) or perhaps consider whether they’re incorrrect (positive effect, in my mind). Now, if I knew I were speaking to a particular individual who was already working on this, then yes, reminding them it was important would be rude. But I’m addressing a group of people, among whom that is true of some and not others; I’m trusting the ones of whom it’s already true not to interpret it as if I were speaking to them alone.
Why would I be offended? No, I was responding to the implicit assumption that ‘rational’ applied to a Karma Maximiser. This misses most of the social nuance.
Granted, but that would be true regardless of the topic. (Every proposition commented to this post implies condescension about the topic in question.)
(This is entire conversation is just tangential technicalities we are discussing but) actually it doesn’t. Disagreement is disrespect but the act of condescension requires more specific social positioning. A comment here could demonstrate obstinacy or arrogance without condescension. (A lot of Tim’s contrarian comments could be taken as examples.)
It is better to act as if people already know this and are working on enhancing their social skills
I’m not sure I agree with that in general. The people who DO know this and are trying to enhance their social skills will simply agree with me (no change); the ones who don’t and aren’t will either continue not trying (no change) or perhaps consider whether they’re incorrrect (positive effect, in my mind).
On this we disagree on a substantive matter of fact. This is actually one of the most critical lessons to be learned when doing that work on social skills that you consider so important. And, while most of us are well aware of the fact, it is just the social, instrumental rationality err most likely to be seen on LessWrong. One doesn’t have to look too hard to find examples of people here achieving precisely the opposite of their intended result via direct challenge and accusation. (ie. If I particularly cared about influencing your behaviour instead of discussing details I would not be making replies here.)
While this kind of subject is of interest to me LessWrong isn’t the place where I most enjoy (alternately, consider it instrumentally rational) to discuss such things in depth. That being the case I had best leave it at that.
I was asserting that, and I’m delighted to be incorrect.
Granted, but that would be true regardless of the topic. (Every proposition commented to this post implies condescension about the topic in question.)
I’m not sure I agree with that in general. The people who DO know this and are trying to enhance their social skills will simply agree with me (no change); the ones who don’t and aren’t will either continue not trying (no change) or perhaps consider whether they’re incorrrect (positive effect, in my mind). Now, if I knew I were speaking to a particular individual who was already working on this, then yes, reminding them it was important would be rude. But I’m addressing a group of people, among whom that is true of some and not others; I’m trusting the ones of whom it’s already true not to interpret it as if I were speaking to them alone.
Did I offend you?
Why would I be offended? No, I was responding to the implicit assumption that ‘rational’ applied to a Karma Maximiser. This misses most of the social nuance.
(This is entire conversation is just tangential technicalities we are discussing but) actually it doesn’t. Disagreement is disrespect but the act of condescension requires more specific social positioning. A comment here could demonstrate obstinacy or arrogance without condescension. (A lot of Tim’s contrarian comments could be taken as examples.)
On this we disagree on a substantive matter of fact. This is actually one of the most critical lessons to be learned when doing that work on social skills that you consider so important. And, while most of us are well aware of the fact, it is just the social, instrumental rationality err most likely to be seen on LessWrong. One doesn’t have to look too hard to find examples of people here achieving precisely the opposite of their intended result via direct challenge and accusation. (ie. If I particularly cared about influencing your behaviour instead of discussing details I would not be making replies here.)
While this kind of subject is of interest to me LessWrong isn’t the place where I most enjoy (alternately, consider it instrumentally rational) to discuss such things in depth. That being the case I had best leave it at that.