But even in instances where I come up with a response near-instantly, it’s generally because I’ve previously spent time thinking about the particular issue, and as a result have a high-quality cached response available,
Given that your personal commenting history on this site is extremely limited comparatively speaking I can’t really say that I disagree with you directly on this.
But we weren’t talking about just you personally, we were talking about “most text-based, internet-based communication”. And you seem to be an exception, not a rule, when it comes to the normal dialogue/discourse I see in the commenting threads of LW. And LW itself is by far vastly the exception to the rule when it comes to dealing with statements made as a result from pre-formed thoughts.
That being said—I would hope we can both agree that the notion that one can prepare for all possible conversations in advance regardless of topic is simply ludicrous without something resembling the heuristics I am trying to put a spotlight on.
How many hours do you [emphasis yours] spend on each comment you make?
If you’re going to change the subject, at least don’t try to act like I’m doing something wrong when I politely go along with the subject change, okay?
we were talking about “most text-based, internet-based communication”.
Most text-based, internet-based communication has very little in the way of time pressure, and LessWrong specifically has a norm of allowing or even encouraging comments on older posts and comments, allowing for arbitrary levels of pre-thinking. Length restrictions are slightly more common on the internet at large, but still not the norm, and not present here. This, in the context of your original comment—plus the implication that since it is possible to do those things, any case where someone doesn’t is a matter of personal choice or (problematic, in my opinion) group norms—was the entirety of my original point.
I do agree that the idea of having cached responses to all conversational possibilities is ridiculous. I wasn’t proposing that that is a thing that people should particularly try to do. My point, insofar as I had a point and wasn’t just answering your question on the assumption that you had some use for the information, was that that is one of the tactics that I’ve found to work, the other main one being to actually take the time to think my responses through, even if that takes a while.
And you seem to be an exception, not a rule, when it comes to the normal dialogue/discourse I see in the commenting threads of LW. And LW itself is by far vastly the exception to the rule when it comes to dealing with statements made as a result from pre-formed thoughts.
I am not at all sure what you’re trying to communicate, here. One possible way of parsing it suggests that you might think that since LW is already well above average in terms of good communication, making it better shouldn’t be a priority, which I disagree with. I’d strongly prefer a clarification of your actual intent to a discussion of that idea if it wasn’t what you were trying to communicate, though.
How many hours do you [emphasis yours] spend on each comment you make?
If you’re going to change the subject, at least don’t try to act like I’m doing something wrong when I politely go along with the subject change, okay?
I was using an example to demonstrate the intended meaning (which apparently was not a well-aimed one given the fact that you are statistically aberrant). I was not changing the topic.
Most text-based, internet-based communication has very little in the way of time pressure,
If I cared about time pressure as opposed to cognitive burden -- that is, available attention span—I would have indicated so. I don’t, so this isn’t relevant.
and LessWrong specifically has a norm of allowing or even encouraging comments on older posts and comments, allowing for arbitrary levels of pre-thinking.
Even so, my point remains easily demonstrated by a perusal of the majority of comments, which are typically made in a “conversational” rather than “ex post facto” mode. (We, right now, are in that conversational mode.)
This, in the context of your original comment—plus the implication that since it is possible to do those things, so any cases where someone doesn’t is a matter of personal choice or (problematic, in my opinion) group norms—was the entirety of my original point.
A) that wasn’t my original comment.
B) Your counter-point as I understand it still remains invalid, to be quite honest, because you’re—I cannot help but feel intentionally at this point—refusing to recognize the fact that you’re using statistical outliers instead of norms to support your claims against what I have already stated explicitly was a heuristic.
And you seem to be an exception, not a rule, when it comes to the normal dialogue/discourse I see in the commenting threads of LW. And LW itself is by far vastly the exception to the rule when it comes to dealing with statements made as a result from pre-formed thoughts.
I am not at all sure what you’re trying to communicate, here. One possible way of parsing it suggests that you might think that since LW is already well above average in terms of good communication, making it better shouldn’t be a priority,
No, that is not a valid interpretation of my statement. You leave out the context provided by antecedent statement of mine (same comment) that necessarily influences the meaning: “Given that your personal commenting history on this site is extremely limited comparatively speaking I can’t really say that I disagree with you directly on this.” It is clear that how I said you were different was in that you have a limited commenting history.
I’d strongly prefer a clarification of your actual intent to a discussion of that idea if it wasn’t what you were trying to communicate, though.
I seem to have some strong difficulties in communicating with you any of my intended meanings at pretty much any point. I’m not at all certain why this is the case, as I do not normally have this difficulty with an audience. I have noted that you have left out contextually significantly relevant points/items in coming to your interpretations of my words as I have written them.
I do not know why that is happening, but it makes me feel that this conversation is never going to go anywhere but frustrate me. So no, you won’t get that clarification; but not because I wouldn’t like to give it.
Given that your personal commenting history on this site is extremely limited comparatively speaking I can’t really say that I disagree with you directly on this.
But we weren’t talking about just you personally, we were talking about “most text-based, internet-based communication”. And you seem to be an exception, not a rule, when it comes to the normal dialogue/discourse I see in the commenting threads of LW. And LW itself is by far vastly the exception to the rule when it comes to dealing with statements made as a result from pre-formed thoughts.
That being said—I would hope we can both agree that the notion that one can prepare for all possible conversations in advance regardless of topic is simply ludicrous without something resembling the heuristics I am trying to put a spotlight on.
o.O
If you’re going to change the subject, at least don’t try to act like I’m doing something wrong when I politely go along with the subject change, okay?
Most text-based, internet-based communication has very little in the way of time pressure, and LessWrong specifically has a norm of allowing or even encouraging comments on older posts and comments, allowing for arbitrary levels of pre-thinking. Length restrictions are slightly more common on the internet at large, but still not the norm, and not present here. This, in the context of your original comment—plus the implication that since it is possible to do those things, any case where someone doesn’t is a matter of personal choice or (problematic, in my opinion) group norms—was the entirety of my original point.
I do agree that the idea of having cached responses to all conversational possibilities is ridiculous. I wasn’t proposing that that is a thing that people should particularly try to do. My point, insofar as I had a point and wasn’t just answering your question on the assumption that you had some use for the information, was that that is one of the tactics that I’ve found to work, the other main one being to actually take the time to think my responses through, even if that takes a while.
I am not at all sure what you’re trying to communicate, here. One possible way of parsing it suggests that you might think that since LW is already well above average in terms of good communication, making it better shouldn’t be a priority, which I disagree with. I’d strongly prefer a clarification of your actual intent to a discussion of that idea if it wasn’t what you were trying to communicate, though.
I was using an example to demonstrate the intended meaning (which apparently was not a well-aimed one given the fact that you are statistically aberrant). I was not changing the topic.
If I cared about time pressure as opposed to cognitive burden -- that is, available attention span—I would have indicated so. I don’t, so this isn’t relevant.
Even so, my point remains easily demonstrated by a perusal of the majority of comments, which are typically made in a “conversational” rather than “ex post facto” mode. (We, right now, are in that conversational mode.)
A) that wasn’t my original comment.
B) Your counter-point as I understand it still remains invalid, to be quite honest, because you’re—I cannot help but feel intentionally at this point—refusing to recognize the fact that you’re using statistical outliers instead of norms to support your claims against what I have already stated explicitly was a heuristic.
No, that is not a valid interpretation of my statement. You leave out the context provided by antecedent statement of mine (same comment) that necessarily influences the meaning: “Given that your personal commenting history on this site is extremely limited comparatively speaking I can’t really say that I disagree with you directly on this.” It is clear that how I said you were different was in that you have a limited commenting history.
I seem to have some strong difficulties in communicating with you any of my intended meanings at pretty much any point. I’m not at all certain why this is the case, as I do not normally have this difficulty with an audience. I have noted that you have left out contextually significantly relevant points/items in coming to your interpretations of my words as I have written them.
I do not know why that is happening, but it makes me feel that this conversation is never going to go anywhere but frustrate me. So no, you won’t get that clarification; but not because I wouldn’t like to give it.