How do you not be a hater?
post by DanielLC · 2013-02-25T05:31:28.981Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 20 commentsContents
20 comments
I was reading a review of Trust in God, or, The Riddle of Kyon. The reviewer went through step by step and listed problems with the fic. Some of them I agreed with, and others did not. What really stood out was in a comment agreeing with it: "reading that fic usually just evoked vague anger and other unpleasantness." Not unlike the vague feeling of anger and other unpleasantness I felt upon reading the review.
I don't consider myself someone whose opinion can be trusted on the quality of the original fic. In addition to being every bit as biased as any hater, although in the opposite direction, I have Asperger's syndrome, and I don't trust myself to notice such things as people acting out of character. However, because of this, I know my revulsion cannot be due to the quality of the review. I looked for it in hopes of weakening any bias I have. I think I can safely say that my revulsion will prevent that from happening.
So, any idea on what I can do? I've always thought haters should just stay away from what they hate. That would work fine if I just hated ponies or something, but I don't think it's such a good idea in cases where ideology is involved. And if nothing else, I don't want a vague feeling of anger and unpleasantness to ruin a perfectly good fanfic, like The Death of Haruhi Suzumia.
20 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by gwern · 2013-02-25T17:27:06.701Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Doesn't seem to understand the theodicy.
The notion of 'God' as being considered in theodicy implies three attributes:...We noticed immediately that Kyon calling Haruhi God is a bit off. And if we taboo the word 'God', replacing it with the only technical definition that I can think of, we see that he's completely on crack. Haruhi is only omnipotent, and none of those other things. That just leaves us with the connotations. Hearing Kyon blithely call Haruhi 'God' gives us the not-entirely-inaccurate idea that after his three years with the SOS Brigade, he's developed a weird religious mania centering on his Brigade Chief.
No, the point of the theodicy is that while there are sets of attributes claimed by many people to hold of the entity they call god or the gods, these sets seem to be mutually contradictory.
The usual responses to this identified contradiction is to give up one of the premises - for example, omnipotence (identifying a rival evil god, Manichaeism; or making up something called 'free will' and claiming that omnipotence doesn't cover decisions made through 'free will'). In Haruhi's case, the most obvious resolution is to deny omniscience: that's the premise of the series, that Haruhi has no idea of her role or powers. (Benevolence is easier to defend.)
Hence, the reviewer is implicitly condemning the response of a great many theologians and philosophers! Since I trust them more than the reviewer on the theodicy...
Most of the rest of the review is petty, probably wrong (I remember the novels having pretty absurd metaphors...), butt-hurt from Eliezer not writing Kyon and Mikuru exactly as the reviewer thinks they should be written, ascribes stupidity to the characters (so, they're not allowed to infer that Haruhi getting religion would lead to some possibly apocalyptically disastrous events because the novels usually show them reacting to events?!)
For the people in the room who have managed to live their lives blissfully ignorant of the basic tenets of Scientology, can we have a more obvious example of what might go wrong?
Did we read the same light novels? The author is positively proud of throwing in all sorts of superficial random references like to The Fall of Hyperion without explaining them, and you're complaining when Eliezer does it?
Besides, is Scientology even that bad of an example? I mean, as far as I can remember it has aliens and stuff. Haruhi's already summoned aliens once and the world didn't end. I'd be far more concerned, say, if Haruhi wished some flanderized variant of Catholicism into existence based on a cursory reading of Wikipedia, complete with Dante's classification of how all the sinners and usurers and fornicators get sorted into neat boxes in the afterlife.
No, I'm sure it'd be fine as long as you had deus ex machina Yuki Nagato along to eliminate any minor problems like 'oh my god Mikuru nearly just killed us all with death ray eye beams!' (And speaking of bad writing, Yuki is awful.)
Actually, I'm just going to stop reviewing the review there. It's not worth going through identifying the factual errors, and all the value judgments are just a clear example of de gustibus non est disputandum.
comment by ChristianKl · 2013-02-25T20:50:12.519Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What does it mean to be a "hater"? What does it mean for a fanfic to be "good"?
Replies from: DanielLC↑ comment by DanielLC · 2013-02-26T00:14:15.762Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For what matters right now: If I dislike everything I'm ideologically opposed to, it makes it hard to change my mind. I can read Riddle of Kyon, think it's awesome, and become a little more like Elizer, but I can't read Death of Haruhi Suzumiya and become a little less like him. It's half of the cause of an affective death spiral.
In general, I get the impression that haters are people who automatically hate something because of some specific aspect of something, regardless of what normally makes them enjoy things. For example: hating a certain TV show solely because it contains ponies, which are girly. Also, haters are people who actively go out and bash it, instead of just avoiding it, but that's not an issue right now.
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-02-26T00:23:29.531Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For what matters right now: If I dislike everything I'm ideologically opposed to, it makes it hard to change my mind. I can read Riddle of Kyon, think it's awesome, and become a little more like Elizer, but I can't read Death of Haruhi Suzumiya and become a little less like him. It's half of the cause of an affective death spiral.
So the measure of being good fanfic is that it changes your mind and makes you more like the author?
In general, I get the impression that haters are people who automatically hate something because of some specific aspect of something, regardless of what normally makes them enjoy things.
What the heck do you mean with "I get the impression"? Is that supposed to be an observation that people who get labeled as haters are more likely to "automatically hate something because of some specific aspect of something, regardless of what normally makes them enjoy things". Or are you saying that's the definition of being a hater?
I have the feeling that the post would be more clearer if you would taboo the word hater.
Replies from: DanielLC↑ comment by DanielLC · 2013-02-26T01:55:29.542Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So the measure of being good fanfic is that it changes your mind and makes you more like the author?
I wasn't commenting on that. The measure of a good fanfic isn't really relevant. That was more about "hater".
Is that supposed to be an observation that people who get labeled as haters are more likely to "automatically hate something because of some specific aspect of something, regardless of what normally makes them enjoy things".
No. I thought that was why they were labeled as haters.
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-02-26T02:00:26.731Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The measure of a good fanfic isn't really relevant.
If the point isn't about separating good fanfic from bad one, what your goal? Do decide whether someone is acting rational you need to know their goals.
No. I thought that was why they were labeled as haters.
Then what's the definition?
Replies from: DanielLC↑ comment by DanielLC · 2013-02-26T03:21:55.217Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If the point isn't about separating good fanfic from bad one, what your goal?
My goal is to stop feeling revulsion when I read something I'm ideologically opposed to.
Replies from: ChristianKl, None, Vladimir_Nesov↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2013-02-26T05:23:48.194Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My goal is to stop feeling revulsion when I read something I'm ideologically opposed to.
Emotions are part of being human, most ways of supressing emotions aren't healthy. Sometimes it might be necessary to ignore your emotions but it shouldn't be a primary goal.
As a more practical matter, playing devil's advocate can help you to be more comfortable with ideas that you are ideologically opposed to.
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2013-02-26T14:24:09.885Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Perhaps a good question you should ask yourself is what do you want to feel, and under what circumstances?
For instance, take racist literature, young earth creationist literature, and political opposition literature. It is entirely plausible that you would not have the same new reaction to reading those three things, even though you are probably ideologically opposed to all three.
By breaking it down, you can take an approach that notices that when you read literature A, you react differently when you read literature B. Maybe literature B is less revulsive and literature A is almost instantly revulsive. So you can think "Alright, I want to treat literature A more like literature B."
This allows you to make your goals more specific, while also making it into smaller goals which may be more achievable.
↑ comment by Vladimir_Nesov · 2013-02-26T12:02:19.099Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Should you be "ideologically opposed" to anything in the first place? Judge correctness and goodness without making those judgments part of your identity. Is the emotional response appropriate, does it reflect your judgment? What is the purpose of hacking the emotional response?
Replies from: wedrifid, TheOtherDave↑ comment by wedrifid · 2013-02-26T15:15:14.550Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Should you be "ideologically opposed" to anything in the first place? Judge correctness and goodness without making those judgments part of your identity.
This kind of 'should' claims about ideals on what belongs in the identity seem to fit the definition of 'ideologically opposed' and 'judgements that are part of your identity' for all practical purposes (and most theoretical ones too).
↑ comment by TheOtherDave · 2013-02-26T12:59:03.666Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, in the broad sense that you ask the question: signalling ideological opposition to a common-enemy-soldier idea is a way of inspiring in-group feelings among people inclined to that sort of thing. And expensive signalling of ideological opposition to such ideas is a way of providing actual evidence of being part of the relevant in-group for people inclined to evaluate actual evidence. And for most people, actually having an emotional reaction is a much more reliable way of ensuring the unhesitating and convincing production of expensive signals than deciding to simulate such emotional reactions when it seems appropriate.
But I assume you already knew all that, and what you really meant by the question was the assertion that the benefits of keeping one's identity small outweigh the benefits of that sort of social-network management.
Which may well be true.
Replies from: Vladimir_Nesov↑ comment by Vladimir_Nesov · 2013-02-26T13:28:35.878Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Rejecting identity as a relevant consideration in your own thinking doesn't obviously depend on hacking emotions. My point is not that one should hack emotions in any particular way, but that it's largely a separate issue from fixing of the more straightforward error of reasoning based on identity (that is, using properties you associate with yourself to bias the thinking about questions that are not related to those properties of yourself).
comment by [deleted] · 2013-02-25T14:20:09.767Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Minimizing the duration, feeling but not acting, and clear identification of the source - these three can be more successful more quickly and more consistently than stopping unwanted feelings. Rivers are hard to stop but less hard to redirect.
Replies from: DanielLC↑ comment by DanielLC · 2013-02-26T00:15:20.344Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Minimizing the duration
Isn't that the same as avoiding it?
Rivers are hard to stop but less hard to redirect.
I don't understand this metaphor. Can you be more explicit?
Replies from: None↑ comment by [deleted] · 2013-02-26T01:13:09.614Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Success in avoiding anger means zero anger. This is rarely successful. Minimizing the duration of anger means being angry but for limited amounts of time. This is often successful. This is a Bayesian choice: a strategy that is 100% successful but only rarely is less appealing that a strategy that is generally successful (and creates positive loops) most of the time.
To stop a river you have to stop it along the entire length, from where you are to where it started, and you have to keep out all new sources of water, and you have to drain it. That is 100% success and happens rarely. To redirect a river is to give it a new place to go, perhaps even generating energy so that you can further manipulate it. I compare this with unwanted emotions. You can try to make them stop, never happen, build a social setting where they won't happen, and experience 100% success rarely. Or you can know that unwanted feelings will happen and try to put them to good use, or laugh at yourself, or learn something, or teach something - to let it exist but redirect it. This will succeed well and often.
When unwanted feeling happen for me I let them have their time then I redirect them. I feel angry, then I put that nger to use. Maybe to mend the situation, maybe to get some house cleaning done. When I used to try and not be angry at all I was angry longer and got less done.
Thank you for asking and letting me clarify.
Replies from: bbleeker, DanielLC↑ comment by Sabiola (bbleeker) · 2013-02-26T16:06:08.423Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Upvoted in general, but especially for the last sentence.
comment by Elithrion · 2013-02-25T21:11:17.057Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What I try to do is make an effort to adopt all the disliked beliefs as temporarily true (it's pretty hard) and do my best to understand why the person believes that and what the good points, if anything, are. It helps if you can imagine that the disliked thing was actually written by someone you trust, so you can think: "Hm, well, it might be wrong, but maybe I'm the one who's wrong! And in any case, I should try to understand."