↑ comment by daenerys ·
2011-11-23T20:52:13.527Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This thread itself is an example of how LW ends up drilling down to insignificant details: I say LW is cultish. Give us an example, you say (LW in general. Not you specifically). I say downvoting leads to group think. Give us an example you say. I say, (as an aside, it NOT really being my point at all), that LWers focus on the details at the expense of the whole. Give us an example, you say. I say here is a specific example, and some generalities. NOW you will debate with me, but at this point we are SO far down the rabbit hole, that it doesn't even matter anymore.
If you want to deconstruct my post on meta PUA, feel free to do so...However please do it as a response to my actual post, and not here, where it was just used as an example and I personally admitted that it wasn't the most well-written post.
As I recall, others did bring up the macro view, though disproving "No one ever tried to say," might require sifting through over a thousand comments.Something like "three times as many," as you said, might be accurate
I did in fact read almost all of the 1000+ posts in that thread hoping someone would post a macro view. You say they were there, but I did not see it. I will say "a hundred times as many", and feel fairly confident that I did not just entirely miss at least 13 posts. Feel free to prove me wrong. I will happily claim the mistake if you do.
you might agree with my drilling down to specific scenarios as being the most constructive thing granting my opinion that nothing close to such a consensus exists.
When people talk about generalities, it is imperative that all involved are willing to follow logical lines of thought without demanding proof and examples at every turn.Generalities contain so many specifics that you have to agree with other people that you hold the same general idea, while being willing to disagree on specifics. That's the only way these discussions can work. I understand that's not how LW works and I myself said
That's ok. It's the easiest way to apply rationality, and I'll admit that.
I would like to say that I completely understand why LW doesn't do generalities. I understood when I wrote my last post. I accept this. You are correct in this. But when I say LW doesnt talk about generalities, you explain WHY that is, but it doesn't change the fact that LW doesn't talk generalities, which is the original point you wanted me to prove.
Autistic spectrum people who primarily care about ideas don't need to care about tone as much,
Trust me, I know what people on the Autism spectrum are like. I have worked for years in child and disability care, and currently have two clients with Asperger's. I have to deal with this at work, so I know that the Queen Anne's Revenge Lego ship costs $120 and has 1095 pieces and is for ages 9-16, and that the Burj Khalifa is the tallest building in the world and it's in Dubai and has over 160 stories. But is this really the conversation model we want to have? (I know it's something I certainly don't want to have to put up with, when I'm not being paid good money to) Because if it is, the ability of this site to attract smart NTs is going to drastically decrease. If you want LW to be a non-NT haven, that's great! Just call it that, instead of calling it a blog on rationality.
There's a joke on "Glee" where a character claims to have Asperger's, and uses that as an excuse to be rude to everyone. Saying people are on the Autism spectrum is an explanation of impoliteness, and a good way to apologize for rudeness (i.e. "I'm sorry, I didn't mean for my words to be taken that way. I have a problem with being too blunt"). It is NOT however a free ticket to be rude, without regard to consequences.
Being "polite" isn't just to help convince the other person to listen to you. It's to not completely drive the NTs away altogether.
(I also realize that I myself am not being overly polite right now, and I apologize. But I don't have time to make all these points in a polite manner, and apparently you are more than happy with people being blunt with you, so I will take you at your word in the matter.)
Have you read.........
I know that recommending the sequences is the LW version of "Fuck you". I assume, being a long time LW vet, that you are aware of the same. For your information, I have read much of the Death Spirals and the Cult Attractor sequence, but had not read the wiki (your link was broken, btw), and just read the first link.
However, my first contact with these ideas was actually from a TED talk a good while back (long ago enough that I don't remember who it was and can't find it). I think the TED talk comments are a good example of how people can have interesting discussions, but remain civil.
I am getting tired of this thread, and am unlikely to continue commenting. I'm gonna go back to transcribing videos.
Replies from: TimS, lessdazed
↑ comment by TimS ·
2011-11-23T21:45:36.261Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When people talk about generalities, it is imperative that all involved are willing to follow logical lines of thought without demanding proof and examples at every turn.Generalities contain so many specifics that you have to agree with other people that you hold the same general idea, while being willing to disagree on specifics. That's the only way these discussions can work.
I wish I could upvote again just for this point.
↑ comment by lessdazed ·
2011-11-23T22:22:20.456Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Give us an example you say.
Code is destiny.
I mainly interact through the recent comments screen. Consequently I don't always know what had proceeded, and didn't here. If excessive drilling is a problem, I think we have found a major reason why, and it is fixable in many ways.
I barely cared about the cult aspect, and that's why I didn't say anything about it and just pointed. I realize the cult aspect was central to your thinking even as the level issue was the one I cared about.
I also realize that I myself am not being overly polite right now, and I apologize.
I honestly didn't notice.
I know that recommending the sequences is the LW version of "Fuck you".
I agree, which is why I have never once ever recommended that a person read the sequences...I think. I have frequently recommended posts, wiki entries, entire sequences minus 1/3 of their content, etc. That's because it actually provides useful information. In your case I didn't recommend you read them, but asked if you had, as I wasn't sure.