0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Dagon · 2023-03-17T17:19:10.333Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
[ just to explain my downvote ]
This seems to be directed at someone not in the room, and is a strawman of beliefs with which you do not agree. It doesn't do much good on LessWrong.
It's also long and rant-ey without much meta-analysis or deeper modeling of any disagreement beyond "they're making cognitive errors".
Replies from: alexbeyman↑ comment by Alex Beyman (alexbeyman) · 2023-03-17T18:44:36.368Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How commonly are arguments on LessWrong aimed at specific users? Sometimes, certainly. But it seems the rule, rather than the exception, that articles here dissect commonly encountered lines of thought, absent any attribution. Are they targeting "someone not in the room"? Do we need to put a face to every position?
By the by, "They're making cognitive errors" is an insultingly reductive way to characterize, for instance, the examination of value hierarchies and how awareness of them vs unawareness influence both our reasoning and appraisal of our fellow man's morals.
↑ comment by Dagon · 2023-03-17T19:12:05.485Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The majority of such complaints that do well on LW are in reference to users or discussions on LW or related groups. Not always a specific individual, but often a specific set of posts or comment patterns. There are exceptions, where someone complains about some ideas in oped or twitter, but those tend to get downvoted unless they're truly pervasive.
And even so, if they're not steelmanning the opposition, or pointing out some interesting pattern or reasoning for the disagreement, they tend to do poorly here.
Replies from: alexbeyman↑ comment by Alex Beyman (alexbeyman) · 2023-03-19T00:23:17.456Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A conspiracy theory about Jeffrey Epstein has 264 votes currently: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hurF9uFGkJYXzpHEE/a-non-magical-explanation-of-jeffrey-epstein
comment by LVSN · 2023-03-17T08:04:13.748Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Saying you put the value of truth above your value of morality on your list of values is analogous to saying you put your moral of truth above your moral of values; it's like saying bananas are more fruity to you than fruits.
Where does non-misleadingness fall on your list of supposedly amoral values such as truth and morality? Is non-misleadingness higher than truth or lower?
Replies from: alexbeyman↑ comment by Alex Beyman (alexbeyman) · 2023-03-17T08:15:49.528Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"Saying you put the value of truth above your value of morality on your list of values is analogous to saying you put your moral of truth above your moral of values; it's like saying bananas are more fruity to you than fruits."
I'm not sure if I understand your meaning here. Do you mean that truth and morality are one in the same, or that one is a subset of the other?
"Where does non-misleadingness fall on your list of supposedly amoral values such as truth and morality? Is non-misleadingness higher than truth or lower?"
Surely to be truthful is to be non-misleading...?
↑ comment by LVSN · 2023-03-17T08:39:23.915Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You can quote text using a caret (>) and a space.
Surely to be truthful is to be non-misleading...?
Read the linked post; this is not so. You can mislead with the truth. You can speak a wholly true collection of facts that misleads people. If someone misleads using a fully true collection of facts, saying they spoke untruthfully is confusing. Truth cannot just always lead to good inferences; truth does not have to be convenient, as you say in OP. Truth can make you infer falsehoods.
Replies from: alexbeyman↑ comment by Alex Beyman (alexbeyman) · 2023-03-17T18:38:19.234Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
When I tried, it didn't work. I don't know why. I agree with the premise of your article, having noticed that phenomenon in journalism myself before. I suppose when I say truth, I don't mean the same thing you do, because it's selective and with dishonest intent.