You must log in or register to comment.
Learning diplomacy is like, early adulthood stuff. People lie and shit, you learn that in kid’s shows. This is just another case of a LWer re-litigating something under the guise of inventing new brain jutsu.
That is, sure, you can assume good faith when talking to someone for the first time. But one shouldn’t hold onto that assumption tightly; I think LWers tend to hold onto their assumptions way too hard. Much harder than people who are supposed to be uPdAtInG tHeIr PrIoRs should. Otherwise, why would anyone spend time writing this article?
see also helpful link to Zack’s previous banger, Why Me Being An Asshole Is Virtuous Actually
also, the fuck is “full-contact psychoanalysis”
I’m picturing an MMA match where the fighters ask about each other’s mothers.
deleted by creator
Too soon!
:-P
It’s like percussive maintenance, only for the mind
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Can I argue that misrepresenting yourself in an argument intentionally is, in fact, done with ill intent an overwhelming majority of the time.
The article vacillates between saying sometimes identifying bad faith is good, actually, and trying to move the goal posts so everyone is still acting in good faith. Just about as good self-editing that I’d expect from LW.
or very poor communication skills
You can, but it’s not really an argument, more of a statement. For example, do you have any anecdotal evidence of this being true?
Maybe I’m just misunderstanding. You use the term “ill intent” which is subtly different from “bad faith”. It’s also a loaded term.
Using his own terminology here. He says in the piece that bad faith is often ‘incorrectly’ defined as ill intent, and my argument is that the ill intent is a package deal.
I still don’t think this happens in an overwhelmingly proportion of arguments.
“Zach”, if that his real name, seems to a moderately big cheese in LW. Grepping through the comments of Why it’s a good thing I’m a bastard led to this fascinating(?) meta-post, which tells me that just being rational is in no way a sure-fire way to avoid conflicts:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9DhneE5BRGaCS2Cja/moderation-notes-re-recent-said-duncan-threads
Said and Duncan are both among the two single-most complained about users since LW2.0 started (probably both in top 5, possibly literally top 2). They also both have many good qualities I’d be sad to see go.
The LessWrong team has spent hundreds of person hours thinking about how to moderate them over the years, and while I think a lot of that was worthwhile (from a perspective of “we learned new useful things about site governance”) there’s a limit to how much it’s worth moderating or mediating conflict re: two particular users.
(tangent, the fact that LW allows straight double quotes instead of changing them to curly ones really grinds my gears)
Zack is a deep, deep well of bad takes, under various online aliases.
