From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Jun 16 2003 - 02:59:17 MDT
Eliezer writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > I agree. The mechanism looks simple to me (not that I'm defending it),
> > and I am sure you understand it too: A attacks X. B attacks A. The
> > conjecture arises naturally that B supports X. You couldn't be more
> > correct when you point out that this is not a logical conclusion. But
> > as Eliezer was saying, it must weigh what one thinks (or suspects) is
> > going on.
>
> No, I said it was not noticeably strong evidence in favor of that
> conclusion, and objected only to Harvey saying that it was not
> evidence at all.
Well, it *affects* what one thinks (or suspects)! Why are
you going so polarized on this? Did you misunderstand my
sentence? Sorry if so: please substitute "affect" for
"weigh". Geez.
> > In this case C, who conjectures that B supports X, should *ask*
> > "why shouldn't an attack on A in these circumstances be regarded
> > as support of X?"
>
> Why not? Because life is not a two-sided zero-sum game, that's why not.
Probably a case of miscommunication here (maybe my fault). See
the asterisks around "ask"? There is never anything wrong with
asking, and moreover, you will agree that it would be a HUGE
improvement over what has been going on!
> It is *ridiculous* to suppose that *anyone* on the Extropians mailing
> list, regardless of their other politics, supports Hussein. The prior
> probability is so low that making such a comment is either an ad hominem
> debating tactic, or human tribal thinking resulting in the sheer STUPIDITY
> and WARPING of intellect necessary to distort one's probabilities THAT FAR
> away from the simple COMMON SENSE that NOBODY on the Extropians mailing
> list is likely to support Hussein! What is going on here cannot possibly
> be Bayesian reasoning.
Alas, your extremely strong wording is only symptomatic
of something very bad I fear is happening to you.
> > You did not respond to my "lip-service" remark.
> > I think that perhaps if B every so often paid lip-service by
> > denouncing X, the problems would be less severe. (Perhaps you
> > have done this sufficiently enough in your eyes.)
>
> That's not what's going on. Foaming tribalist fanatics such as are now
> appearing on this mailing list - there is no point in mincing words
Oh yes there is! Your so-called "mincing words" is extremely
effective flame retardant. Who're you calling a "foaming
tribalist fanatic"? We absolutely must lower the level of
the rhetoric here.
> - are not attempting to use "Bayesian reasoning" or even
> "rationality"; they are acting on blind instinct and pure
> emotion.
Pure emotion? Isn't this the second time today I've caught
you in gross exaggeration? What is happening to you, Eliezer?
Can't you try for a little detachment here? You're making
it so black and white.
> They are thinking in terms of the two-sided zero-sum game;
Irony on irony.
> anyone who does not support Bush must support Hussein, even
> when this conclusion runs in total defiance of simple common
> sense about the prior odds.
You are correct. Anyone committing that fallacy needs
to be criticized, *individually*. Are you attempting
to characterize with these remarks all those who value
patriotism here?
> That is how human tribalist thinking works. One need
> only pick up a history book to see this. I do not need
> to invent more elaborate explanations for this behavior.
> Tribal polarization is a human universal and it is quite,
> quite stupid.
I disagree with your sweeping conclusion. Moreover, I
think your choice of words very imprudent, especially
the last one.
Lee
> I will *not* pay lip-service to it. That ugly part
> of human nature is *my* enemy.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 16 2003 - 03:09:02 MDT