From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Jun 17 2003 - 16:31:28 MDT
Peter writes
> [Eliezer writes]
>
> > Lee Corbin wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
I wish to public ally apologize for using the words "What is
happening to you?", and my purported evidence that Eliezer
was establishing a track record of exaggeration. These
comments were unnecessarily provocative and superfluous
to what I really wanted to say. (That Eliezer is usually
unruffled by such provides no excuse.)
> > Quite often I become equally searingly annoyed with both
> > sides of a particularly stupid fight.
>
> Why shouldn't we confuse you with a human? If you were consistent about
> avoiding group polarization, wouldn't you stick to terms that describe
> the degree to which people fail to be Bayesians, rather than using a word
> such as "pure"?
>
> Why are the fights stupid? Are the people engaged in them being hurt by
> their participation in them?
I agree that often the fights are not as "stupid" as many
(who are disgusted) would think. But yes, it does turn
out that people are harmed, even by attacks on their ideas.
The harm sometimes even compares to an actual physical wound
in the time it takes to recover, and the unhappiness it creates.
But while people wiser than I am no doubt have long lists of
tricks to avoid such pain (I do have a couple myself), there
is no easy way of getting around it in our struggle for truth.
> My guess is that they are on average being successful at
> advertising themselves to members of their groups as being
> altruistic, loyal, or something like that,
Quite right. That is what is going on. But in addition
there is also
* joining the good fight against bad memes
* venting one's feelings
* standing up for the underdog
and more, I suspect. The first on my list of three here is
what inspires crusaders to fight for the oppressed, and gives
them energy that the Bayesians lack. I have respect for the
crusaders (occasionally I am one), both the ones for and against
the ideas I support. They have played and will play a crucial
role in history and in society.
I have no use for the act of merely venting one's feelings on
a forum such as this.
Finally, my emotions do sometimes pull me in the direction of
standing up for the underdog, but I try to sacrifice that urge
for the sake of getting to and speaking the truth.
> [The fighters] aren't being significantly hurt by the fact
> that they are annoying the more Bayesian list members.
Heh, heh. I agree: not at all! They're imploring the more
restrained to join them, and figure that people who don't agree
with them need to be challenged even if it does amount to annoyance.
That these challenges often don't meet the standards that the
"Bayesians" would prefer is rarely, you are right, of concern
to them.
> I think "pandering to a rather unsophisticated tribe" might
> be a better way of describing what's wrong with the fight.
Yes---and you and I will have a fairly large overlap in the
parties or tribes we deem unsophisticated. And I *probably*
am less affected by their arguments on the whole. Yet, again,
it's the truth that counts, of course, and wisdom can
sometimes come from surprising quarters.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 17 2003 - 16:41:15 MDT