tl;dr: I intended to be supportive. I knew my comment could be misinterpreted, but I didn’t think the misinterpretations would do anyone harm. Although I did not expect it to be misinterpreted by Luisa. And Charles He said he read it closely and didn’t decipher my intention, so I’m kinda irrational and will try to update. On rereading it myself, I agree it was very opaque.
My comment was entirely not intended as pushback on anything. I find Luisa’s ability to put in so much conscious effort into this admirable and I appreciate it as inspiration to do the same. She did not seem like she had above-average guilt-feelings for prioritising dealing with her problems when there are always others who suffer more. But because she mentioned luck, and I’m aware that this is something many people struggle with including me, it seemed plausible just on priors that she had an inkling of it. If that’s true, then there’s an off-chance that my encouragement could help, and if it’s not, then my encouragement would fall flat and do no harm.
My tone tried to be supportive by pointing out the laughable absurdity of not feeling ok taking one’s problems seriously unless they were worse than they are. I think pointing this out is high priority, because the dynamic makes for incredibly unfortunate incentives. When people speak to me about my own problems, I often find a humoristic tone to be easier to deal with (and less painfwl) compared to when people conform to an expectation that we all need to be Awfwly Severe and tiptoe around what’s being said. Although I’m aware that my intended tone would only come across if you interpreted with a lot of charity and a justifiably high prior on “Emrik will not try to be rude to someone vulnerably talking about their own depression”.[1]
Why would I keep making comments that can’t be understood without charity? Because I believe the community and the world would be better if collectively learned to interpret with more charity. And I go by the rule “act as if we are already closer to optimal social norms than we in fact are,” because when norms are stuck in inadequate equilibria, we can’t make progress on them unless we are more people acting by this rule.
tl;dr: I intended to be supportive. I knew my comment could be misinterpreted, but I didn’t think the misinterpretations would do anyone harm. Although I did not expect it to be misinterpreted by Luisa. And Charles He said he read it closely and didn’t decipher my intention, so I’m kinda irrational and will try to update. On rereading it myself, I agree it was very opaque.
My comment was entirely not intended as pushback on anything. I find Luisa’s ability to put in so much conscious effort into this admirable and I appreciate it as inspiration to do the same. She did not seem like she had above-average guilt-feelings for prioritising dealing with her problems when there are always others who suffer more. But because she mentioned luck, and I’m aware that this is something many people struggle with including me, it seemed plausible just on priors that she had an inkling of it. If that’s true, then there’s an off-chance that my encouragement could help, and if it’s not, then my encouragement would fall flat and do no harm.
My tone tried to be supportive by pointing out the laughable absurdity of not feeling ok taking one’s problems seriously unless they were worse than they are. I think pointing this out is high priority, because the dynamic makes for incredibly unfortunate incentives. When people speak to me about my own problems, I often find a humoristic tone to be easier to deal with (and less painfwl) compared to when people conform to an expectation that we all need to be Awfwly Severe and tiptoe around what’s being said. Although I’m aware that my intended tone would only come across if you interpreted with a lot of charity and a justifiably high prior on “Emrik will not try to be rude to someone vulnerably talking about their own depression”.[1]
Why would I keep making comments that can’t be understood without charity? Because I believe the community and the world would be better if collectively learned to interpret with more charity. And I go by the rule “act as if we are already closer to optimal social norms than we in fact are,” because when norms are stuck in inadequate equilibria, we can’t make progress on them unless we are more people acting by this rule.