Isnāt your point a little bit pedantic here in the sense that you seem to be perfectly able to understand the key point the post was trying to make, find that point somewhat objectionable or controversial, and thus point to some issues regarding āframingā rather than really engage deeply with the key points?
Of course, every post could be better written, more thoughtful, etc. but letās be honest, we are here to make progress on important issues and not to win āargument style points.ā In particular, I find it disturbing that this technique of criticizing style of argument seems to be used quite often to discredit or not engage with ānicheā viewpoints that criticize prevailing āmainstreamā opinions in the EA community. Happened to me as well, when I was suggesting we should look more into whether there are maybe alternatives to purely for profit/āclosed sourced driven business models for AI ventures. Some people where bending over backwards to argue some concerns that were only tangentially related to the proposal I made (e.g., government canāt be trusted and is incompetent so anything involving regulation could never ever work, etc.). Another case was a post on engagement with āpost growthā concepts. There I witnessed something like a wholesale character assassination of the post growth community for whatever reasons. Not saying this happened here but I am simply trying to show a pattern of dismissal of niche viewpoints for spurious, tangential reasons without really engaging with them.
Altogether, wouldnāt it be more productive to have more open minded discussions and practice more of what we preach to the normies out there ourselves (e.g., steel-manning instead of straw-manning)? Critiquing style is fine and has its place but maybe letās do substance first and style second?
My problem with the post wasnāt that it used subpar prose or ācould be written betterā, itās that it uses rhetorical techniques that make actual exchange of ideas and truth-seeking harder. This isnāt about āargument style pointsā, itās about cultivating norms in the community that make it easier for us to converge on truth, even on hard topics.
The reason I didnāt personally engage with the object level is I didnāt feel like I had anything particularly valuable to say on the topic. I didnāt avoid saying my object-level views (if he had written a similar post with a style I didnāt take issue with, I wouldnāt have responded at all), and I donāt want other people in the community to avoid engaging with the ideas either.
as I also stated in another reply to Nick, I didnāt really mean to diminish the point you raised but to highlight that this is really more of a āmeta pointā thatās only tangential to the matter of the issue outlined. My critical reaction was not meant to be against you or the point you raised but the more general community practice /ā trend of focusing on those points at the expense of engaging the subject matter itself, in particular, when the topic is against mainstream thinking. This I think is somewhat demonstrated by the fact that your comment is by far the most upvoted on an issue that would have far reaching implications if accepted as having some merit.
Hope this makes it clearer. Donāt mean to criticize the object level of your argument, itās just coincidental that I picked out your comment to illustrate a problematic development that I see.
P.S.: There is also some irony in me posting a meta critique of a meta critique to argue for more object level engagement but thatās life I guess.
Thanks Alex. In general I agree with you, if viewpoints are expressed that are outside of what most EAs think, they do sometimes get strawmanned and voted down without good reason (like you say ideas like handing more power to governments and post-growth concepts). In this case though I think the original poster was fairly aggressive with rhetorical tricks, as a pretty large part of making their argumentāso I think Danielās criticism was reasonable.
thanks for your reply. I didnāt mean to say that Daniel didnāt have a point. Itās a reasonable argument to make. I just wanted to highlight that this shouldnāt be the only angle to look at such posts. If you look, his comment is by far the most upvoted and it only addresses a point tangential to the problem at hand. Of course, getting upvoted is not his āfaultā. I just felt compelled to highlight that overly focusing on this kind of angle only brings us so far.
Isnāt your point a little bit pedantic here in the sense that you seem to be perfectly able to understand the key point the post was trying to make, find that point somewhat objectionable or controversial, and thus point to some issues regarding āframingā rather than really engage deeply with the key points?
Of course, every post could be better written, more thoughtful, etc. but letās be honest, we are here to make progress on important issues and not to win āargument style points.ā In particular, I find it disturbing that this technique of criticizing style of argument seems to be used quite often to discredit or not engage with ānicheā viewpoints that criticize prevailing āmainstreamā opinions in the EA community. Happened to me as well, when I was suggesting we should look more into whether there are maybe alternatives to purely for profit/āclosed sourced driven business models for AI ventures. Some people where bending over backwards to argue some concerns that were only tangentially related to the proposal I made (e.g., government canāt be trusted and is incompetent so anything involving regulation could never ever work, etc.). Another case was a post on engagement with āpost growthā concepts. There I witnessed something like a wholesale character assassination of the post growth community for whatever reasons. Not saying this happened here but I am simply trying to show a pattern of dismissal of niche viewpoints for spurious, tangential reasons without really engaging with them.
Altogether, wouldnāt it be more productive to have more open minded discussions and practice more of what we preach to the normies out there ourselves (e.g., steel-manning instead of straw-manning)? Critiquing style is fine and has its place but maybe letās do substance first and style second?
My problem with the post wasnāt that it used subpar prose or ācould be written betterā, itās that it uses rhetorical techniques that make actual exchange of ideas and truth-seeking harder. This isnāt about āargument style pointsā, itās about cultivating norms in the community that make it easier for us to converge on truth, even on hard topics.
The reason I didnāt personally engage with the object level is I didnāt feel like I had anything particularly valuable to say on the topic. I didnāt avoid saying my object-level views (if he had written a similar post with a style I didnāt take issue with, I wouldnāt have responded at all), and I donāt want other people in the community to avoid engaging with the ideas either.
Hey Daniel,
as I also stated in another reply to Nick, I didnāt really mean to diminish the point you raised but to highlight that this is really more of a āmeta pointā thatās only tangential to the matter of the issue outlined. My critical reaction was not meant to be against you or the point you raised but the more general community practice /ā trend of focusing on those points at the expense of engaging the subject matter itself, in particular, when the topic is against mainstream thinking. This I think is somewhat demonstrated by the fact that your comment is by far the most upvoted on an issue that would have far reaching implications if accepted as having some merit.
Hope this makes it clearer. Donāt mean to criticize the object level of your argument, itās just coincidental that I picked out your comment to illustrate a problematic development that I see.
P.S.: There is also some irony in me posting a meta critique of a meta critique to argue for more object level engagement but thatās life I guess.
Thanks Alex. In general I agree with you, if viewpoints are expressed that are outside of what most EAs think, they do sometimes get strawmanned and voted down without good reason (like you say ideas like handing more power to governments and post-growth concepts). In this case though I think the original poster was fairly aggressive with rhetorical tricks, as a pretty large part of making their argumentāso I think Danielās criticism was reasonable.
Hey Nick,
thanks for your reply. I didnāt mean to say that Daniel didnāt have a point. Itās a reasonable argument to make. I just wanted to highlight that this shouldnāt be the only angle to look at such posts. If you look, his comment is by far the most upvoted and it only addresses a point tangential to the problem at hand. Of course, getting upvoted is not his āfaultā. I just felt compelled to highlight that overly focusing on this kind of angle only brings us so far.
Hope that makes it clearer :)