Pulling the top definitions off a Google search, disingenous means:
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does (Oxford Languages)
lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating (Merriam-Webster)
not totally honest or sincere. It’s disingenuous when people pretend to know less about something . . . (Vocabulary)
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere (Dictionary.com)
I don’t see a whole lot of daylight between calling an argument disingenous and calling it less-than-honest, lacking in candor, or lacking in sincerity. I also don’t see much difference between calling an argument less-than-honest and calling its proponent less-than-honest. Being deficient in honesty, candor, or sincerity requires intent, and thus an agent.
To me, there’s not a lot of ambiguity in the word’s definition. But I hear the argument that the context in which Eliezer used it created more ambiguity. In that case, he should withdraw it, substitute a word that is not defined as implicating honesty/candor/sincerity, and apologize to Ted for the poor word choice. If he declines to do any of that after the community (including two moderators supported by a number of downvoters and agreevoters) have explained that his statement was problematic, then I think we should read disingenous as the dictionaries define it. And that would warrant a warning.
Stepping back, I think it would significantly damage Forum culture to openly tolerate people calling other people’s arguments “disingenous” and the like without presenting clear evidence of the proponent’s dishonesty. It’s just too easy to deploy that kind of language as a personal attack with plausible deniability (I am not suggesting that was Eliezer’s intent here). One can hardly fault Ted for reading the word as the dictionaries do. I read it the same way.
Although there will always be difficulties with line-drawing and subjectivity, I think using consistent dictionary definitions as the starting point mitigates those concerns. And where there is enough ambiguity, allowing the person to substitute a more appropriate term and disavow the norm-breaking interpretation of their poor word choice should mitigate the risk of overwarning.
Pulling the top definitions off a Google search, disingenous means:
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does (Oxford Languages)
lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating (Merriam-Webster)
not totally honest or sincere. It’s disingenuous when people pretend to know less about something . . . (Vocabulary)
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere (Dictionary.com)
I don’t see a whole lot of daylight between calling an argument disingenous and calling it less-than-honest, lacking in candor, or lacking in sincerity. I also don’t see much difference between calling an argument less-than-honest and calling its proponent less-than-honest. Being deficient in honesty, candor, or sincerity requires intent, and thus an agent.
To me, there’s not a lot of ambiguity in the word’s definition. But I hear the argument that the context in which Eliezer used it created more ambiguity. In that case, he should withdraw it, substitute a word that is not defined as implicating honesty/candor/sincerity, and apologize to Ted for the poor word choice. If he declines to do any of that after the community (including two moderators supported by a number of downvoters and agreevoters) have explained that his statement was problematic, then I think we should read disingenous as the dictionaries define it. And that would warrant a warning.
Stepping back, I think it would significantly damage Forum culture to openly tolerate people calling other people’s arguments “disingenous” and the like without presenting clear evidence of the proponent’s dishonesty. It’s just too easy to deploy that kind of language as a personal attack with plausible deniability (I am not suggesting that was Eliezer’s intent here). One can hardly fault Ted for reading the word as the dictionaries do. I read it the same way.
Although there will always be difficulties with line-drawing and subjectivity, I think using consistent dictionary definitions as the starting point mitigates those concerns. And where there is enough ambiguity, allowing the person to substitute a more appropriate term and disavow the norm-breaking interpretation of their poor word choice should mitigate the risk of overwarning.