Iâm not a moderator, but I used to run the Forum, and I sometimes advise the moderation team.
While âdisingenuousâ could imply you think your interlocutor is deliberately lying about something, Eliezer seems to mean âI think youâve left out an obvious counterargumentâ.
That claim feels different to me, and I donât think it breaks Forum norms (though I understand why JP disagrees, and itâs not an obvious call):
I donât want people to deliberately lie on the Forum. However, I donât think we should expect them to always list even the most obvious counterarguments to their points. We have comments for a reason!
Iâm more bothered by criticism that accuses an author of norm-breaking (âseems dishonestâ) than criticism that merely accuses them of not putting forward maximal effort (âseems to leave out Xâ)
To get deeper into this: I read âseems dishonestâ as an attack â it implies that the author did something seriously wrong and should be downvoted or warned by mods. I read âseems to leave out Xâ as an invitation to an argument.
The ambiguity of âdisingenuousâ means Iâd prefer to see people get more specific. But while I wish Eliezer hadnât used the word, I also think he successfully specified what he meant by it, and the overall comment didnât feel like an attack (to me, a bystander; obviously, an author might feel differently).
*****
I donât blame anyone who wants to take a break from Forum writing for any reason, including feeling discouraged by negative comments. Especially when itâs easy to read âseems disingenuousâ as âyou are lyingâ.
But I think the Forum will continue to have comments like Eliezerâs going forward. And I hope that, in addition to pushing for kinder critiques, we can maintain a general understanding on the Forum that a non-kind critique isnât necessarily a personal attack.
(Ted, if youâre reading this: I think that Eliezerâs argument is reasonable, but I also think that yours was a solid post, and Iâm glad we have it!)
*****
The Forum has a hard balance to strike:
I think the average comment is just a bit less argumentative /â critical than would be ideal.
I think the average critical comment is less kind than would be ideal.
I want criticism to be kind, but I also want it to exist, and pushing people to be kinder might also reduce the overall quantity of criticism. Iâm not sure what the best realistic outcome is.
I think itâs important that Eliezer used the words âand not mention the obvious notion thatâ (emphasis added).
The use of the word âobviousâ suggests that Eliezer thinks that Ted is either lying by not mentioning an obvious point, or heâs so stupid that he shouldnât be contributing to the forum.
If Eliezer had simply dropped the word âobviousâ, then I would agree with Aaronâs assessment.
However as is, I agree with JPâs assessment.
(Not that Iâm a moderator, nor am I suggesting that my opinion should receive some special weight, just adding another perspective.)
My opinion placed zero weight on the argument that Eliezer is a high profile user of the forum, and harsh words from him may cut deeper, therefore he (arguably) has a stronger onus to be kind.
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. Itâs disingenuous when people pretend to know less about something . . . (Vocabulary)
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere (Dictionary.com)
I donât 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 donât 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, thereâs not a lot of ambiguity in the wordâs 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/âcandor/âsincerity, 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 peopleâs arguments âdisingenousâ and the like without presenting clear evidence of the proponentâs dishonesty. Itâs just too easy to deploy that kind of language as a personal attack with plausible deniability (I am not suggesting that was Eliezerâs 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.
Iâm not a moderator, but I used to run the Forum, and I sometimes advise the moderation team.
While âdisingenuousâ could imply you think your interlocutor is deliberately lying about something, Eliezer seems to mean âI think youâve left out an obvious counterargumentâ.
That claim feels different to me, and I donât think it breaks Forum norms (though I understand why JP disagrees, and itâs not an obvious call):
I donât want people to deliberately lie on the Forum. However, I donât think we should expect them to always list even the most obvious counterarguments to their points. We have comments for a reason!
Iâm more bothered by criticism that accuses an author of norm-breaking (âseems dishonestâ) than criticism that merely accuses them of not putting forward maximal effort (âseems to leave out Xâ)
To get deeper into this: I read âseems dishonestâ as an attack â it implies that the author did something seriously wrong and should be downvoted or warned by mods. I read âseems to leave out Xâ as an invitation to an argument.
The ambiguity of âdisingenuousâ means Iâd prefer to see people get more specific. But while I wish Eliezer hadnât used the word, I also think he successfully specified what he meant by it, and the overall comment didnât feel like an attack (to me, a bystander; obviously, an author might feel differently).
*****
I donât blame anyone who wants to take a break from Forum writing for any reason, including feeling discouraged by negative comments. Especially when itâs easy to read âseems disingenuousâ as âyou are lyingâ.
But I think the Forum will continue to have comments like Eliezerâs going forward. And I hope that, in addition to pushing for kinder critiques, we can maintain a general understanding on the Forum that a non-kind critique isnât necessarily a personal attack.
(Ted, if youâre reading this: I think that Eliezerâs argument is reasonable, but I also think that yours was a solid post, and Iâm glad we have it!)
*****
The Forum has a hard balance to strike:
I think the average comment is just a bit less argumentative /â critical than would be ideal.
I think the average critical comment is less kind than would be ideal.
I want criticism to be kind, but I also want it to exist, and pushing people to be kinder might also reduce the overall quantity of criticism. Iâm not sure what the best realistic outcome is.
I think itâs important that Eliezer used the words âand not mention the obvious notion thatâ (emphasis added).
The use of the word âobviousâ suggests that Eliezer thinks that Ted is either lying by not mentioning an obvious point, or heâs so stupid that he shouldnât be contributing to the forum.
If Eliezer had simply dropped the word âobviousâ, then I would agree with Aaronâs assessment.
However as is, I agree with JPâs assessment.
(Not that Iâm a moderator, nor am I suggesting that my opinion should receive some special weight, just adding another perspective.)
My opinion placed zero weight on the argument that Eliezer is a high profile user of the forum, and harsh words from him may cut deeper, therefore he (arguably) has a stronger onus to be kind.
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. Itâs disingenuous when people pretend to know less about something . . . (Vocabulary)
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere (Dictionary.com)
I donât 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 donât 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, thereâs not a lot of ambiguity in the wordâs 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/âcandor/âsincerity, 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 peopleâs arguments âdisingenousâ and the like without presenting clear evidence of the proponentâs dishonesty. Itâs just too easy to deploy that kind of language as a personal attack with plausible deniability (I am not suggesting that was Eliezerâs 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.