4 ms·

"Vestigial" is the wrong/insensitive word. If I make an appeal to evolutionary biology, it is because I am also a geek, not because I have some overarching pseu

"Vestigial" is the wrong/insensitive word. If I make an appeal to evolutionary biology, it is because I am also a geek, not because I have some overarching pseudo-Darwinian worldview. When applicable, its not wrong to refer to biology to understand why humans work the way they do. When dealing with a software system, wouldn't you want to understand the principles upon which it is built? Please don't tell me that you would feel the same way if a member of your family, for example, had died in a boating accident versus, say, had been beheaded with cold blood with a knife in some insane semi-religious ceremony (if you would feel the same way, a lot of people would qualify you as a sociopath, and they probably wouldn't be wrong). Vengeance is one of the primary drives of human behavior, it will always exist, it is very often a bad thing, but it must be acknowledged if you want to be taken seriously. Note for example that in rare cases when it is justified, lack of feeling of vengeance will make you look either like a cold-blooded psychopath or a complete coward. It is rational to try to understand the limits of rationality. A perfectly rational being might rationally conclude that life is not worth living and commit suicide, leaving no progeny. Defending oneself and one's family from threats that have agency (predators, other members of your species) is and always will be categorically different from defending from threats that don't have agency, such as bad weather. I recommend to consider the threat posed by terrorism as seriously as you consider global warming, or interplanetary exploration, or whatever it is you consider to be a serious issue. It may not be as serious to you, and that's okay, but at least respect the fact that it is a very serious issue to many other people. Then you can have a serious discussion over which steps are and are not appropriate. As a coincidence, you will also find that people will listen to your arguments against surveillance more seriously when you respectfully acknowledge their own wants and desires, such as desire for peace/security.

woodman 11y ago
> "Vestigial" is the wrong/insensitive word. WELL, I never. I'm offended at your offence to my insensitivity. I can be intransigent about the value of logic relative to emotion as well. > When dealing with a software system, wouldn't you want to understand the principles upon which it is built? That depends on what you mean by principles. If you mean the CS theory that underpins it all, sure - that level of knowledge is absolutely necessary in many cases. If you mean the designer's intent, sure - that can help, but that would certainly take a back seat to the cold hard CS logic of reality. Also, I wouldn't feel a compulsion to extend the poor coding practices of yesteryear that may be found in legacy codebases (hint: I'm not talking about code, this is a tortured metaphor). > Please don't tell me that you would feel the same way if a member of your family... The desire for revenge is derived from a perceived injustice, that is why one seeks revenge against people and not motorboats - motorboats can't reason. The same goes for wild animal attacks. I think you almost touched on this in your third paragraph. But you're conflating emotions and actions. > ...respectfully acknowledge their own wants and desires, such as desire for peace/security. Ok, I officially respect and acknowledge your wants and desires for peace and security. BTW, you can't have either in a world where there is any amount of free will. What next? Is that your recommendation - empathy? I'll save you some trouble and just let you know ahead of time that if somebody is irrational - no amount of reasoning, emotional or logical, will change their position. That leaves only three courses of action for the self-interested rational being: 1) Try reason, if it doesn't work then turn to page 2 or 3 2) Violence, but it works in only a super narrow band of circumstances 3) Attempt to minimize the damage done to you by the emotion driven mob, this might mean fleeing into the wilderness and becoming a hermit... Or promoting the benefits of logical thought in daily exchanges by demonstrating the wealth, happiness and playboy lifestyle that it has brought you. Either or. One issue that I won't compromise on is that of compromise, which is usually where the emotional route leads. There are plenty of things for which compromise is just fine, but are generally unimportant and not worth the argument, modifications of properties and not attributes (attributes define kindness of objects, properties do not). Like if you wanted to paint our rocket red (change the color property) that is fine, a compromise of half red vs full red really makes no difference outside of personal aesthetic preference. If you wanted to replace the engine with a bag of pineapples, well we have a problem - it is no longer a rocket and there is no compromise between fruit and engine that would leave it a rocket.
- etangent 11y ago
  Am finding your comment a bit difficult to read, and don't really have time to discuss this further, so I will only remark that I'm not at all offended by anything you said -- my mention of "sensitivity" was only to advise on how to act in such a way so as to make people listen to your arguments (in other words: people will typically shut down their aural response as soon as they hear something offensive to their core beliefs). A hypersensitive person would annoy me as much as he/she would annoy you, but the fact that such people exist is an unfortunate reality that has to be dealt with, and not something that can be changed by pretending otherwise. TL;DR Just because I describe a situation does't mean I approve of it.
  - woodman 11y ago
    Well I'll summarize my perspective as well. If somebody needs emotional coddling in order to see reason - they aren't really going to see reason (not in the long term at least). It therefore makes no sense to deviate from a logic based approach in argument; the "geeks" are doing it right. A verbose argument is easily ignored (as I've apparently demonstrated), so adding emotional appeals can do nothing but distract.
    - etangent 11y ago
      Thank you. I share your view that logic/reason is superior to emotional appeal. However the two are often orthogonal. When dealing with public, it is possible not to sacrifice any logical soundness whatsoever while also ensuring that your message is not ignored b/c of seeming insensitivity to whatever bullshit people care about. Just because something is not often done does not mean it is impossible. Understanding what other people care about is called "emotional intelligence". Possessing emotional intelligence does not necessarily mean that one does not possess rational intelligence (heh, it would be a logical fallacy to say so). The two can complement one another. If you care about having influence in the world, you should attempt to acquire both. Just because some people only have one and some only the other does not mean that no person exists that has both. That was my point.

woodman 11y ago

> "Vestigial" is the wrong/insensitive word. WELL, I never. I'm offended at your offence to my insensitivity. I can be intransigent about the value of logic relative to emotion as well. > When dealing with a software system, wouldn't you want to understand the principles upon which it is built? That depends on what you mean by principles. If you mean the CS theory that underpins it all, sure - that level of knowledge is absolutely necessary in many cases. If you mean the designer's intent, sure - that can help, but that would certainly take a back seat to the cold hard CS logic of reality. Also, I wouldn't feel a compulsion to extend the poor coding practices of yesteryear that may be found in legacy codebases (hint: I'm not talking about code, this is a tortured metaphor). > Please don't tell me that you would feel the same way if a member of your family... The desire for revenge is derived from a perceived injustice, that is why one seeks revenge against people and not motorboats - motorboats can't reason. The same goes for wild animal attacks. I think you almost touched on this in your third paragraph. But you're conflating emotions and actions. > ...respectfully acknowledge their own wants and desires, such as desire for peace/security. Ok, I officially respect and acknowledge your wants and desires for peace and security. BTW, you can't have either in a world where there is any amount of free will. What next? Is that your recommendation - empathy? I'll save you some trouble and just let you know ahead of time that if somebody is irrational - no amount of reasoning, emotional or logical, will change their position. That leaves only three courses of action for the self-interested rational being: 1) Try reason, if it doesn't work then turn to page 2 or 3 2) Violence, but it works in only a super narrow band of circumstances 3) Attempt to minimize the damage done to you by the emotion driven mob, this might mean fleeing into the wilderness and becoming a hermit... Or promoting the benefits of logical thought in daily exchanges by demonstrating the wealth, happiness and playboy lifestyle that it has brought you. Either or. One issue that I won't compromise on is that of compromise, which is usually where the emotional route leads. There are plenty of things for which compromise is just fine, but are generally unimportant and not worth the argument, modifications of properties and not attributes (attributes define kindness of objects, properties do not). Like if you wanted to paint our rocket red (change the color property) that is fine, a compromise of half red vs full red really makes no difference outside of personal aesthetic preference. If you wanted to replace the engine with a bag of pineapples, well we have a problem - it is no longer a rocket and there is no compromise between fruit and engine that would leave it a rocket.

etangent 11y ago
Am finding your comment a bit difficult to read, and don't really have time to discuss this further, so I will only remark that I'm not at all offended by anything you said -- my mention of "sensitivity" was only to advise on how to act in such a way so as to make people listen to your arguments (in other words: people will typically shut down their aural response as soon as they hear something offensive to their core beliefs). A hypersensitive person would annoy me as much as he/she would annoy you, but the fact that such people exist is an unfortunate reality that has to be dealt with, and not something that can be changed by pretending otherwise. TL;DR Just because I describe a situation does't mean I approve of it.
- woodman 11y ago
  Well I'll summarize my perspective as well. If somebody needs emotional coddling in order to see reason - they aren't really going to see reason (not in the long term at least). It therefore makes no sense to deviate from a logic based approach in argument; the "geeks" are doing it right. A verbose argument is easily ignored (as I've apparently demonstrated), so adding emotional appeals can do nothing but distract.
  - etangent 11y ago
    Thank you. I share your view that logic/reason is superior to emotional appeal. However the two are often orthogonal. When dealing with public, it is possible not to sacrifice any logical soundness whatsoever while also ensuring that your message is not ignored b/c of seeming insensitivity to whatever bullshit people care about. Just because something is not often done does not mean it is impossible. Understanding what other people care about is called "emotional intelligence". Possessing emotional intelligence does not necessarily mean that one does not possess rational intelligence (heh, it would be a logical fallacy to say so). The two can complement one another. If you care about having influence in the world, you should attempt to acquire both. Just because some people only have one and some only the other does not mean that no person exists that has both. That was my point.