3 ms·
I have seen quite a lot of "corrections" that are agonizingly smug technicalities, flaming strawmen, and the like. Those attempts to "debunk" whatever usually
by at_a_remove 5y ago
I have seen quite a lot of "corrections" that are agonizingly smug technicalities, flaming strawmen, and the like. Those attempts to "debunk" whatever usually make me question what else this group has been playing word-games about.
Often, it comes with some intensity, then a completely hypocritical stance on something else and again I wonder about the integrity.
It can be done, but it must be done cleanly, unimpeachably, and with ground given when "your side" is wrong.
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago> I have seen quite a lot of "corrections" that are agonizingly smug technicalities, flaming strawmen, and the like. I'm reminded of Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. [0][1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graham's_hierarchy_of_disagreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graha... [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- nimih 5y agoIt's worth pointing out that this research was conducted by arguing with people on twitter via a bunch of automated bots. It's not really that surprising that people will [be slightly more likely to] double down if they notice that the person trying to talk them out of their beliefs is part of a legion of literal robots.