4 ms·

Is there a name for being arbitrarily biased against a counterclaim? The simple fact that this is posed as a counterclaim itself seems to invoke skepticism, ev

Is there a name for being arbitrarily biased against a counterclaim? The simple fact that this is posed as a counterclaim itself seems to invoke skepticism, even when the original belief itself isn't even presented or has a poor basis itself. A weak counterclaim does not imply the claim to be truth.

hsod 5y ago
I agree. Lately it seems that people who lay their ideas out and accept criticism are being destroyed by those who refuse to admit fault a priori
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 0des 5y ago
  Just a head's up, it appears your account may be shadow banned, most of your comments cannot be seen unless someone vouches for them. To respond to your comment, I think sometimes that the skills of debate are fading from society. Often it is not the subject matter of what is being disputed, but the manner in which it is presented, or the person/ideology espousing it.
  - dang 5y ago
    Not shadowbanned—we told them we were banning them and why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16118062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16118062 - as we usually do, when an account has some history on HN. Please don't take threads off topic like that. If you think an account shouldn't be banned, you're welcome to let us know at hn@ycombinator.com. Edit: you've been doing this repeatedly. That's not cool. Please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29528049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29528049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29528043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29528043
    - hsod 5y ago
      Hey Dan Pretty surprising and sad that you would ban me for a comment like that. Reading it back three years later I’m not wildly proud about it but I don’t think it’s ban worthy. But I want to push back against the idea that this is not a shadow ban. I see now that you replied to my comment to let me know. But there’s no notification mechanism on HN for comment replies! So I didn’t see it until just now. A ban mechanism that eventuates in the banned user logging on and participating for 3 years before realizing no one can see their comments is a shadow ban! If you wanted it to be clear there should be some messaging besides a comment reply. Just my two cents
      - dang 5y ago
        First of all, I looked at your recent account history and it seems fine, so I've unbanned you. I'm sorry you stayed banned for such a long time, even while posting comments that were within the site guidelines (well, mostly within the site guidelines). We always unban such accounts when we see them, but we don't always see them. Sometimes users email hn@ycombinator.com to let us know about a username in this category, and we always look and are happy to unban if the account no longer shows signs of posting abusively. > Pretty surprising and sad that you would ban me for a comment like that. Reading it back three years later I’m not wildly proud about it but I don’t think it’s ban worthy. It's clear from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16118062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16118062 that I didn't ban you for just one comment. It says: "We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines with uncivil personal attacks and by using the site primarily for ideological battle. Those things are not allowed here, regardless of your politics, how right you are, or how right you feel you are." That's obviously about an overall pattern of behavior, no? > A ban mechanism that eventuates in the banned user logging on and participating for 3 years before realizing no one can see their comments is a shadow ban! If you wanted it to be clear there should be some messaging besides a comment reply. Definitional arguments aside, yes—you're making a fair point. It's on our list to fix this, perhaps with a probation system that tells people they're banned for a time period (at least at first) and then unbans them. Most people respond well to feedback, so it's possible this will help in other ways too. However, don't underestimate how much damage is caused by accounts that wilfully abuse the site and take advantage of such systems—it's hard to design something that's both fair to the majority and not so vulnerable to abuse.
- beebeepka 5y ago
  Lately? I don't think so. Strong men never make mistakes. Never. Only weak men do. You know it's true. You've seen it. Cavemen have seen it. Probably true in some animal societies, too
krisoft 5y ago
> A weak counterclaim does not imply the claim to be truth. Yes. So? The options are not just that we accept whatever fact is presented, or accept whatever is the oposite of it. We can just say: “looks like we don’t know” and that is perfectly fine. A claim or a counterclaim (is there even a distinction?) warrants the same amount of proof.
- technothrasher 5y ago
  The abstract of the paper sounds like this isn't actually a counterclaim, it is only a questioning of the claim being made. The author isn't saying that the Spartans didn't systematically "kill weak babies." She is saying there doesn't appear to be much evidence that they did, and given evidence that it wasn't common in general in ancient Greece, the claim is suspect.
  - Jansen312 5y ago
    Sparta wasn't common like any of the contempory cities. Sparta has unique militaristic society. Hence the writer should have furnish proof within Sparta and not use proxies to generalize the same. Canada and Mexico are next to USA. The things happening in USA are hard to be extrapolated from Canada or from Mexico. You can't be reasonable to say American loves maple syrup and have cartel rampant running the drug trades simply because it is common in Canada or Mexico.
- colordrops 5y ago
  > A claim or a counterclaim (is there even a distinction?) warrants the same amount of proof. Yes that is exactly what I was saying.
  - krisoft 5y ago
    Then I don't understand you. You wrote: > Is there a name for being arbitrarily biased against a counterclaim? Who is arbitrarily biassed against a counterclaim in your opinion here? Debby Sneed who wrote the study? Andrew Curry who wrote the science.org article about the study? gadflyinyoureye who wrote the comment your comment is responding to? Someone else? > The simple fact that this is posed as a counterclaim itself seems to invoke skepticism... As it should. I don't see the bias here. Are you saying that someone accepts claims without skepticism but not counterclaims? Who?

hsod 5y ago

I agree. Lately it seems that people who lay their ideas out and accept criticism are being destroyed by those who refuse to admit fault a priori

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
0des 5y ago
Just a head's up, it appears your account may be shadow banned, most of your comments cannot be seen unless someone vouches for them. To respond to your comment, I think sometimes that the skills of debate are fading from society. Often it is not the subject matter of what is being disputed, but the manner in which it is presented, or the person/ideology espousing it.
- dang 5y ago
  Not shadowbanned—we told them we were banning them and why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16118062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16118062 - as we usually do, when an account has some history on HN. Please don't take threads off topic like that. If you think an account shouldn't be banned, you're welcome to let us know at hn@ycombinator.com. Edit: you've been doing this repeatedly. That's not cool. Please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29528049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29528049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29528043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29528043
  - hsod 5y ago
    Hey Dan Pretty surprising and sad that you would ban me for a comment like that. Reading it back three years later I’m not wildly proud about it but I don’t think it’s ban worthy. But I want to push back against the idea that this is not a shadow ban. I see now that you replied to my comment to let me know. But there’s no notification mechanism on HN for comment replies! So I didn’t see it until just now. A ban mechanism that eventuates in the banned user logging on and participating for 3 years before realizing no one can see their comments is a shadow ban! If you wanted it to be clear there should be some messaging besides a comment reply. Just my two cents
    - dang 5y ago
      First of all, I looked at your recent account history and it seems fine, so I've unbanned you. I'm sorry you stayed banned for such a long time, even while posting comments that were within the site guidelines (well, mostly within the site guidelines). We always unban such accounts when we see them, but we don't always see them. Sometimes users email hn@ycombinator.com to let us know about a username in this category, and we always look and are happy to unban if the account no longer shows signs of posting abusively. > Pretty surprising and sad that you would ban me for a comment like that. Reading it back three years later I’m not wildly proud about it but I don’t think it’s ban worthy. It's clear from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16118062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16118062 that I didn't ban you for just one comment. It says: "We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines with uncivil personal attacks and by using the site primarily for ideological battle. Those things are not allowed here, regardless of your politics, how right you are, or how right you feel you are." That's obviously about an overall pattern of behavior, no? > A ban mechanism that eventuates in the banned user logging on and participating for 3 years before realizing no one can see their comments is a shadow ban! If you wanted it to be clear there should be some messaging besides a comment reply. Definitional arguments aside, yes—you're making a fair point. It's on our list to fix this, perhaps with a probation system that tells people they're banned for a time period (at least at first) and then unbans them. Most people respond well to feedback, so it's possible this will help in other ways too. However, don't underestimate how much damage is caused by accounts that wilfully abuse the site and take advantage of such systems—it's hard to design something that's both fair to the majority and not so vulnerable to abuse.
beebeepka 5y ago
Lately? I don't think so. Strong men never make mistakes. Never. Only weak men do. You know it's true. You've seen it. Cavemen have seen it. Probably true in some animal societies, too

krisoft 5y ago

> A weak counterclaim does not imply the claim to be truth. Yes. So? The options are not just that we accept whatever fact is presented, or accept whatever is the oposite of it. We can just say: “looks like we don’t know” and that is perfectly fine. A claim or a counterclaim (is there even a distinction?) warrants the same amount of proof.

technothrasher 5y ago
The abstract of the paper sounds like this isn't actually a counterclaim, it is only a questioning of the claim being made. The author isn't saying that the Spartans didn't systematically "kill weak babies." She is saying there doesn't appear to be much evidence that they did, and given evidence that it wasn't common in general in ancient Greece, the claim is suspect.
- Jansen312 5y ago
  Sparta wasn't common like any of the contempory cities. Sparta has unique militaristic society. Hence the writer should have furnish proof within Sparta and not use proxies to generalize the same. Canada and Mexico are next to USA. The things happening in USA are hard to be extrapolated from Canada or from Mexico. You can't be reasonable to say American loves maple syrup and have cartel rampant running the drug trades simply because it is common in Canada or Mexico.
colordrops 5y ago
> A claim or a counterclaim (is there even a distinction?) warrants the same amount of proof. Yes that is exactly what I was saying.
- krisoft 5y ago
  Then I don't understand you. You wrote: > Is there a name for being arbitrarily biased against a counterclaim? Who is arbitrarily biassed against a counterclaim in your opinion here? Debby Sneed who wrote the study? Andrew Curry who wrote the science.org article about the study? gadflyinyoureye who wrote the comment your comment is responding to? Someone else? > The simple fact that this is posed as a counterclaim itself seems to invoke skepticism... As it should. I don't see the bias here. Are you saying that someone accepts claims without skepticism but not counterclaims? Who?