4 ms·

A case for purposefully trying to offend someone, or just playing devil's advocate for something that might cause offense: getting to know people's level for wh

by Jach 14y ago

A case for purposefully trying to offend someone, or just playing devil's advocate for something that might cause offense: getting to know people's level for what they are offended by, and thereby measuring their rationality and whether or not they're worth talking to seriously. If someone blows up over one thing, odds are they'll blow up over other things too. Jonathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal" could probably have been used as a litmus test many years ago--nowadays it's just too easy to dismiss it as "trolling", or treat it as nothing more than the satire and social commentary it is, rather than having an emotional reaction to it or attempting at least a somewhat serious analysis of whether or not his solution would be feasible in different dimensions and whether or not it would likely help the problem. I like to ask if people operate by (or will operate by having seen the link) Crocker's Rules[0], which tells me whether or not they take responsibility for their own mind. (Looks like it's mentioned in the comments on LW too.) This reminds me of esr's recent commentary about a controversial piece of advice.[1] Can you see past preconceptions, and either engage reality as reality, or even hypotheticals as hypotheticals, and not respond on a purely emotional level? Emotions are fine; I like my emotions, I just try not to be ruled by them as much as I can, especially the less productive ones. ("Speak the truth even if your voice shakes.") [0] http://www.sl4.org/crocker.html http://www.sl4.org/crocker.html [1] http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4270 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4270

Xcelerate 14y ago
> If someone blows up over one thing, odds are they'll blow up over other things too. Not necessarily true. There is one -- and only one -- "hot button" issue that absolutely makes me fume. And my position on it comes after a lot of careful, introspective thought. For all other issues, nothing would really upset me.
nandemo 14y ago
> getting to know people's level for what they are offended by, and thereby measuring their rationality and whether or not they're worth talking to seriously. So you're saying you disagree with (IMO) the central assumption in the article? > People who would be level-headed about evenhandedly weighing all sides of an issue in their professional life as scientists, can suddenly turn into slogan-chanting zombies when there's a Blue or Green position on an issue. Most people have such a Blue vs. Green issue. I'd wager that if you wanted to commit social suicide you could easily manage to offend over 95% of your friends by simply choosing your trolling topics carefully (without name-calling). But that hardly means you should dismiss your friends. > nowadays it's just too easy to dismiss it as "trolling", I suggest Gulliver's Travels, if you haven't read it. It's still very current. As for esr, he's saying much more than that. He's claiming that, after you have read Derbyshire's article, you're supposed to answer "no" to those 5 questions. There are a lot of implicit assumptions in there. I answered "yes" to the 5th question, i.e. I concluded the author is probably racist, but that doesn't imply my answer is result of my emotions clouding my judgement. It could simply be that my definition of "racist" is different from esr's. Interestingly, someone mentioned in the comments that Derbyshire admitted elsewhere being a "racist and homophobe, but a tolerant one".
- Jach 14y ago
  Can you clarify what you think the central assumption in the article is? After typing the rest of this I think I may have misunderstood you. I think the central assumption is stated in the first sentence: "One oft-underestimated threat to epistemic rationality is getting offended." I don't think it's much of a leap to generalize that to "noticing others getting offended is an indicator that their epistemic rationality isn't up to snuff." But it is inconsistent with a common theme around LW that learning about biases etc. should only be about improving yourself, not about noticing errors in other people. (I say why not both, while just being careful and not over-confident with the latter?) I should clarify that I don't think someone's "I'm offended" level completely measures their rationality, it's just a useful indicator. (They may have a Blue v. Green issue that just hasn't come up yet, or they may fail hard in the many other ways humans can be irrational, or my "this person is offended" detectors might be screwy.) I agree with the assumption that many, and probably most, seemingly rational people can become quite seemingly irrational when prompted with the right subjects. Or as Tesla put it, "The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane." Blue v. Green dynamics, and generally group identification, are pretty embedded in our neurological makeup, and to me only seem connected to "being offended" in the way that such a mind state makes it easier to fall into those (and other usually undesirable) modes of thought. I think all bridges can be burnt given enough time, but not all of them through trying to offend alone. With close friends who share your mental structure of finding it hard to be offended, let alone difficult to express it without a trace of irony, it takes other methods to destroy that friendship. The act of incessant trolling by itself could work depending on the person, regardless of if that person finds anything said offensive or not, simply because if I spend all my time trolling them, then I'm not worth their time. I read Gulliver's Travels around the same time as "A Modest Proposal", I agree it's still relevant and insightful. I also think you're right about esr's post having a problem by not defining "racist", and leaving the reader to do it themselves. (There are many definitions out there.) But I do think people who define "racist" as including something similar to "citing statistics that don't paint a pretty picture of all the various races, where such a pretty picture would show that such a simple observable never correlates with anything negative, and giving reasonable advice assuming those statistics are accurate" are in error, regardless of the accuracy of the statistics.
maxerickson 14y ago
Is there such a need to actively sort the people of the world? Certainly a person will end up taking their experiences with another person into account over time, but I don't see that it is particularly problematic to usually give people the benefit of the doubt (sure, if you don't know a person and they are screaming "fire", maybe still take a second to look for smoke before jumping off the bridge, and so on).
- Jach 14y ago
  I can't really sympathize with the view that we shouldn't sort people among any dimensions, or that there's no need. (I'm not even sure conscious effort is enough to stop all the unconscious sorting my brain is constantly doing anyway even if I did want to get rid of it all--though I certainly want to get rid of some, and I've more-or-less beaten the less biological things like sorting people based on fashion or vocal pleasingness.) In this particular case when you find a topic, or a set of topics, that you can't seriously discuss (even if you both disagree!) with a person because they immediately become offended, you've found a barrier to forming a deeper relationship that is in essence just the same barrier that's formed in any situation when one party stops listening. I'll agree they still may be worth your time due to their ranking on other dimensions, but there will continue to be at least that one barrier. Perhaps over time that barrier might even break down--I really believe the purpose of argument isn't to convince the other person right away, but to plant the seeds of differing thought for them to think about when they reflect on their own beliefs later. (Which brings me to a problem with people who don't seem to reflect on their state of mind and their world view very often, but that's another issue, and in any case such an observation can be hard to measure from the outside so it probably shouldn't be used as a dominant sorting key.)
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    The part where I talk about taking experience into account isn't very sympathetic to that viewpoint either. But you indicated that you say things simply to evaluate the response. I find this manipulative and don't see a need for it. I see some potential for me just reading your comment too narrowly.

by Jach 14y ago

Xcelerate 14y ago

> If someone blows up over one thing, odds are they'll blow up over other things too. Not necessarily true. There is one -- and only one -- "hot button" issue that absolutely makes me fume. And my position on it comes after a lot of careful, introspective thought. For all other issues, nothing would really upset me.

nandemo 14y ago

> getting to know people's level for what they are offended by, and thereby measuring their rationality and whether or not they're worth talking to seriously. So you're saying you disagree with (IMO) the central assumption in the article? > People who would be level-headed about evenhandedly weighing all sides of an issue in their professional life as scientists, can suddenly turn into slogan-chanting zombies when there's a Blue or Green position on an issue. Most people have such a Blue vs. Green issue. I'd wager that if you wanted to commit social suicide you could easily manage to offend over 95% of your friends by simply choosing your trolling topics carefully (without name-calling). But that hardly means you should dismiss your friends. > nowadays it's just too easy to dismiss it as "trolling", I suggest Gulliver's Travels, if you haven't read it. It's still very current. As for esr, he's saying much more than that. He's claiming that, after you have read Derbyshire's article, you're supposed to answer "no" to those 5 questions. There are a lot of implicit assumptions in there. I answered "yes" to the 5th question, i.e. I concluded the author is probably racist, but that doesn't imply my answer is result of my emotions clouding my judgement. It could simply be that my definition of "racist" is different from esr's. Interestingly, someone mentioned in the comments that Derbyshire admitted elsewhere being a "racist and homophobe, but a tolerant one".

Jach 14y ago
Can you clarify what you think the central assumption in the article is? After typing the rest of this I think I may have misunderstood you. I think the central assumption is stated in the first sentence: "One oft-underestimated threat to epistemic rationality is getting offended." I don't think it's much of a leap to generalize that to "noticing others getting offended is an indicator that their epistemic rationality isn't up to snuff." But it is inconsistent with a common theme around LW that learning about biases etc. should only be about improving yourself, not about noticing errors in other people. (I say why not both, while just being careful and not over-confident with the latter?) I should clarify that I don't think someone's "I'm offended" level completely measures their rationality, it's just a useful indicator. (They may have a Blue v. Green issue that just hasn't come up yet, or they may fail hard in the many other ways humans can be irrational, or my "this person is offended" detectors might be screwy.) I agree with the assumption that many, and probably most, seemingly rational people can become quite seemingly irrational when prompted with the right subjects. Or as Tesla put it, "The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane." Blue v. Green dynamics, and generally group identification, are pretty embedded in our neurological makeup, and to me only seem connected to "being offended" in the way that such a mind state makes it easier to fall into those (and other usually undesirable) modes of thought. I think all bridges can be burnt given enough time, but not all of them through trying to offend alone. With close friends who share your mental structure of finding it hard to be offended, let alone difficult to express it without a trace of irony, it takes other methods to destroy that friendship. The act of incessant trolling by itself could work depending on the person, regardless of if that person finds anything said offensive or not, simply because if I spend all my time trolling them, then I'm not worth their time. I read Gulliver's Travels around the same time as "A Modest Proposal", I agree it's still relevant and insightful. I also think you're right about esr's post having a problem by not defining "racist", and leaving the reader to do it themselves. (There are many definitions out there.) But I do think people who define "racist" as including something similar to "citing statistics that don't paint a pretty picture of all the various races, where such a pretty picture would show that such a simple observable never correlates with anything negative, and giving reasonable advice assuming those statistics are accurate" are in error, regardless of the accuracy of the statistics.

maxerickson 14y ago

Is there such a need to actively sort the people of the world? Certainly a person will end up taking their experiences with another person into account over time, but I don't see that it is particularly problematic to usually give people the benefit of the doubt (sure, if you don't know a person and they are screaming "fire", maybe still take a second to look for smoke before jumping off the bridge, and so on).

Jach 14y ago
I can't really sympathize with the view that we shouldn't sort people among any dimensions, or that there's no need. (I'm not even sure conscious effort is enough to stop all the unconscious sorting my brain is constantly doing anyway even if I did want to get rid of it all--though I certainly want to get rid of some, and I've more-or-less beaten the less biological things like sorting people based on fashion or vocal pleasingness.) In this particular case when you find a topic, or a set of topics, that you can't seriously discuss (even if you both disagree!) with a person because they immediately become offended, you've found a barrier to forming a deeper relationship that is in essence just the same barrier that's formed in any situation when one party stops listening. I'll agree they still may be worth your time due to their ranking on other dimensions, but there will continue to be at least that one barrier. Perhaps over time that barrier might even break down--I really believe the purpose of argument isn't to convince the other person right away, but to plant the seeds of differing thought for them to think about when they reflect on their own beliefs later. (Which brings me to a problem with people who don't seem to reflect on their state of mind and their world view very often, but that's another issue, and in any case such an observation can be hard to measure from the outside so it probably shouldn't be used as a dominant sorting key.)
- maxerickson 14y ago
  The part where I talk about taking experience into account isn't very sympathetic to that viewpoint either. But you indicated that you say things simply to evaluate the response. I find this manipulative and don't see a need for it. I see some potential for me just reading your comment too narrowly.