4 ms·

Whatever the merits of your arguments, your ad hominem at the end, as well as the general tone of your comment, undermine your position almost completely.

by swombat 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago
> your ad hominem at the end ... What ad hominem was that? I correctly identified my correspondent as a salesman, not a scientist. It's a simple statement of fact. He thinks one data point counts as evidence, which means he isn't a scientist, and he is objectively in the business of talking people into investing in his fund -- therefore he is a salesman. Simple straight-up facts. And it really is pointless trying to discuss these issues with someone whose livelihood depends on the myth that the market can be tweaked in any way we please.
- swombat 14y ago
  On the off chance... Perhaps you're like me a decade ago and you don't even realise when you're insulting someone (I was like that). If so, I urge you to realise that just because you don't mean to be insulting doesn't mean you aren't. The last line of your comment was obviously insulting and your comment has been downvoted by others as a result. That's an evident observation. Take it on board instead of disputing it, and if you really did not mean any insult, then think about how you could have phrased that line (and perhaps the rest of your comment) in a way that would not come across as insulting. Learning to not involuntarily insult people is pretty useful.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Perhaps you're like me a decade ago and you don't even realise when you're insulting someone ... You have something against salesmen? I described this person as a salesman, after he identified himself as a salesman. Which part of this aren't you getting? He has a vested interest in the position he was putting forth. That fact, the fact that his livelihood depends on the continued belief in the predictability and malleability of equities trading, is germane to the conversation. It prevents objective evaluation of evidence. > ... in a way that would not come across as insulting. Not every salesman is Willy Loman, and the insult you saw is solely in your mind. He said: "I humbly invite you to consider the past and future returns of the fund I work for ..." By referring to "future returns", he went beyond any rational position, and he directly contradicts the position taken by the SEC on this issue (brokers should never make claims about future performance). He is a salesman. Talking to him about this issue is a waste of time. Those are the facts.
    - swombat 14y ago
      No, those are not the facts. That is your interpretation, and it is worded in your vocabulary. That vocabulary means something to you but may mean something else to someone else. The wiser way to behave here is to realise that your interpretation may or may not be true, since you are working from a highly incomplete data set and therefore tone down the use of vocabulary that may have multiple meanings and instead focus on vocabulary that is less likely to be interpreted as an insult. For example, you might have said: > I notice from one of your statements that you seem to be working for a fund yourself. Do you think that this impacts your view of this problem? Instead of: > Ah, so you have a dog in this fight. You're not an impartial participant, striving for objectivity. That means I'm wasting my time talking to you -- you're not a scientist, you're a salesman. All the bits in italics (yes, that's most of your comment) are potentially insulting to the person you're replying to. The first one is a mild character attack, the second one is a direct insult, and the third one is easily perceived as a direct character attack, especially in the context of the other two. Overall, this sentence is the comment equivalent of sneering at someone at a well-to-do party, and loudly dismissing them as a damn fool. If you're the host of the party or someone notable, you may get away with this sort of behaviour, but as a guest, you will be the one led to the door. The restatement above makes the exact same point, casts the exact same aspersions on the views of the person you're replying to, but does so in a way that is not perceived as an insult.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > That is your interpretation, and it is worded in your vocabulary. That vocabulary means something to you but may mean something else to someone else. This is a scientific discussion, not one about vocabulary or a post-modern view of reality. > All the bits in italics (yes, that's most of your comment) are potentially insulting to the person you're replying to. That's the way it is in science. Science is not diplomacy. And the WSJ Dartboard Contest went on insulting the same people in the same way for years, but without lifting the veil of ignorance in which these people live, as the above exchange proves. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444024204578044390473058954.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044402420457804... Quote: "The darts [i.e random stock picks] have historically beaten the readers [i.e. stockbrokers], with 28 wins out of 47 contests."
emini_guy 14y ago
I don't think it does. I disagree with him, but in general one's tone and one's arguments are two different things. I think, though, that he is too dismissive of the positions he does not like and his counter-arguments are not necessarily better.

Whatever the merits of your arguments, your ad hominem at the end, as well as the general tone of your comment, undermine your position almost completely.

by swombat 14y ago

Whatever the merits of your arguments, your ad hominem at the end, as well as the general tone of your comment, undermine your position almost completely.

lutusp 14y ago

> your ad hominem at the end ... What ad hominem was that? I correctly identified my correspondent as a salesman, not a scientist. It's a simple statement of fact. He thinks one data point counts as evidence, which means he isn't a scientist, and he is objectively in the business of talking people into investing in his fund -- therefore he is a salesman. Simple straight-up facts. And it really is pointless trying to discuss these issues with someone whose livelihood depends on the myth that the market can be tweaked in any way we please.

swombat 14y ago
On the off chance... Perhaps you're like me a decade ago and you don't even realise when you're insulting someone (I was like that). If so, I urge you to realise that just because you don't mean to be insulting doesn't mean you aren't. The last line of your comment was obviously insulting and your comment has been downvoted by others as a result. That's an evident observation. Take it on board instead of disputing it, and if you really did not mean any insult, then think about how you could have phrased that line (and perhaps the rest of your comment) in a way that would not come across as insulting. Learning to not involuntarily insult people is pretty useful.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Perhaps you're like me a decade ago and you don't even realise when you're insulting someone ... You have something against salesmen? I described this person as a salesman, after he identified himself as a salesman. Which part of this aren't you getting? He has a vested interest in the position he was putting forth. That fact, the fact that his livelihood depends on the continued belief in the predictability and malleability of equities trading, is germane to the conversation. It prevents objective evaluation of evidence. > ... in a way that would not come across as insulting. Not every salesman is Willy Loman, and the insult you saw is solely in your mind. He said: "I humbly invite you to consider the past and future returns of the fund I work for ..." By referring to "future returns", he went beyond any rational position, and he directly contradicts the position taken by the SEC on this issue (brokers should never make claims about future performance). He is a salesman. Talking to him about this issue is a waste of time. Those are the facts.
  - swombat 14y ago
    No, those are not the facts. That is your interpretation, and it is worded in your vocabulary. That vocabulary means something to you but may mean something else to someone else. The wiser way to behave here is to realise that your interpretation may or may not be true, since you are working from a highly incomplete data set and therefore tone down the use of vocabulary that may have multiple meanings and instead focus on vocabulary that is less likely to be interpreted as an insult. For example, you might have said: > I notice from one of your statements that you seem to be working for a fund yourself. Do you think that this impacts your view of this problem? Instead of: > Ah, so you have a dog in this fight. You're not an impartial participant, striving for objectivity. That means I'm wasting my time talking to you -- you're not a scientist, you're a salesman. All the bits in italics (yes, that's most of your comment) are potentially insulting to the person you're replying to. The first one is a mild character attack, the second one is a direct insult, and the third one is easily perceived as a direct character attack, especially in the context of the other two. Overall, this sentence is the comment equivalent of sneering at someone at a well-to-do party, and loudly dismissing them as a damn fool. If you're the host of the party or someone notable, you may get away with this sort of behaviour, but as a guest, you will be the one led to the door. The restatement above makes the exact same point, casts the exact same aspersions on the views of the person you're replying to, but does so in a way that is not perceived as an insult.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > That is your interpretation, and it is worded in your vocabulary. That vocabulary means something to you but may mean something else to someone else. This is a scientific discussion, not one about vocabulary or a post-modern view of reality. > All the bits in italics (yes, that's most of your comment) are potentially insulting to the person you're replying to. That's the way it is in science. Science is not diplomacy. And the WSJ Dartboard Contest went on insulting the same people in the same way for years, but without lifting the veil of ignorance in which these people live, as the above exchange proves. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444024204578044390473058954.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044402420457804... Quote: "The darts [i.e random stock picks] have historically beaten the readers [i.e. stockbrokers], with 28 wins out of 47 contests."

emini_guy 14y ago

I don't think it does. I disagree with him, but in general one's tone and one's arguments are two different things. I think, though, that he is too dismissive of the positions he does not like and his counter-arguments are not necessarily better.