6 ms·

I would recommend against having dealings with the obviously mentally ill. I'm not sure in what sense you might be legally liable (for a civil suit) if they ha

by Eliezer 13y ago

I would recommend against having dealings with the obviously mentally ill. I'm not sure in what sense you might be legally liable (for a civil suit) if they happened to commit suicide a week later and mentioned you in the note. Also, psychiatrists may be in many cases working off falsified doctrines just like any other doctor, but also like any other doctor, they really do know important things layfolk don't. Leave the clearly crazy to the professionals. Though if this is your first real crazy caller I could understand where the fascination came from. About... 15 years ago...? I got that email from someone who insisted that all I really needed to know was the Periodic Table of the Elements in which all answers were contained. It took me a while to get that this was not someone I could save by argument.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
There aren't enough professionals. Also, fear of civil suits from the potentially suicidal is rarely a particularly noble reason to refuse to talk to them.
- Crito 13y ago
  Nobility or honor has little to do with it. I am not convinced the fear of a lawsuit is grounded, but either way that is a pragmatic concern, not some argument about what is honorable. I would caution people against it if only because it will very often be a waste of time and quite possibly a source of unnecessary stress.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Is just showing some basic empathy. Pragmatism doesn't need to get in the way of being nice to people.
    - Crito 13y ago
      > Pragmatism doesn't need to get in the way of being nice to people. You're right, it doesn't. 'gwern could politely break off the conversation when it becomes apparent that the person has some issues to work out, or he could simply stop responding. You don't have to break off the conversation rudely. This said, he hardly owes anybody trying to blackmail him a polite response. If somebody is trying to blackmail you and you are pretty sure they are way off-base, it is probably best to make a general policy of /dev/null-ing their messages.
      - moocowduckquack 13y ago
        Wasn't meaning this specific case so much as Eliezer's rather blanket advice to not deal with the mentally ill, just in case they top themselves and someone then sues you, which seemed more than a little bit harsh.
gwern 13y ago
> Though if this is your first real crazy caller I could understand where the fascination came from. You know, thinking about it, I think Jack is the first crazy person I have seriously dealt with at length on the Internet. Oh, I've seen plenty of crazy people online - I've laughed at Timecube, I've looked over HN's own resident Losethos (with a sense of 'there but for the grace of god'), I've watched other people argue with crazy people - but I think I've either never actually dealt with them or quickly flipped the bozo bit on them and disengaged. Under normal situations, on normal topics, I have no reason to talk with them at length and grandiloquence is unjustified.... At least part of the problem here is that in the crazy mirror land of the blackmarkets and Bitcoin in general, sanity is hard to distinguish from insanity, there really are key bits of information random parties can have, not everyone talks straight, blackmail does payoff, and there really are hidden millionaires & billionaires walking around in plain sight. (As an example of the mirrors of insanity, I invite anyone to read the Silk Road 2 forums and parse the SSBD/Inigo/Libertas, the DPR2 key rotation, the Cirrus announcement, Raoul's quoted message from DPR2, the posts by Defcon, the 'accidental' access to the admin forum, Ormsby's comments, Oracle's insinuations, the Tormarket quote from the vendor forum, etc etc etc, and parse it into a single coherent sane narrative. And consider what Satoshi's estimated fortune is at any moment.)
- invalidOrTaken 13y ago
  I wish we could do something for losethos. "There but for the grace of god" captures it perfectly.
  - gwern 13y ago
    As I recall, losethos's situation is that he's already on disability, diagnosed, and part of a national health system (isn't he British or something?); it's just that his meds either aren't working or he isn't taking them. What can be done for him has been done.
    - invalidOrTaken 13y ago
      I did some minor whois snooping into templos.org; I seem to remember something about Sunnyvale, CA. I live in the Bay Area...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
matthudson 13y ago
> "I would recommend against having dealings with the obviously mentally ill. I'm not sure in what sense you might be legally liable (for a civil suit) if they happened to commit suicide a week later and mentioned you in the note. ... Leave the clearly crazy to the professionals." > "Though if this is your first real crazy caller I could understand where the fascination came from. ... It took me a while to get that this was not someone I could save by argument." Here's a bit of Hacker News "empathy" that I find fascinating. Likely in the same sense that you find the mentally ill fascinating. The comment reads like some kind of bizzaro water-cooler advice on how to deal with that neighborhood "crazy caller" problem. Like when someone commiserates with Jane from accounting when she tells them she's worried because she can't keep the neighborhood kids out of the family pool. On the surface, it's empathetic: "If this is your first... I can understand..." In fact, the comment does (correctly) assert that professionals are better inclined to help the mentally ill than the lay-person. But underneath, the comment reeks of an unseemly attitude that suggests the mentally ill are a burden to be cast aside at all costs (with the requisite sigh). Perhaps it's a bit unfair of me to parse out those bits of your comment and infer so much. But, seriously? Have we really reached the point where we are calculating the likelihood of "sav[ing] someone by argument" vs. the risk of civil liability? Are these people merely objects of amusement and fascination? I wish I were a better writer, so I could flesh out exactly why your comment bothers me. I think it has something to do with the clinically detached tone and the casual implication that the mentally ill are at best a passing amusement; and, at worst, a liability to be avoided. Maybe I just need to take a break. I must be misunderstanding your comment.
- jtheory 13y ago
  I think you're arguing with the tone, but not the advice -- reading gwern's post, by the end of it I had a pretty strong feeling that he was being unwise (and somewhat cruel) in the way he carried his side of the exchange. Taunting the mentally ill (and intentionally encouraging their delusions) just to eke out a bit more "purple prose" is a bit mean at best, and could be quite damaging to them at worst. I suppose you might take issue with the word "crazy" generally (that's fair); but the real point is that there can be real-life consequences to pressing the buttons of the mentally-ill that can be way out of whack with your actual interaction -- e.g., with a more balanced person an internet argument is a minor diversion and possibly an annoyance. With a mentally-ill person it could be the same, or you might set them back months in therapy, or they could commit suicide, or they could harm others. Have we really reached the point where we are calculating the likelihood of "sav[ing] someone by argument" vs. the risk of civil liability? Option one is futile waste of time; option two involves real-life permanent damage (first to the ill person, incidentally to you) -- basically, don't wade into an exchange that will be (1) and best and (2) at worst.
code_duck 13y ago
I agree. The best response to this nonsense would have been to not respond.

by Eliezer 13y ago

moocowduckquack 13y ago

There aren't enough professionals. Also, fear of civil suits from the potentially suicidal is rarely a particularly noble reason to refuse to talk to them.

Crito 13y ago
Nobility or honor has little to do with it. I am not convinced the fear of a lawsuit is grounded, but either way that is a pragmatic concern, not some argument about what is honorable. I would caution people against it if only because it will very often be a waste of time and quite possibly a source of unnecessary stress.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Is just showing some basic empathy. Pragmatism doesn't need to get in the way of being nice to people.
  - Crito 13y ago
    > Pragmatism doesn't need to get in the way of being nice to people. You're right, it doesn't. 'gwern could politely break off the conversation when it becomes apparent that the person has some issues to work out, or he could simply stop responding. You don't have to break off the conversation rudely. This said, he hardly owes anybody trying to blackmail him a polite response. If somebody is trying to blackmail you and you are pretty sure they are way off-base, it is probably best to make a general policy of /dev/null-ing their messages.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      Wasn't meaning this specific case so much as Eliezer's rather blanket advice to not deal with the mentally ill, just in case they top themselves and someone then sues you, which seemed more than a little bit harsh.

gwern 13y ago

> Though if this is your first real crazy caller I could understand where the fascination came from. You know, thinking about it, I think Jack is the first crazy person I have seriously dealt with at length on the Internet. Oh, I've seen plenty of crazy people online - I've laughed at Timecube, I've looked over HN's own resident Losethos (with a sense of 'there but for the grace of god'), I've watched other people argue with crazy people - but I think I've either never actually dealt with them or quickly flipped the bozo bit on them and disengaged. Under normal situations, on normal topics, I have no reason to talk with them at length and grandiloquence is unjustified.... At least part of the problem here is that in the crazy mirror land of the blackmarkets and Bitcoin in general, sanity is hard to distinguish from insanity, there really are key bits of information random parties can have, not everyone talks straight, blackmail does payoff, and there really are hidden millionaires & billionaires walking around in plain sight. (As an example of the mirrors of insanity, I invite anyone to read the Silk Road 2 forums and parse the SSBD/Inigo/Libertas, the DPR2 key rotation, the Cirrus announcement, Raoul's quoted message from DPR2, the posts by Defcon, the 'accidental' access to the admin forum, Ormsby's comments, Oracle's insinuations, the Tormarket quote from the vendor forum, etc etc etc, and parse it into a single coherent sane narrative. And consider what Satoshi's estimated fortune is at any moment.)

invalidOrTaken 13y ago
I wish we could do something for losethos. "There but for the grace of god" captures it perfectly.
- gwern 13y ago
  As I recall, losethos's situation is that he's already on disability, diagnosed, and part of a national health system (isn't he British or something?); it's just that his meds either aren't working or he isn't taking them. What can be done for him has been done.
  - invalidOrTaken 13y ago
    I did some minor whois snooping into templos.org; I seem to remember something about Sunnyvale, CA. I live in the Bay Area...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

matthudson 13y ago

> "I would recommend against having dealings with the obviously mentally ill. I'm not sure in what sense you might be legally liable (for a civil suit) if they happened to commit suicide a week later and mentioned you in the note. ... Leave the clearly crazy to the professionals." > "Though if this is your first real crazy caller I could understand where the fascination came from. ... It took me a while to get that this was not someone I could save by argument." Here's a bit of Hacker News "empathy" that I find fascinating. Likely in the same sense that you find the mentally ill fascinating. The comment reads like some kind of bizzaro water-cooler advice on how to deal with that neighborhood "crazy caller" problem. Like when someone commiserates with Jane from accounting when she tells them she's worried because she can't keep the neighborhood kids out of the family pool. On the surface, it's empathetic: "If this is your first... I can understand..." In fact, the comment does (correctly) assert that professionals are better inclined to help the mentally ill than the lay-person. But underneath, the comment reeks of an unseemly attitude that suggests the mentally ill are a burden to be cast aside at all costs (with the requisite sigh). Perhaps it's a bit unfair of me to parse out those bits of your comment and infer so much. But, seriously? Have we really reached the point where we are calculating the likelihood of "sav[ing] someone by argument" vs. the risk of civil liability? Are these people merely objects of amusement and fascination? I wish I were a better writer, so I could flesh out exactly why your comment bothers me. I think it has something to do with the clinically detached tone and the casual implication that the mentally ill are at best a passing amusement; and, at worst, a liability to be avoided. Maybe I just need to take a break. I must be misunderstanding your comment.

jtheory 13y ago
I think you're arguing with the tone, but not the advice -- reading gwern's post, by the end of it I had a pretty strong feeling that he was being unwise (and somewhat cruel) in the way he carried his side of the exchange. Taunting the mentally ill (and intentionally encouraging their delusions) just to eke out a bit more "purple prose" is a bit mean at best, and could be quite damaging to them at worst. I suppose you might take issue with the word "crazy" generally (that's fair); but the real point is that there can be real-life consequences to pressing the buttons of the mentally-ill that can be way out of whack with your actual interaction -- e.g., with a more balanced person an internet argument is a minor diversion and possibly an annoyance. With a mentally-ill person it could be the same, or you might set them back months in therapy, or they could commit suicide, or they could harm others. Have we really reached the point where we are calculating the likelihood of "sav[ing] someone by argument" vs. the risk of civil liability? Option one is futile waste of time; option two involves real-life permanent damage (first to the ill person, incidentally to you) -- basically, don't wade into an exchange that will be (1) and best and (2) at worst.

code_duck 13y ago

I agree. The best response to this nonsense would have been to not respond.