I disagree that, 50 yrs ago, Robin's point that laid/paid inequalities have parallels would lead to hate mobs yelling "hurr...bad man says make me screw losers...he loser...he evil...hate!!!" And I disagree that every academic should be a diplomat. Consideration is anti-truth.
-
-
Replying to @patrissimo @robinhanson
50 years ago we didn't have Twitter. But we certainly did have people reacting strongly to tactlessness. And no, consideration is not 'anti-truth'; it's part of being able to express oneself clearly.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @shotscarecrow @robinhanson
Our flawed human brains cannot consider "how will this be received" without contaminating our evaluation of "what is true?" Truth is monogamous, it permits no other considerations.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @patrissimo @robinhanson
That is, frankly, an asinine approach. Truth can only be expressed in language and language is inherently a matter of "how will this be received". You cannot separate the two.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @shotscarecrow @robinhanson
That's like saying that pizza and love are the same, because we talk about them both with words. I'm sorry that you are so lost in the world of spin that you find it incomprehensible that language could be used to describe a search for objective truth.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @patrissimo @robinhanson
I'm sorry, but that is a completely idiotic reply that doesn't grapple with what I said at all. Of course you can use language as part of a search for truth. But you can't communicate any truth without regard to how your words will be understood.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @shotscarecrow @robinhanson
You can communicate with a focus on logical meaning, rather than being hamstrung by working around associational thinking. Avoiding triggers & misinterpretation takes many more words, and is sometimes impossible (ie subjects taboo to even mention)
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @patrissimo @robinhanson
If you haven't avoided misinterpretation then you've failed. It doesn't matter how 'logical' you think you are - you have not communicated what you meant to communicate. Complaining that it takes 'many more words' is basically complaining that communication is hard.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
And no subject is so 'taboo' that skilled and considerate writers can't find a way to address it with the appropriate tone. All you're doing here is making excuses for bad writing by citing purity of intent.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @shotscarecrow @robinhanson
"Appropriate tone" and "consideration" not only take time and special skills, but are antithetical to the search for truth. A mind focused on "what will people think" cannot focus on "what is true". If you want to understand this, read a lot more
@ESYudkowsky4 replies 7 retweets 51 likes
I appreciate what you've done Robin, you've inspired people to think. And I think as someone who is an Incel, you've inspired me to want to speak out about the more positive side of our movement.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.