IMO, many of these pundits can't grok it when they see strong disagreeableness function well within a frame of mutual respect, nor do they possess the kind of systems thinking required to probe their own models rather than assume incoherence when they find themselves confusedhttps://twitter.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1134336441549434881 …
-
Show this thread
-
I've also noticed a lot of easy point-scoring re: picking on the IDW within bubbles that aimed for respect but landed on enforced-agreeableness + ideological purification rituals of varying severity, and AFAICT lack the self-awareness to notice what happened
2 replies 1 retweet 19 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @webdevMason
I have a tendency to discount argument with increasing strength of disagreement, as the strength of certainty appropriate for a strong disagreement requires a degree of rigor - which without evidence of that taken place well strong disagreements are an indicator for unreasonable.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_NicT_
Hmm, IMO there's an important distinction between the axes "appropriate confidence ranges" and "perceived appropriateness of strength/weakness of claim/value." The Overton window affects both, but especially the latter, and it doesn't feel like it ought to be so context-dependent
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
It is possible to have relatively low confidence in a strong claim, and there's a difference between saying "it's probably generally sensible to have lower confidence in stronger claims" and "it's generally sensible to hold weaker claims"
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.