From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Sep 19 2002 - 21:02:58 MDT
Amara writes
> [Eliezer writes]
> >Could someone please give a totally rational, totally abstract
> >analysis of what they see wrong with Lee, without anger,
>
> I'll try. I don't know if I will succeed though.
>
> 1) Manipulation.
> We saw a description of Lee as a chess player, but manipulating the
> chess pieces. I might call the manipulation more similar to a puppet
> master.
This is about the fourth allusion to the fact that for many
years I was a serious chess player, and this trait has been
raised in a manner that might suggest chess players as a
race are *calculating*, "game playing", or manipulating.
This, of course, is quite untrue. Chess players are exactly
like everyone else, except for being nerds (like a lot of
people here).
Here arises the notion, again, that somehow I'm *manipulating*
people when entering into on-line discussions with them. This
accusation is absurd; utilizing exactly what mesmerizing powers
is it conceivable that anything like this ever happens?
I'm asking seriously: does anyone know from other mailing
lists (my own experience is quite narrow) or from net-lore
at large how it comes to be that debaters learn how to
*manipulate* others?
> 2) Pre-judgement of a person's position and/or character.
> ('pigeon-holing') The person is given very little space
> to respond,
Taken literally, this is laughable; the limit to post-size
is enormous, and eight opportunities a day *ought* to
satisfy people
> very little space to show that their position is
> something entirely different, even if they are
> willing to explain themselves, which of course,
> most people are not (why should they?)
While I don't understand how this could occur either,
I think that we have here an allusion to my sometime
practice of asking questions, but then taking the time in
the same post to supply three or four possible answers.
What in the world is wrong with that? It's the easiest
thing in the world to write "My explanation is a little
different, from all your hypotheses; I think that...",
or even the blunt "No. The real reason is..."
Amara asks "why should [people] explain themselves?"
when their position is different. Well, you'll note
that people are all the time asking each other for
explanations of their positions, and besides, it's
the intellectually honest thing to do (time permitting).
> 3) Sitting on buttons.
> Every person has knots in their psyche, caused by a
> spectrum of experiences, sometimes it is where something
> occurred in their past creating a scar, on the other end
> of the spectrum...
> It looks to me that Lee easily finds those buttons
> in people and sits on them. The person is either
> backed in the corner, squirming and backed in a corner...
If you've experienced this, then it's just in your
own mind. Evidently I argued in such a way that
something you were quite sure of was revealed to
be less defensible than you thought---
well, that's tough! That's what happens when ideas
are vigorously debated. I'm sorry.
> sometimes it is a position that one has analyzed to death
> and not even worth going over anymore, so rather than a
> knot, call it a slippery patch of ice.
Yes, here I truly am sorry about that, and wish that
you'd post a list of topics that no one should ask
you about or allude to when commenting on your posts.
I was only vaguely aware that you had talked on this
list in the past a lot about Bayesian statistics, and
you rightly ignored my question last week. If
something is not worth going over any more, then
can't you just say that you're exhausted on that
topic?
> Or maybe these knots are something that one has not
> succeeded to find words to describe yet, so they need
> more time to look at it themselves.
Well then, admit it! That's all you have to do!
You could say, "Hmm, I still think that you're
wrong about that, but I'll have to get back to
you", or, "this position is very difficult to
articulate---the concepts are *so* slippery.
Accept my thanks for pointing out the difficulty,
and my apologies for not having a ready answer."
Now if you have announced yourself as an *authority* on
some subject, however, then such admissions *could* be
painful, I suppose. But it's better sooner than later,
I say.
> In any case, a person usually has emotions are attached to these buttons.
Yes, but what are the *appropriate* emotions? I'll tell you
mine: suppose I've just discoursed on a favorite topic
echoing a position that I've held for years. I'll tell
you right now it *is* painful when someone points out a flaw,
or even manages to make it appear that there is a flaw. I do
feel a little put upon. BUT! It stops right there. I do *not*
begin to imagine that this person is out to get me.
The healthier emotion is a sort of (perhaps rueful) appreciation
that he or she has found a possible loophole in one's thought.
I *do* often achieve this. I think that there are people on
this list that could confirm that sometimes I've thanked them
for spotting a flaw in my thinking. I'm sure that you too
have expressed appreciation for cogent criticism.
Now let's take the worst case scenario (no criticism of
what Amara said in what follows). Suppose, to be fanciful,
that it were possible to hire a "hit man". One finds on
the internet somewhere an incredibly knowledgeable group
of people who will pretend to be a single brilliant person
and you can hire them to intellecutally humiliate someone
who bugs you.
This sinister group studies each and every post submitted
by the intended victim, and finds things in it wrong or
questionable. I admit that if this happened to me, I would
say to myself, "why is this guy always after *me*?; I don't
see him brilliantly exposing EVERY SINGLE WEAKNESS in
anyone else's posts!". Especially, if there were always
embedded a put-down small or large.
(Of course this is *NOT* the present situation. I'm not
brilliant and obviously not just one person is my "target".)
Well, even so, I hope that I could learn a great deal by
studying those responses, were I the victim of this effort.
Over time, presumably, my beliefs would be strengthened
immensely (painful as it might be). And when I do get
upset, I could go have a talk with myself and wonder if
I'm really after the truth, or just after *appearing*
wise, smart, and knowledgeable.
Meanwhile, would it be a blow to my self-esteem? Probably.
But one also has to learn the limitations of one's own
mastery of some area in any case. And years later, were
I to learn the truth, I might even be grateful.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:10 MST