{"items": [{"author": "Buck", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649802718022", "anchor": "fb-649802718022", "service": "fb", "text": "I really enjoyed Scott's post (as I always do), so I didn't think it was long enough to be rude. But you make a good point about brevity being part of politeness.", "timestamp": "1393282782"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649803107242", "anchor": "fb-649803107242", "service": "fb", "text": "@Buck: I also really enjoy reading Scott's writing, and am happy for him to take as many words as he wants, but I know people interested in the discussion who aren't so interested in 6000+ words (or 100+ comments). Hence, a summary.", "timestamp": "1393283009"}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649803112232", "anchor": "fb-649803112232", "service": "fb", "text": "Sorry about participating in the sidetracking of your post. I am looking forward to more graphs! (Because More Graphs was kind of the point, right?)", "timestamp": "1393283010"}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649803436582", "anchor": "fb-649803436582", "service": "fb", "text": "\"you have to go with Scott's approach when people come to you arguing in good faith, as distasteful as it seems\"
It's difficult for me to imagine someone arguing for, say, genocide in anything I'd call \"good faith\". (I'm thinking now about what constitutes \"good faith\", and in the context of discourse I think part of it is that neither party is absolutely unwilling to change their mind.)", "timestamp": "1393283173"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649804549352", "anchor": "fb-649804549352", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ruthan: at this point more graphs is waiting on me asking Scott for clarification and picking a better comparison group; he backed off his claim an unclear amount: http://www.jefftk.com/.../are-feminist-blog-stats...", "timestamp": "1393283723"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649806705032", "anchor": "fb-649806705032", "service": "fb", "text": "\"The core disagreement: how much do our choices of tactics affect those of our opponents?\"
I don't know what the actual Scott thinks, but this doesn't seem charitable enough toward the abstract 'Scott's side'. If this is really what it's about, then I'm inclined to say Arthur's clearly right and we can just go home. (I guess I could imagine being shown wrong -- not that anyone has brought out any evidence yet -- but my strong intuition is that your actions really don't affect yours opponents' much in cases like this, and I expect most people here have the same intuitions.)
Instead, my reading of 'Scott's side' (which I feel is much stronger, and might be roughly my own view) is that regardless of how our actions affect our opponents, the benefits of promoting anti-lie norms outweigh the costs of not lying, because strong enough norms for rational discourse will help the right side over the long term, in a multitude of different fights.
This probably doesn't work out if you only care about your one particular fight. You only accrue the benefits of the pro-cooperation norms if (a) you're counting over the longterm, and (b) you care about the effect of those norms on all sorts of fights. It also helps if (like Scott, I think) (c) you're willing to acknowledge you could be wrong, and would prefer that being brought to light over winning.
So it seems like the bigger different between Arthur and Scott might be something more like short-term vs. long-term, or this particular fight vs. all fights.", "timestamp": "1393285228"}, {"author": "Paul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649809180072", "anchor": "fb-649809180072", "service": "fb", "text": "I don't like it when people use invalid or deceptive arguments to advocate positions I favor. On one hand, people who recognize the false premises may assume that they lead to false conclusions. On the other hand, it can embolden those who use such tactics in opposition to positions I favor.", "timestamp": "1393286819"}, {"author": "Pablo", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649809190052", "anchor": "fb-649809190052", "service": "fb", "text": "I skimmed Scott's post when it came out, so I might be misremembering or misunderstanding his position, but I'd say that he's making two separate arguments, only one of which is represented in your summary. Scott claims that the costs of undermining the social norm against lying usually exceed the benefits of promoting our preferred cause with lies, and argues that this is so both because (1) that social norm is incredibly valuable and because (2) we are fallible and likely to embrace the wrong cause (sect. V). Your summary focuses on (1), leaving out (2).", "timestamp": "1393286841"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649809294842", "anchor": "fb-649809294842", "service": "fb", "text": "@Pablo: \"Your summary focuses on (1), leaving out (2).\"
Yes. I'm not sure if that was a good idea, but it was intentional. I think (1) is more central to the discussion, but (2) is definitely also important.", "timestamp": "1393286940"}, {"author": "Pablo", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649809314802", "anchor": "fb-649809314802", "service": "fb", "text": "(You do note that your summary \"is definitely not the whole conversation\", so my comment above is not necessarily a criticism of that summary.)", "timestamp": "1393286946"}, {"author": "Patricia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649812318782", "anchor": "fb-649812318782", "service": "fb", "text": "But what if my cause is wrong? What if it's based on empty rhetoric and bad statistics? Or what if my cause is good, but pursuing it based on bad statistics will get bad results?
I'll take good stats, thank you.
On the other hand, I'll point out bad statistics only when I think it will make a difference -- if the purveyor or their audience is going to care and change their behaviour. If not -- it's a waste of my energy. And it doesn't matter if they're on \"my side\" or not.", "timestamp": "1393288850"}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649885641842", "anchor": "fb-649885641842", "service": "fb", "text": "I'm pretty sure I have not read the vast majority of words in this exchange, but I kind of feel like the super meta tl;dr version went:
Scott: Bad statistics are bad.
Arthur: Nobody cares about statistics, do something about injustice.
Scott: Improving the accuracy of claims *is* doing something about injustice.
Arthur: Nobody cares about statistics!", "timestamp": "1393356145"}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649885676772", "anchor": "fb-649885676772", "service": "fb", "text": "Which is to say, as probably other people have already figured out, the pith of the disagreement seems to be about what does/should count as \"doing something\".", "timestamp": "1393356177"}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/649801730002?comment_id=649885931262", "anchor": "fb-649885931262", "service": "fb", "text": "I also feel like Arthur's been attributed as wanting to use a lot of Dark Arts he didn't actually advocate for.", "timestamp": "1393356360"}]}