
Do I Offend? - jseliger
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/12/do-i-offend.html
======
hjek
I didn't get the context, so I had to look it up:

> What fraction of women assaulted by a nominee for Supreme Court in high
> school would wait to publicly accuse him not just 30 yrs, but after Congress
> hearings & just before Congress vote?[0]

And then the author claims that the poll is "neutral"? However, there are
biased ways of asking questions.[1] A poll about the Kavanaugh hearing could
also ask "What fraction of rapists are convicted?" and that would carry a
different political meaning.

[0]:
[https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1041743505507405824?r...](https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1041743505507405824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss#/media/File:Stimmzet...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss#/media/File:Stimmzettel-
Anschluss.jpg)

~~~
mikekchar
It took me a ridiculously long time to even parse this question. "What
fraction of women assaulted by a nominee for Supreme Court in high school..."
I got to this bit and thought, "How many women are assaulted by a nominee for
Supreme Court in high school? It can't be that many. Is it even reasonable to
ask for a fraction? Is it meaningful?" I mean it's ludicrous to put up a "<1%"
option as it implies that there were more than 100 women assaulted by a
nominee for the Supreme Court in high school. Is that option justifiable? I
find it really interesting that 65% of the respondents selected it, because it
implies to me that they didn't understand the question.

And then "would wait to publicly accuse him not just [after?] 30 yrs" So I
thought, "How many nominees for Supreme Court are in high school? If I'm going
to publicly accuse a nominee for Supreme Court for assaulting me in high
school (assuming we were both in high school at the time), don't I _have_ to
wait 30 years? Otherwise I'll never know they were a nominee for the Supreme
Court." \-- which is a weird way of thinking about it. This word "wait" is
particularly problematic. You can't know a priori that the attacker will be a
nominee for the Supreme Court, so you can't really wait to accuse them on that
basis. The best you can really say is "After not accusing their attacker for
30 years, would they accuse them after they were nominated to the supreme
court?" (which might be an interesting question to ask)

The last part "but after Congress hearings & just before Congress vote" didn't
make grammatical sense to me. Granted I know _nothing_ about the original
context of the question, but presumably the hearing and vote are related to
the appointment of the nominee. So I suppose the question the author wanted to
ask is, would the accuser wait until after the hearings, but before the vote?
However, this is really compressing the options. There are really 5 potential
times to accuse the attacker: some time after the attack but before the
nomination, between the nomination and the vote, after the vote, and never.
Surely a much better question to ask would be "Which of these potential
timings seems more likely to occur to you".

This question is so badly written that I have a _really_ hard time believing
that it was written by someone who makes their living doing statistical
analysis about people's perceptions. I've read the author's comment on it, but
if they are defending _this_ question (and I'm not 100% sure that they are),
then I don't really think I need to look at their larger corpus. I think I can
happily conclude that if they are not just trying to be a shit disturber then
they are incredibly incompetent. I'm not sure which of the two labels they
would rather be stuck with.

~~~
hjek
> This word "wait" is particularly problematic. You can't know a priori that
> the attacker will be a nominee for the Supreme Court, so you can't really
> wait to accuse them on that basis.

Great analysis of (the absurdity of) that poll question. I was just commenting
that it is _possible_ for a question to be biased, so to I really appreciate
this detailed breakdown of it, particularly of that seemingly innocuous word
"wait".

------
hombre_fatal
> Long ago when I had two young kids, they would sometimes pick fights, for
> example on long car trips. One might start singing, to which the other would
> complain. We might agree that singing is too much for such a small space.
> Then the first might start to quietly hum, which we might decide is okay.
> Then first might hum more loudly and triumphantly, while the second might
> writhe, cover their ears, and make a dramatic display of suffering.

I love this example of bad faith complaining.

There's something grotesque about adults doing this in internet comments. Like
watching a grown man wear a diaper.

~~~
perfmode
The offended child is really complaining about the subtle and escalating
transgression of the humming child.

> Then the first might start to quietly hum, which we might decide is okay.
> Then first might hum more loudly and triumphantly

The humming child scores low on the scale of interpersonal justice.

Framing the offended child’s suffering as bad faith is, in a Wittgensteinian
sense, to misunderstand their use of language. They aren’t playing the
language game of the observer passing judgement.

The observer is failing to steel-man the position of the aggrieved and instead
chooses to focus on an apparent and ostensible fault.

~~~
will4274
> the subtle and escalating transgression of the humming child

Is humming a "transgression"? Music is typically considered entertainment. Why
can't the other child put on head phones, hum a different song, or look out
the window?

It's exactly this phenomenon that OP is addressing. A fairly common behavior
(humming to oneself) is portrayed as a "transgression" and you go so far as to
say it is unjust, just because somebody else happens to not like it.

You've thrown the authors framing, that certain actions are inherently
annoying and unacceptable (singing loudly in a small space) while others are
generally acceptable (humming softly to oneself) out the window.

~~~
ukoki
I read it as both children acting in bad faith.

The hummer acts in bad faith by following the letter, not the spirit of the
law and humming "loudly and triumphantly" in as annoying a manner as possible.

The hummee acts in bad faith by victim-playing — overstating the harm caused
by the hummer and making a "dramatic display of suffering"

------
sudofail
I think most people would agree that having rational, emotionally detached
conversations about complex and sensitive subjects would be beneficial to
society, so in that, I agree with the author. And from his writing, it does
seem his effort to talk about these subjects is done in earnest.

But I think there are a few reasons why this mindset fails in real world
application.

Firstly, the various social justice movements we see in western societies are
all groups that aren’t straight white men. And while one might say that
shouldn’t matter in a logical discussion, the fact is that the life
experiences of these maligned groups are outside the realm of experience of
the author, and of other straight white men. Rational debate depends on high
quality data, and that data is not immediately available unless you live it.
So unless you actively inquire and try to get a deep understanding of what
these groups go through, you’re going to be debating or discussing something
you don’t know a lot about, relatively.

The other issue is that these discussions inherently aren’t rational and
detached from emotion. To the maligned group, this topic is something they
live with every day, and often times have had to endure extreme emotional
trauma. When someone says to them, “let’s just discuss this rationally”, they
rightly often feel very frustrated.

If we want to have honest, good faith discussions on the topic of social
equality, the only solution is for people to earnestly and honestly inform
themselves of the life experiences of the social groups for whom equality has
remained out of reach.

Also note that I’m not trying to target straight white men (I’m a straight
white man too). I think this has more to do with power dynamics. I’m sure
countries like India and China have their own particular historical class of
power that is the target of their own social movements.

~~~
colemickens
_> If we want to have honest, good faith discussions on the topic of social
equality, the only solution is for people to earnestly and honestly inform
themselves of the life experiences of the social groups for whom equality has
remained out of reach._

While I agree with every word you wrote, I don't know how you can maintain
hope in this. Just weeks ago, there was an HN thread, where between the
article and comments there were dozens of stories of women suffering
harassment. And yet still, multiple people here commented to the effect, "No
real women in my life tell me about this stuff, the rest must be hysterical."
I'm paraphrasing, but it's not an unfair characterization.

I see it in the same light as folks that have a completely 100% incorrect
understanding of "[institutional] privilege" and are already at a weird level
of anger by time they enter any conversation about it. They seem to be unable
or unwilling to entertain, let alone accept, evidence contrary to their
closely held beliefs (and there's evidence to back it up).

Meanwhile, the groups that get frustrated at continual, constant
marginalization from those with their heads in the clouds, or try to advocate
for causes and less ignorance, are given three-letter acronym labels which are
used to deride and derail.

And within 5 minutes this reply is swinging +/-4 votes with no replies. How
absolutely utterly depressing.

~~~
sudofail
Hey, I appreciate your response, and share in your sentiment that responses on
this subject can be very depressing. But I do think we as a society are
trending towards equality.

As much as the internet is supposed to connect us, subjects like these can be
very divisive because the internet tends remove the human element from the
discussion. We're much more likely to go on a political rant on Facebook than
we ever would directly to our family, for instance.

This subject requires real human connection. It requires understanding our
fellow citizens and understanding what they go through.

As a personal anecdote, I also used to be homophobic and very ignorant of
racism in America. I feel awful about some of the things I've said. But then I
began working for a company out in San Francisco, and a few of my coworkers
were gay, and a couple people were going through sex reassignment. I became
friends with them, and they shared numerous stories that really helped me see
how uninformed I'd been. Obviously this is my personal experience, but I'm
hopeful that as more and more people feel safe to come out, that the people
around them will have similar experiences as me.

------
otikik
Quick reminder: you'll surely offend some people when telling the truth. But
offending people doesn't prove that what you are saying is true.

~~~
zacherates
Obligatory SMBC: [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-offensive-
truth](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-offensive-truth)

------
jseliger
This is congruent with "What You Can't Say:"
[http://paulgraham.com/say.html](http://paulgraham.com/say.html).

~~~
newer_guy
“When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward
criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially
insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying
attention.”

At one point he reflects on the “high water mark of political correctness
during the early 1990s.” Really funny to read that in 2018. Whether you are a
liberal or not, everyone would agree that political correctness has grown
tremendously since then. Wherher it was for good or bad depends on your
politics. In any case, very interesting to consider.

This essay was very good. Thanks.

~~~
gweinberg
Don't you mean stop paying attention?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
No. The argument is that, when statements are labeled "divisive" rather than
"wrong", that's telling you that there is something that, socially, you're not
allowed to say (which was the topic of the essay that the quote came from).

------
Liron
Here's a smart, honest, careful intellectual who is always striving to elevate
our discourse, and the mob just tries to drag him into the mud with the same
blunt emotional attacks they use on everyone.

Short attention spans, fake outrage, and lazy arguments are the fundamental
problems of contemporary discourse. But Robin Hanson has consistently been one
of the best role models of what high-quality discourse should look like.

------
didibus
Am I the only one who can't find a single argument for why he isn't biased in
the whole article?

He just goes: "Some people say I'm an offensive bad person, which is pushing a
political and moral agenda, with my own biases, but I swear, I am pure facts
and logic, and my reasoning is always neutral, and so I hope we can all move
along and allow me to continue my logical rhetoric."

I was hoping for some facts, counterfacts, examples, logical reasoning, I
don't know, some more concrete demonstration of his good faith, neutrality,
and display of unbiased methodology. Instead I just got a plea to believe his
words.

Did I miss something?

------
DenisM
I wonder what would happen if the blog author stopped reading twitter? He
would never know that someone is real angry someplace out there, nor would he
care very much.

~~~
JBReefer
Isn’t that the only point of twitter? It seems like the 24 hour version of the
2 minutes of hate.

~~~
Zuider
If only Twitter were merely an insubstantial epiphenomenon lacking influence
on the real world, but unfortunately, people can use Twitter as a tool to
destroy those who offend them.

~~~
DenisM
In what way? By telling other twitter users to boycott a twitter non-user?

The only thing I can imagine that will have any effect if some potential
employer misguidedly taking twitter rumors for facts. Is that a thing?

~~~
btrask
How one tweet can ruin your life | Jon Ronson

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI)

~~~
DenisM
When you work in PR, a PR gaffe can get you fired, that comes with the
territory.

If she wasn’t in PR and didn’t log in to Twitter she wouldn’t have any
problems.

So my question is whether you can get serious problem from twitter if you’re
not in PR?

------
perfmode
The author isn’t illogical. They are just not aware or interested in the
broader context of the global issues they are attempting to engage with.

The author would benefit from some time spent investigating from a humanistic
perspective.

~~~
zepto
Are you talking about Hanson? It’s quite obvious, because he describes aspects
of the broader context, that he is aware of it.

In particular, his investigation of the responses to A Star is Born, seems to
be helpful and informative towards the humanistic perspective.

------
grigjd3
Anyone who goes so far out of their way to state that they don't push values
is clearly trying (feebly) to mask their own motivations, perhaps even from
themselves. Perhaps more incriminating is how thuroughly self-referencial this
person's writing it. This person is so engrossed by his perception of himself
as neutral that he doesn't recognize the validity of other people's
experiences.

------
DoreenMichele
I was a full time mom for a lot of years. I absolutely would not have
tolerated one of my kids triumphantly humming louder to intentionally
aggravate the other one. The fact that he thinks there is something wrong with
the other child protesting this makes me think the answer to his question --
_Do I Offend?_ \-- is probably "yes." He probably is pretty offensive at
times. He doesn't really get basic human respect.

Having said that, I have come to the conclusion that we all offend, we all
exclude, we all decide what kind of people we want to associate with and what
kind we want nothing to do with. Then we argue about who is right and where
those boundaries "should" be drawn.

Some people draw those boundaries along racial lines or religious lines or
other fairly arbitrary categories for deciding who is the "right" kind of
person and who is the "wrong" kind of person. Boundaries drawn that way tend
to have a lot of downside to them.

But it's simpler and easier than trying to figure out who is actually
respectful, honorable, kind and decent. That's a much harder question to
answer in a meaningful way and we often need to decide if we trust someone to
some degree under circumstances where, no, we can't reasonably determine the
answers to such questions. So it's really common for people to come up with
some shorthand method for sorting the presumed good apples from the presumed
bad apples so we can try to get through the damn day without wondering if the
guy bagging our groceries is really a serial killer.

I don't think it's actually good policy to use such rubrics. I think the world
needs to sort out some better methodology for coping with social realities in
a world of 7 billion people when our brains evolved to cope with little tribes
and villages of about 150 people.

But I have come to believe that we all, to some degree or another, tend to
promote rules with our own self interest in mind. So I no longer feel like,
_clearly, X is morally superior to Y!_

Just because I'm a big believer in X and I spent years thinking about it
doesn't mean it really is morally superior in some big picture sense. Those
folks who believe in Y may have spent just as much time thinking about it and
may feel just as strongly as I do and we may both be wrong. We may both simply
be promoting something that happens to work for us as individuals while
dressing it up in moral language because that works better for getting buy-in
than admitting "It works for me, so I want it that way to enhance my life."

I'm a woman. Hacker News was perhaps as much as 98 percent male when I joined
under a different handle more than nine years ago. I feel like it has become
more welcoming of women over the years. I feel like I have played some role in
that change.

I think the guys here tolerate me as well as they do because I don't take some
sort of strident moral ("Feminazi") position that I have some kind of _right_
to be here. I am mindful of the fact that there is something of value here and
that thing was mostly built by men. I'm aware that change is a potential
threat to the value that exists and accommodating my presence -- what with me
being some loud-mouthed brassy broad who never managed to learn my "place" in
the world and who, for whatever reason, grew up with the idea that my voice
was as acceptable as any guy's voice, never mind that this is apparently not
what most people on the planet seem to learn -- de facto involves change. I've
worked at trying hard to figure out how to make that work in a way that
doesn't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, so to speak.

When I first joined HN, I was more inclined than I am these days to feel self-
righteous about trying to stand up for myself. I still am willing to take a
stand, but I am much less inclined to feel self-righteous about it.

I'm just a human trying to make my life work. I'm angry, as most anyone would
be, about the ways in which I feel that arbitrary categories, such as my
gender, have undermined and seem to continue to undermine those efforts.

I am a big believer in win-win solutions.

If other people help me make my life work, then that's one less person who
needs food stamps and other forms of welfare. We pay for those people who
don't succeed. Whether they are in prison or standing in line at a soup
kitchen, someone else is paying for them because they can't manage to support
themselves.

But I'm also aware that not all solutions are win-win solutions. Plenty of
them are just redefining the split without growing the proverbial pie. So it
is generally reasonable to be somewhat leery of people advocating for changes
that would lead to them having more pie, because it is possible that they are
just trying to change the rules to get a bigger slice for themselves at the
expense of other people.

The things that have happened to me really stick in my craw precisely because
I'm not looking for a handout. I've consistently tried to figure out how to
develop an earned income of my own. Perhaps people have trouble seeing the
distinction there. Perhaps all they hear is that I want a better life and they
assume I'm asking for a larger slice of the pie rather than asking for the
means to bake more pie for myself.

I'm not very good at writing in some kind of "professional" detached third-
person fashion. I've gotten a lot of feedback over the years that I'm doing it
wrong to speak from firsthand experience and to speak from a first person
point of view based on my life experience. For a long time, I worked at
improving on that. At this point, I'm sort of inclined to feel like such
accusations are really just intended to silence me, not to tell me "There are
better methods for communicating than what you are doing and please get a
clue, you silly person, you."

So the above is _testimony_ as to the problem space as I best understand it,
not me whining about my life and asking for advice. If you give me advice
about how I'm just doing it wrong or you want to tell me that talking about my
life is inherently bad and wrong and unwelcome when it seems fine for other
people to talk about their lives, I'm planning to just ignore such replies.

Happy to engage people about anything of actual substance concerning, say, how
the world draws various boundaries, etc.

------
mattigames
I offend and I try to offend, I try to offend the anti-vaxers, the pedophile
priests, the corrupt politicians, I try to offend anyone who hold ideas or
behaviors that clearly shouldn't be part of society, specially I try to offend
people that long ago decided they don't care for reasoning and not matter how
much proof there is about them being wrong, to be clear I don't mean any kind
of offending but offenses that show how ridiculous or inmoral their stance is
on such matters.

~~~
AlexB138
And how do you manage to identify which ideas shouldn't be part of society? I
can't imagine having the level of self assurance necessary to consider myself
the arbiter of acceptable ideas for all of society, let alone to actually
intentionally agitate people over my chosen results.

It's fascinating.

~~~
PavlovsCat
> _every individual must act as if the whole future of the world, of humanity
> itself, depends on him. Anything less is a shirking of responsibility and is
> itself a dehumanizing force, for anything less encourages the individual to
> look upon himself as a mere actor in a drama written by anonymous agents, as
> less than a whole person, and that is the beginning of passivity and
> aimlessness._

\--Joseph Weizenbaum

~~~
mcguire
“act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time
will that it become a universal law”

Kant

