Do you think the YouTube algorithm affects search results?
Do you think what creators you’ve watched before affects which search results you click on?
I didn’t say that. You’re dropping the context.
If someone has heavy redpill exposure, and then they see a mild redpill channel, might they mistake it for neutral?
Hm.
I don’t think I agree. Gonna break this down in more detail to identify disagreements.
Yes, I do have that premise.
No, I think I knew it was controversial. My impression was that @anonymous45 would probably disagree with my premise. But I thought that my premise was true regardless of anon45’s opinion.
Also I was unsure if anon45 would consciously/openly disagree or not — I thought he might initially agree with it because he thinks of himself as mostly egalitarian, and then realize he should have disagreed by the time he reached my conclusion and didn’t like it.
I thought that if this happened, it would just happen inside of his head. But that might still be useful or informative for him.
I’m not sure about this. Maybe so? Maybe not.
I think that if you state your premise clearly, and especially as a question asking if someone agrees, then that doesn’t seem like begging the question to me. Even if you proceed from there assuming they agreed and build an argument that uses that premise. It doesn’t seem like the begging the question fallacy to me because it isn’t manipulative or sneaky the way (I think) the fallacy is.
If they disagree with the offered premise, they can just say so, and then the rest of the argument I made gets struck-through automatically. We can back up to the premise instead. It’s up to them. I put out more argument than necessary, but it’s optional.
Also sometimes it can be fun to accept a premise offered like that temporarily. Anon45 could say “I don’t agree with your premise, but even if I did, here is another flaw in your logic…” and that would be useful to me as someone who does agree with my premise.
I dunno. This seems meaningfully different from begging the question to me, but maybe it technically is. I’m open to that possibility.
So the passage was:
When you say “right?” (twice) I read you as expecting agreement. When you continue with “Which means” I read you as moving on and building on the premise that you expected agreement for. If you expect disagreement, why continue like that?
Some of what you’re doing reads as trying to use anon45’s own premises and take them to their logical conclusions. But that doesn’t work if you’re partly using premises he disagrees with.
You didn’t clearly state them as your premises. If you laid it out like here are my 3 premises, and here is my conclusion, where do you disagree? that’d be fine even with disputed premises. But I didn’t read your passage that way.
I don’t really know. Probably? Depending on how many results there are maybe? But also YT search is really bad, including for finding stuff I’ve already watched.
I note that search for the same thing twice brings up different results. So I am not even sure how I’d test whether search results are dependent on my view/click history.
Do you think what creators you’ve watched before affects which search results you click on?
Sometimes, sure. Often with a search like this I will open all of the top few search results in a new tab, in which case no (putting aside any algorithm bias in the search results).
Doesn’t your test answer the question? You searched twice and got different results. The algorithm is customizing/personalizing the results for you, e.g. taking into account things like what thumbnails you’ve passed over before.
In general, the information you find on the internet is biased by default. Algorithms and echo chambers are the default. Neutrality and diverse ideas require active effort and good strategies.
It was in an incognito window. I forgot to mention that. I had it in an earlier draft which I thought might be defensive and so rewrote it. That still doesn’t address some customization, though. I tried again in a different browser just now, new incognito window, and got different results again. Based on all that, I think it’s inconclusive. There could just be randomness built into the results. Or there could be different search algorithms on the back end that YT is A/B testing.
Yeah I see what you mean. I think I will return to this comment in my last post:
I think the first “right?” here:
I thought there was a high chance he might initially accept that.
I didn’t think he truly believed it, but I thought he would accept it anyway. I’m pretty sure I did not think at the time that he would openly/explicitly admit to being a misogynist who thinks men and women are so different they should use totally different standards and metrics. His guideline being that she ought to have the same or less “body count” than his felt like an example of him trying to present a roughly egalitarian front (without really thinking through details too much). That is a notably more lenient view than typical misogynist redpillers who would specifically demand a much lower body count and apply an openly asymmetrical guideline.
So I think I had decent reasons for my guess, it wasn’t just assuming my premise would never be controversial. So I still disagree with:
I did recognize it could be controversial in some contexts but I thought I had roughly judged where anon45 was at.
But if I was wrong there then that was a misstep and might be what makes this begging the question?
One more clarification:
I did not really expect agreement with this “right?” at all.
If anything maybe a good criticism of me here is that I was being a bit of a smartass and not as direct as I could have been. I figured he would get to that part and even if he had previously accepted my premise and agreed w/ first “right?” he would not like this conclusion and maybe want to backpedal.
It was less expecting agreement and more like a rhetorical flourish after I finished my argument. Something like that.
Yeah I think this is fair. I think most of my comments above agree with this take.
Yeah, true.
YouTube tries really hard to improve clickthrough rates, watchtime, etc., using algorithms that influence what sort of experiences different people have on the site.
You come off as biased: arguing any point for your side, even bad points, which makes conversations slow to accomplish much.
You have a (potentially controversial) premise here that the statement
men and women are so different they should use totally different standards and metrics
is misogynist.
You also may be exaggerating: he didn’t say “totally different” standards and might believe that men and women should be judged using the same standards for the majority of issues.
It could be some other error. I usually have a much stronger opinion that something is an error than which error it is or what caused it.
Sure.
Gotcha.
I think it’s clear I was at minimum mistaken in how I thought anon45 would react to what I said. So that’s an error, whether or not it’s technically begging the question or some other error.
Yeah, I think I was exaggerating there.
I agree that whether or not doing so would be misogynist is potentially controversial.
I’m not sure that being controversial in that way is necessarily bad. May need to think about it more. Intuitively I think it is okay to say stuff that may be controversial as long as you’re
A) Prepared to defend it if challenged.
and/or
B) Okay with offending the kinds of people who may be offended by its controversy.
My instinct is that not all controversies are equivalent, and not all people need to be handled delicately around possible controversy. Something like that.
If you assume something is misogynist, that’s problematic and offensive when talking with someone who you know may believe it but deny being a misogynist.
I did not think at the time that he would openly/explicitly admit to being a misogynist who thinks men and women are so different they should use totally different standards and metrics.
You were talking about what he would admit to then blurring together the claim (the genders differ) and an evaluation of the claim (misogyny) like he would admit to that bundle (claim plus that evaluation).
I see it differently. If someone was actually stoic, then they could have a breakup conversation. They wouldn’t be afraid of it. If they’re too insecure and anxious, or otherwise unable to deal with emotionally charged discussions, so they avoid them, that sounds to me like they’re bad at stoicism (viewing it as a skill) or have a low amount of stoicism (viewing it as a trait).
Your premises include that empathy, loyalty, listening and cooperation are masculine traits.
Did you recognize these claims as controversial and deal with them appropriately? Mostly, no. After giving controversial claims, you moved on to the conclusion that “plenty of … masculine traits … are good for relationships” along with the contradictory claim that the traits are neither good nor bad: “It’s not so much the traits that are the problem but how we use them.”
You did recognize one potential point of controversy and try to address it instead of assuming agreement:
Your way of arguing for a controversial claim here (men are better listeners) was to beg a different question by bringing up and assuming the truth of a different controversial idea: that men are more calm and rational than women.
My suggestion would be a debate tree.
Hm. I think I see what you mean, but I’m not sure I see it as problematic.
I think at this point I have made it clear that I see him as a misogynist. I know he disagrees. I think that’s okay, we can disagree about that.
But it’s unclear to me exactly how much I should respect his feelings in this regard. Particularly when I’m describing a specific belief that I see as misogynist. Should I actively avoid saying that I think he is a misogynist?
I see how it could be nicer to not be characterized in that way. I guess I’m just not sure what level of niceness is appropriate.
Okay, yeah, this specific point makes a lot of sense.
I can see that calling him misogynist in that specific way is more unfair. It’s like putting words in his mouth in a way, implying that by admitting to one thing he would also be admitting to being a misogynist. I think this is worse than just bluntly saying I think he’s a misogynist.
Is that supposed to be better or to be an argument against defensiveness, argumentativeness or bias?
I think you’re right about what the factual presence of a stoic skill/trait looks like. That’s a good point. (Edit: and I think @anonymous45 made a similar point earlier, criticizing my characterization)
Although I did say “liking stoicism” rather than “being stoic” — “liking stoicism” could involve the stuff I described. But it would be a case of a man liking stoicism, being bad at stoicism, and then pretending.
So yeah, I think I wasn’t really describing a stoic man. I was describing what I view as a fairly common masculine archetype, which is the man who thinks he is stoic and purports to like stoicism…. but is actually fragile and insecure. So he takes some steps to try to be performatively stoic, like avoiding emotional discussions so it is easier to pretend to be unemotional.
I think that kind of man exists and is quite common, but it is a distinct thing from actually being stoic. I conflated them.
I’m guessing what’s confusing is that he doesn’t know what sort of queer relationship dynamics exist. Although the specific type of queerness isn’t relevant, this would be confusing for someone who wasn’t familiar with any types of queerness that would work as examples.
Why are you spreading anti-vax stuff here? Have you researched it and think that study is good?
And do you see the problem with bringing up a different topic, which is highly controversial, and how that can be distracting and derailing? Did you think the anti-vax example was especially good and important? Are you unaware of how most people perceive it? Did you think this was really necessary?
Do you see how actually debating this would be a huge, separate topic, so bringing it up in passing won’t be effective?
Aren’t you over-generalizing? If not, that’s quite a claim and you ought to lead with your proof instead of just asserting it. Are you failing to recognize how controversial your claims are and expecting people to just accept unsourced assertions of research misconduct leveled at an opposing political faction as a whole?
More bold claims about big topics, brought up in passing despite controversy.
Are you tilted?
I think it’s interesting enough to merit discussion and worked for the analogy.
Not independently, but the study itself is simple so I think it’s good enough.
That said, yeah I see the problem with bringing up another topic that is probably controversial. Well, the multiple problems.
I don’t think I’m overgeneralizing there. I think lots of actual scientists had bad-faith arguments and anti-science ideas, and I think TRAs are individually comparable to worse than most scientists on such matters.
I can see how it’d be controversial, though. Well, outside of CF at least, since there’s some acknowledgement of the sorry state of science here.
Yeah. I was.