My impression of the end of the Correntin discussion, without rereading, is he would give a reason for leaving, I’d point out why it’s false or bad, and then he’d give a different reason, which I’d also criticize, and then he’d just switch to a new reason. It was a succession of novel reasons, that could not stand up to criticism, introduced at the end. (A couple were things he’d mentioned previously, but had not made a big deal about, said were dealbreakers or focused the discussion – or else they would have been addressed more earlier. Bringing them up as discussion-enders is a new, different thing than the previous mentions.)
I think that means the reasons he gave were excuses, often made carelessly and ad hoc, never his real reasons.
The part that stood out to the most was when he said basically “OK I was lying to you and hiding my real reason, which is that I found some dirt on you by searching for you on Less Wrong”. But then when I responded to that, he dropped it and said something else and still left, so I think he was lying there too. I think it’s really bad to say you’re coming clean and finally being honest about what’s really going on, but to actually just be lying again and using your confession as just another manipulative tactic.
I’ve had similar issues with other people. I think what they want is sanction. They want me to “agree to disagree” or otherwise give them my approval, rather than think “you’re welcome to leave but I’m going to consider you irrational and closed to debate, just like ~everyone else with your beliefs”. So the point isn’t that they are particularly bad (they aren’t!); it’s just that if they won’t talk and they don’t know of anyone else on their side who will, then their side looks bad/irrational (due to actually being bad/irrational) – there is a real problem there which is why I will reach a negative judgment.
People seem to want a way out without a negative judgment for them or their side/cause, and they’ll behave badly trying (ineffectively and counter-productively) to get it (e.g. they’ll be dishonest instead of just directly talking about the problem, so then I end up arguing with them instead of helping with problem solving – it’s really hard to help someone with a problem they won’t admit to having). Also basically I think some negative judgment is deserved – not relative to other people or causes, but in absolute or objective terms. If they deserve a negative judgment in reality but don’t want it, then it leads to evasion…
Aubrey de Grey almost ended our discussion early on like many prestigious, “busy” “intellectuals” would. But I said something like, loosely and from memory, “It’s no problem if you don’t have time to talk to me personally. Can you just direct me to anything to read, or anyone to talk to, so I can find out why you’re right?” And since he had no texts or people that argued his beliefs well, he then ended up talking to me a large amount instead…
That says something good about Aubrey de Grey btw (which I mention because I formed a very negative view of him due to his sex scandal, his response to it, and some other reasons like at that time I found out more stuff about what he’d been doing for the last decade like getting drunk a lot…). Most people will just say “just go to a library” or “go to google scholar” or something dumb instead of recommending any specific sources. Then if I do that and have lots of criticism of what I find, they can just say I found the wrong things and take no responsibility for it because they never endorsed anything in particular. Or they can say that those criticisms obviously were already thought of by the smart people working in the field and they’re answered in unspecified other texts. Or they can say those criticisms seem weak not strong – the quantities in weighted factor evaluations are basically arbitrary/subjective so people can just ignore any criticism they want to and say it’s a small negative, and the good stuff for their side is big, so their side is still winning even if they offer no rebuttal.