@baldur Interesting disagreement between her and Paul Graham about questioning the motives of someone who is trying to persuade you of something. It seems to me that they’re both right — in different circumstances. I need to think some more about what those circumstances are.
@baldur I think I’ve got it. In a public debate, an ad hominem attack on an opponent’s motives probably means that you haven’t got a good argument on the merits. But when somebody is directly trying to persuade you to behave in a certain way, then it’s a good idea to scrutinize what they’ve got to gain and what their angle is.
@artkavanagh @baldur does this make it a Schrödinger Fallacy, too? The nature and legitimacy of the fallacy depend on the number of observers? ;)
@artkavanagh The problem is that most public discourse is an attempt to persuade or promote a worldview. I’d modify it slightly in that if it’s public writing by a public figure then you need to inspect their role in the public discourse. The motivations of a VC discussing labour regulation automatically makes everything they say suspect, for example.
@kitt @baldur It doesn’t really depend on the number of observers. If somebody is arguing in general terms that a minimum wage at a certain level will make small businesses unsustainable, I’ll be less interested in their motives than in the evidence (if any) that they’re able to adduce. On the other hand, if they’re trying to persuade me personally (say in the presence of 20 onlookers) that I shouldn’t ask for a raise … actually, I’ll still be more interested in the evidence than in their motives (which can probably be assumed). So, yeah, I’m with Paul Graham on this. (He’s an interesting thinker, though I hate much of what he’s done, e.g. AirBnB. He should write more and invest less IMO.)