[matthudson]

> "I would recommend against having dealings with the obviously mentally ill. I'm not sure in what sense you might be legally liable (for a civil suit) if they happened to commit suicide a week later and mentioned you in the note. ... Leave the clearly crazy to the professionals."

> "Though if this is your first real crazy caller I could understand where the fascination came from. ... It took me a while to get that this was not someone I could save by argument."

Here's a bit of Hacker News "empathy" that I find fascinating. Likely in the same sense that you find the mentally ill fascinating.

The comment reads like some kind of bizzaro water-cooler advice on how to deal with that neighborhood "crazy caller" problem. Like when someone commiserates with Jane from accounting when she tells them she's worried because she can't keep the neighborhood kids out of the family pool.

On the surface, it's empathetic: "If this is your first... I can understand..." In fact, the comment does (correctly) assert that professionals are better inclined to help the mentally ill than the lay-person. But underneath, the comment reeks of an unseemly attitude that suggests the mentally ill are a burden to be cast aside at all costs (with the requisite sigh).

Perhaps it's a bit unfair of me to parse out those bits of your comment and infer so much. But, seriously?

Have we really reached the point where we are calculating the likelihood of "sav[ing] someone by argument" vs. the risk of civil liability?

Are these people merely objects of amusement and fascination?

I wish I were a better writer, so I could flesh out exactly why your comment bothers me. I think it has something to do with the clinically detached tone and the casual implication that the mentally ill are at best a passing amusement; and, at worst, a liability to be avoided.

Maybe I just need to take a break. I must be misunderstanding your comment.

[jtheory]

I think you're arguing with the tone, but not the advice -- reading gwern's post, by the end of it I had a pretty strong feeling that he was being unwise (and somewhat cruel) in the way he carried his side of the exchange. Taunting the mentally ill (and intentionally encouraging their delusions) just to eke out a bit more "purple prose" is a bit mean at best, and could be quite damaging to them at worst.

I suppose you might take issue with the word "crazy" generally (that's fair); but the real point is that there can be real-life consequences to pressing the buttons of the mentally-ill that can be way out of whack with your actual interaction -- e.g., with a more balanced person an internet argument is a minor diversion and possibly an annoyance. With a mentally-ill person it could be the same, or you might set them back months in therapy, or they could commit suicide, or they could harm others.

Have we really reached the point where we are calculating the likelihood of "sav[ing] someone by argument" vs. the risk of civil liability?

Option one is futile waste of time; option two involves real-life permanent damage (first to the ill person, incidentally to you) -- basically, don't wade into an exchange that will be (1) and best and (2) at worst.

[matthudson]

A large portion of my comment was a response to the tone. I shouldn't have done that.

Something about the original comment really bothered me. And I can't quite put my finger on it. I'm not a good enough writer to flesh out what bothered me without responding to the tone.

I do feel pretty strongly that it's wrong to casually talk about mentally ill people as objects of fascination. And then to advise against engaging them because it might be a liability to yourself, as if that's the only concern. e.g.: "...[if they happen] to commit suicide a week later and mention you in the note."

I think I'm perceiving a lack of empathy in the linked article and the top comment. Or something. I think I just need to stop commenting.

[jtheory]

No worries, I agree with your comment on the tone -- it does come across as cold-blooded to even think as far as lawsuits when "you might induce someone to commit suicide" is a possibility.

Just saying "someone might be unstable enough to harm themselves or others" is more than enough for most people, I hope...

I think the tone comes from the reality of so many unstable people wandering around the internet, some of them extremely obnoxious. How far does basic empathy go in the face of delusional extortionists, hate-spewing bigots, etc.? ...but still, falling back to "I should avoid doing evil even to evil-seeming people" is better than some of the alternatives.

[selmnoo]

At least the saving/helping part is existent in his calculation of actions. A lot of people, most notably the ultrarich like the Zuckerbergs, would think it's not even worth their time to deal with "crazy people".

But anyway, I didn't think Eliezer's comment seemed especially objectionable. Life is all about making compromises and finding the right balance. Looking out for yourself can be, and should be a part of the process when you're deciding to help out something. If only for the chance to save the next person after you save the first one. :)

Whereas you were, I don't know, shocked by Eliezer's cavalier attitude, I was touched that he at least tries to reason with people who can be reasoned with. I do think you should take a little bit of break. :) Be well, and take care!

[matthudson]

I've thought about it, one part of what "shocked" me about it was the hubris inherent in the statement: "...someone I could save by argument.". As though those that cannot be "saved" are merely a passing fascination, not to be bothered with for fear of liability.

I wasn't "shocked" by the way. However, I was largely responding to the tone- which I shouldn't have done.

>"...most notably the ultrarich like the Zuckerbergs, would think it's not even worth their time to deal with 'crazy people'"

I don't know the Zuckerbergs nor any other ultrarich people, so I suppose we'll have to take your word for it.

> "Life is all about making compromises and finding the right balance. Looking out for yourself can be, and should be a part of the process when you're deciding to help out something."

I mostly agree with this.

I want to make it clear that I was responding to the attitude I saw in the comment (or at least what I perceived to be the attitude) that the mentally ill are objects of fascination until they expose you to civil liability.

I think a bit more empathy is in order.

> "I do think you should take a little bit of break. :) Be well, and take care!"

Yeah, I think I'm done commenting on Hacker News. Take care, as well.

[Anderkent]

>I've thought about it, one part of what "shocked" me about it was the hubris inherent in the statement: "...someone I could save by argument.". As though those that cannot be "saved" are merely a passing fascination, not to be bothered with for fear of liability.

I read a completely different meaning from that statement. "not someone I could save _by argument_". I.e. no point arguing, even though there might be other ways to help them.

[tekromancr]

"If someone has a false belief but is otherwise logical, for example someone with different political opinions that they merely haven't thought about, then it might make some sense to enter into a debate. After all, at least one of you must be wrong, otherwise you would agree. But in a situation where someone's false beliefs are a result of mental illness, delusions, no amount of arguing will bring their worldview to a place that could be considered consistent with what is commonly known about objective reality."

At least, that's how that sentience unpacked into my brain.