I don’t think lw dialogues match how I think, which is in nested bullet points. I sense from how often I see thinking displayed in this nested bullet point way (AI impacts, Kialo, Rootclaim) that many feel similarly.
Why does it having a productivity problem mean it doesn’t have a housing problem? Seems like you want to say housing will not fix its productivity problem? (And that is a bigger problem, thus housing is not the biggest?)
What’s the desired outcome of this debate? Are you looking for cruxes (axioms or modeling choices that lead to the disagreement, separate from resolvable empirical measurements that you don’t disagree on)? Are you hoping to update your own beliefs, or to convince your partner (or readers) to update theirs?
I do not necessarily endorse my comments in this piece.
That’s likely to need some explanation about why it’s valuable to put such comments on LessWrong. It’s fine to put non-endorsed views here, but they should be labeled as to why they’re worth mentioning. Putting misleading or known-suspect arguments-as-soldiers on LW, especially mixed in with things you DO support, is a mistake.
COMMENT THREAD
If you comment anywhere other than here, Nathan will delete your comment.
why this, rather than lw dialogues?
I don’t think lw dialogues match how I think, which is in nested bullet points. I sense from how often I see thinking displayed in this nested bullet point way (AI impacts, Kialo, Rootclaim) that many feel similarly.
Why does it having a productivity problem mean it doesn’t have a housing problem? Seems like you want to say housing will not fix its productivity problem? (And that is a bigger problem, thus housing is not the biggest?)
I guess, why is it a problem.
What’s the desired outcome of this debate? Are you looking for cruxes (axioms or modeling choices that lead to the disagreement, separate from resolvable empirical measurements that you don’t disagree on)? Are you hoping to update your own beliefs, or to convince your partner (or readers) to update theirs?
That’s likely to need some explanation about why it’s valuable to put such comments on LessWrong. It’s fine to put non-endorsed views here, but they should be labeled as to why they’re worth mentioning. Putting misleading or known-suspect arguments-as-soldiers on LW, especially mixed in with things you DO support, is a mistake.
I want to try this as a way of argument mapping alongside a community that might use it.
It seems likely that a proper accounting of the argumetns may involve some false statements.
If it goes well I think it could be useful to me and readers, but I guess it will take several iterations.