Yup! That totally makes sense (the stuff in the link) and the thing about the coins.
Also not what I’m trying to talk about here.
I’m not interested in sharing posteriors. I’m interested in sharing the methods for which people arrive at their posteriors (this is what Double Crux is all about).
So in the fair/unfair coin example in the link, the way I’d “change your mind” about whether a coin flip was fair would be to ask, “You seem to think the coin has a 39% chance of being unfair. What would change your mind about that?”
If the answer is, “Well it depends on what happens when the coin is flipped.” And let’s say this is also a Double Crux for me.
At this point we’d have to start sharing our evidence or gathering more evidence to actually resolve the disagreement. And once we did, we’d both converge towards one truth.
(I had a mathy argument here, pointing to this post as a motivation for exchanging ideas instead of changing minds. It had an error, so retracted.)
Yup! That totally makes sense (the stuff in the link) and the thing about the coins.
Also not what I’m trying to talk about here.
I’m not interested in sharing posteriors. I’m interested in sharing the methods for which people arrive at their posteriors (this is what Double Crux is all about).
So in the fair/unfair coin example in the link, the way I’d “change your mind” about whether a coin flip was fair would be to ask, “You seem to think the coin has a 39% chance of being unfair. What would change your mind about that?”
If the answer is, “Well it depends on what happens when the coin is flipped.” And let’s say this is also a Double Crux for me.
At this point we’d have to start sharing our evidence or gathering more evidence to actually resolve the disagreement. And once we did, we’d both converge towards one truth.