Given that rationalists estimate the value of public discourse (and also private discourse) higher than almost anyone else, it is certainly plausible that we overestimate it. Given I estimate it higher than most rationalists, it’s even more plausible that I overestimate it. But if anything, I think we underestimate it, and Paul points to some of the reasons why.
Paul is implicitly, I believe, employing a sort of ‘student-teacher’ model of communication; the teacher transmits communication, the student learns it. The customization and lack of politicization in person is about a factor of two better, which then roughly ‘cancels out’ the increased cost. But if that’s true, it’s then pointed out that there are a number of other key advantages to public discourse. Paul’s extra reasons seem super important, especially if we add creation of common knowledge and vocabulary to the last one. He also points out that teacher time is typically more valuable than student time, meaning the cost ratio is more than two, perhaps much more. And time spent writing dwarfs the time each person spends reading, so that further increases the ratio.
So it seems like even if Paul’s estimates are complete and right, we should still default to lots of public discourse?
To that I’d add at least:
Reference (we can cite the past as evidence slash explanation that allows us to build upon it, which is super valuable even when almost no one clicks on the link)
Error correction and feedback (if we do 1-on-1, and we get it wrong, we don’t get to fix mistakes or get help from others), review (we can go back and remind ourselves)
Selection (the best explanations and teachers get used more)
Opportunity (if something is being taught in private, I often won’t even know it’s a thing one could learn, at all)
Learning through writing (I learn a ton from having to write down my ideas robustly)
Better crafted explanations by taking the time to get them right and general
Asynchronous and on demand (I can teach today when I have time, or over two weeks as thoughts come to me, then people can learn when they need to learn and have time, which radically decreases effective cost) which only gets more important as people comment and converse slowly over time.
+1 on “learning through writing,” this factor alone is my main disagreement with Paul’s comment. For most people the biggest low-hanging improvement to their thinking might just be to write it down. Once it’s written down it’s not nearly that much effort to edit enough to post in a public discussion.
Given that rationalists estimate the value of public discourse (and also private discourse) higher than almost anyone else, it is certainly plausible that we overestimate it. Given I estimate it higher than most rationalists, it’s even more plausible that I overestimate it. But if anything, I think we underestimate it, and Paul points to some of the reasons why.
Paul is implicitly, I believe, employing a sort of ‘student-teacher’ model of communication; the teacher transmits communication, the student learns it. The customization and lack of politicization in person is about a factor of two better, which then roughly ‘cancels out’ the increased cost. But if that’s true, it’s then pointed out that there are a number of other key advantages to public discourse. Paul’s extra reasons seem super important, especially if we add creation of common knowledge and vocabulary to the last one. He also points out that teacher time is typically more valuable than student time, meaning the cost ratio is more than two, perhaps much more. And time spent writing dwarfs the time each person spends reading, so that further increases the ratio.
So it seems like even if Paul’s estimates are complete and right, we should still default to lots of public discourse?
To that I’d add at least:
Reference (we can cite the past as evidence slash explanation that allows us to build upon it, which is super valuable even when almost no one clicks on the link)
Error correction and feedback (if we do 1-on-1, and we get it wrong, we don’t get to fix mistakes or get help from others), review (we can go back and remind ourselves)
Selection (the best explanations and teachers get used more)
Opportunity (if something is being taught in private, I often won’t even know it’s a thing one could learn, at all)
Learning through writing (I learn a ton from having to write down my ideas robustly)
Better crafted explanations by taking the time to get them right and general
Asynchronous and on demand (I can teach today when I have time, or over two weeks as thoughts come to me, then people can learn when they need to learn and have time, which radically decreases effective cost) which only gets more important as people comment and converse slowly over time.
+1 on “learning through writing,” this factor alone is my main disagreement with Paul’s comment. For most people the biggest low-hanging improvement to their thinking might just be to write it down. Once it’s written down it’s not nearly that much effort to edit enough to post in a public discussion.