Does the community do anything different when discussing?
I am going through the site and exploring some of the writings. I am also listening to the Bayesian conspiracy podcast. It is all very interesting but I can not see a change in the method of discussion. Techniques such as Bayes theorem etc. do not seem to be used when the subjects are of some complexity (which all interesting subjects are). It all seems to me that it is just a nice, civilised conversation with awareness of biases and the need to keep emotion on hold, as well as, examine assumptions.
Is there a discussion in video/audio/writing that you can point me to which demonstrates a different methodology of argumentation?
It all seems to me that it is just a nice, civilised conversation with awareness of biases and the need to keep emotion on hold, as well as, examine assumptions.
That might not seem to amount to much, but it’s an extremely high bar, compared to the average discussion even in rationality hub like SSC.
Good point. On reflection, I think my question is trying to project a criticism of mine regarding the community. Apologies for trying to sneak it in as a question. I seem to have the impression that the community is projecting an image of effective rationality when I can not see practical applications and sometimes I see mistakes of overconfidence towards conclusions. That is what made me think that the community thinks it has found some methodology that is more robust than the usual ones.
Actually getting involved and starting commenting is giving me a better view of what is actually going on. I think I will have to take some time to get a feel of the situation before I voice criticisms.
That plus it’s a more intelligent than average community with shared knowledge and norms of rationality. This is why I personally value LessWrong and am glad it’s making something of a comeback.
This is very interesting and seems to have potential. Thanks for pointing me to the article! The important thing though would be to see the technique in action. Is there a thread were the community is experimenting with the application of the methodology?
Specific applications of the framework that I have seen in practice were always offline discussions. Most online discussions are unstructured and people don’t follow an explicit framework.
Does the community do anything different when discussing?
I am going through the site and exploring some of the writings. I am also listening to the Bayesian conspiracy podcast. It is all very interesting but I can not see a change in the method of discussion. Techniques such as Bayes theorem etc. do not seem to be used when the subjects are of some complexity (which all interesting subjects are). It all seems to me that it is just a nice, civilised conversation with awareness of biases and the need to keep emotion on hold, as well as, examine assumptions.
Is there a discussion in video/audio/writing that you can point me to which demonstrates a different methodology of argumentation?
That might not seem to amount to much, but it’s an extremely high bar, compared to the average discussion even in rationality hub like SSC.
Good point. On reflection, I think my question is trying to project a criticism of mine regarding the community. Apologies for trying to sneak it in as a question. I seem to have the impression that the community is projecting an image of effective rationality when I can not see practical applications and sometimes I see mistakes of overconfidence towards conclusions. That is what made me think that the community thinks it has found some methodology that is more robust than the usual ones.
Actually getting involved and starting commenting is giving me a better view of what is actually going on. I think I will have to take some time to get a feel of the situation before I voice criticisms.
Thanks!
That plus it’s a more intelligent than average community with shared knowledge and norms of rationality. This is why I personally value LessWrong and am glad it’s making something of a comeback.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/o6p/double_crux_a_strategy_for_resolving_disagreement/ is a well specific methodology.
This is very interesting and seems to have potential. Thanks for pointing me to the article! The important thing though would be to see the technique in action. Is there a thread were the community is experimenting with the application of the methodology?
Specific applications of the framework that I have seen in practice were always offline discussions. Most online discussions are unstructured and people don’t follow an explicit framework.
As far as structured goes, there’s http://predictionbook.com/ and http://www.metaculus.com