Separately from my other reply, I want to call attention to this:
This basically doesn’t work when you’re trying to communicate with people who do, in fact, successfully[1] do interpretive labor, and therefore expect their conversational partners to share in that effort, to some degree.
[1] Sometimes—often enough that it’s worth relying on, at least.
I have said this in the past, I think, but I want to note again that I am deeply skeptical of the claim that such “interpretive labor” actually succeeds often enough to be worth its serious downsides. I think that—much more often than most people here care to admit—the result of such efforts are illusionary understanding, and (to speak frankly) the erosion of the ability, of all involved, to detect bullshit (both their own and that of others), and to identify when they simply do not know or do not understand something.
I think that it would be greatly to the benefit of all participants of Less Wrong if everyone here was all much, much more reluctant to perform such “labor”.
Separately from my other reply, I want to call attention to this:
I have said this in the past, I think, but I want to note again that I am deeply skeptical of the claim that such “interpretive labor” actually succeeds often enough to be worth its serious downsides. I think that—much more often than most people here care to admit—the result of such efforts are illusionary understanding, and (to speak frankly) the erosion of the ability, of all involved, to detect bullshit (both their own and that of others), and to identify when they simply do not know or do not understand something.
I think that it would be greatly to the benefit of all participants of Less Wrong if everyone here was all much, much more reluctant to perform such “labor”.