this disparity in strength of beliefs is in itself good evidence that there is information we are missing
That’s a nice way of summarizing.
I would emphasize the difference between parsing the arguments they’re explicitly making and understanding the reasons they actually hold the beliefs they do.
They may not be giving you the arguments that are the most relevant to you. After all, they probably don’t know why you don’t already believe what they do. They may be focusing on parts that are irrelevant for convincing you.
By the way, nice job trying to summarize my view. As you’ll see in the coming weeks, that’s close to the move I recommend for extracting people’s intuitions. Just repeatedly try to make their argument for them.
Cool, thanks for writing this up! I vaguely remember someone at CFAR bringing something about argument-norms of this kind—”convince or be convinced”. Was that in reference to you?
Yup!
That’s a nice way of summarizing.
I would emphasize the difference between parsing the arguments they’re explicitly making and understanding the reasons they actually hold the beliefs they do.
They may not be giving you the arguments that are the most relevant to you. After all, they probably don’t know why you don’t already believe what they do. They may be focusing on parts that are irrelevant for convincing you.
By the way, nice job trying to summarize my view. As you’ll see in the coming weeks, that’s close to the move I recommend for extracting people’s intuitions. Just repeatedly try to make their argument for them.
Cool, thanks for writing this up! I vaguely remember someone at CFAR bringing something about argument-norms of this kind—”convince or be convinced”. Was that in reference to you?
Isn’t this kind of like the Aumann agreement theorem?
Are there any humans who meet that lofty standard?
There are certainly people who meet it better than others.
Yes, definitely. The more you are in such a community, the more you can do this.
Not sure! If it was in the last couple months there’s a good chance.