Expressing disagreement as a false lack of understanding
I’ve found that saying, “I don’t think I understand what you mean by that” or “I don’t see why you’re saying so” is a useful tactic when somebody says something apparently nonsensical.
Yes, when you actually don’t understand, saying that you don’t understand is rarely a bad idea. It’s when you understand but disagree that proclaiming an inability to comprehend the other’s viewpoint is ill-advised.
Referring [to] an “individual’s CEV”.
I think this is a good idea, because humans aren’t expected utility maximizers.
I could be wrong, but this may be a terminology issue.
Coherence: Strong agreement between many extrapolated individual volitions …
Coherence: Strong agreement between many extrapolated individual volitions …
It would indeed appear that EY originally defined coherence that way. I think it’s legitimate to extend the meaning of the term to “strong agreement among the different utility functions an individual maximizes in different situations.” You don’t necessarily agree, and that’s fine, because this is partly a subjective issue. What, if anything, would you suggest instead of “CEV” to refer to a person’s utility function at reflective equilibrium? Just “eir EV” could work, and I think I’ve seen that around here before.
I think it’s legitimate to extend the meaning of the term to “strong agreement among the different utility functions an individual maximizes in different situations.”
Me too. I consider the difference in coherency issues between CEV(humanity) and CEV(pedanterrific) to be one of degree, not kind. I just thought that might be what lessdazed was objecting to, that’s all.
Yes, when you actually don’t understand, saying that you don’t understand is rarely a bad idea. It’s when you understand but disagree that proclaiming an inability to comprehend the other’s viewpoint is ill-advised.
I could be wrong, but this may be a terminology issue.
It would indeed appear that EY originally defined coherence that way. I think it’s legitimate to extend the meaning of the term to “strong agreement among the different utility functions an individual maximizes in different situations.” You don’t necessarily agree, and that’s fine, because this is partly a subjective issue. What, if anything, would you suggest instead of “CEV” to refer to a person’s utility function at reflective equilibrium? Just “eir EV” could work, and I think I’ve seen that around here before.
Me too. I consider the difference in coherency issues between CEV(humanity) and CEV(pedanterrific) to be one of degree, not kind. I just thought that might be what lessdazed was objecting to, that’s all.
Okay, so I’m not the only one. Lessdazed: is that your objection to “individual CEV” or were you talking about something else?