The question was “What do you anticipate now that you didn’t before?”
If he answers that he anticipates devotion and prayer making him more patient, loving, and humble, and also more happy and optimistic—that indeed answers the question and doesn’t justify your open contempt.
That you call it “uncontroversial” or that you say you’re personally interested in other aspects of Mormonism, is both false and irrelevant—it wasn’t even your question that he was responding to. If the original person asking the question was more interested in miraculous (not psychological) anticipations, then he should have specified it better.
In short you criticized the answer, when it seems you should have criticized the question.
Then you kept proclaiming what calcsam’s intentions were.
Lastly, if I could downvote you twice for the same post, I’d have done it again after you edited for wrongly assuming and falsely proclaiming that it was calcsam who downvoted you. You have no excuse for that. It was just a falsehood with which you slandered calcsam, and even attributed it on his “inability to otherwise express frustration”.
I’d urge you stop cheaply psychoanalyzing people, especially when you end up wrong about your conclusions.
If he answers that he anticipates devotion and prayer making him more patient, loving, and humble, and also more happy and optimistic—that indeed answers the question and doesn’t justify your open contempt.
That you call it “uncontroversial” or that you say you’re personally interested in other aspects of Mormonism, is both false and irrelevant—it wasn’t even your question that he was responding to. If the original person asking the question was more interested in miraculous (not psychological) anticipations, then he should have specified it better.
calcsam knows very well what regulars here are curious about. A legalistic focus on giving answers that are technically responsive while evading the very things he knows people want answers to is not defensible, and you should not be blaming the questioner for failing to close enough loopholes.
Or perhaps you consider this to be a good refutation of Mormonism, rather than a condescending dodge of the central points of dispute?
I’d urge you stop cheaply psychoanalyzing people, especially when you end up wrong about your conclusions.
Wait, are there other instances where you think I’ve cheaply psychoanalyzed people? I want to know if there’s a trend I didn’t notice.
I think you’re confusing the criticism “This evidence is not surprising enough to be strong evidence that lifts the prior improbability of Mormonism” with the criticism “You are not answering this question honestly.” The answer was to the point. It doesn’t lift Mormonism. It doesn’t even come close. But it wasn’t leaving anything out, I expect, because I expect that there isn’t anything else.
In my book, pretending to have evidence that non-trivially lifts Mormonism (or indeed, anything) and then, when prompted, offering evidence that does no such thing is dishonesty.
I considered that hypothesis, but confused people generally aren’t able to so specifically tailor their responses to be unhelpful. Confusion says, “Sure, let’s find its shape by tossing flour at it!”, not “Hah! Got that one covered—the dragon in my garage is flour-permeable!”
I think Sam is confused in the sense that he believes that these pleasant feelings he gets in connection with Mormonism do lift it.
Actually, I tend to agree with the statement that I just speculated Sam might believe. For example, Sam’s experiences seem to rule out the possibility that religious experience leads you to Truth and Hinduism is the One True Religion. If that possibility is ruled out, the probability that religious experience leads you to Truth and Mormonism is the One True Religion is slightly increased.
The possibility that you can feel anything if you pray enough is lifted even more, and should have been high to start with since there are so many reports of prayer getting that sort of result, but perhaps Sam didn’t consider that hypothesis. I could imagine human-looking creatures and a contrived universe for which feelings during prayer are a reliable means of investigating the truth.
Hmm, this seems to demolish the idea that DavidM’s reported meditation experiences are evidence of anything interesting, since DavidM has probably meditated much more than Sam prayed, and they’re essentially the same process. Damn, I was hoping there was something there.
pretending to have evidence that non-trivially lifts Mormonism
I don’t think he ever claimed to have that.
You seem to be commenting on the basis of an implicit norm that goes something like “if you make a claim, you’re also claiming that you have evidence for that claim strong enough to convince x-rationalists”. But AFAICT, calcsam has never done anything of the kind. To the contrary, he said he isn’t interested in preaching (read: trying to present evidence) and would be happy to not discuss religion at all.
He simply thought we were curious and offered to reply questions here, he didn’t say that he thought his answers would persuade us.
I don’t see how calcsam’s initial post in any way implies that he doesn’t intend to “present relevant evidence”; the clause you refer to would, if read the way you suggest, take away the entire purpose of anyone asking their questions here. In the context of discussions like this “not preach” means something more like “not condemn you for reaching different conclusions”, not “I will make no attempt to say relevant things”.
Further, he was aware the group was interested his basis for his Mormon-specific claims, not the more general ones that happen to also be used effectively by Mormons, like I would be doing (and did), if I said, in parody, that the proof of the LW worldview is in the very existence of technology. Presenting evidence for non-specific practices while purporting to justify Mormonism, and knowing everyone is interested in such Mormon-specific evidence, is hard to read as anything but dishonesty.
I have no such skill; I simply spend 2% more effort than than the median mouth-breather.
There was an article here about how people overestimate the difficulty of finding a creative middle way between two controversial options, while in reality, it’s simple: you just:
1) Look for better options. 2) When you find a superior option, go with it.
These are easy steps, yet people rarely do both. (If someone knows what article I’m talking about, please link it.)
I think something similar is going on here: my “secret” to the ease you see in my verbal logic is this:
1) Look for the inferential gap between you and the other person. 2) When you find it, trace it out.
The only difficulty in applying this method (once aware of it at least) is getting over one’s fear of losing a monopoly on knowledge.
I think you underestimate how hard it is to apply a little more effort in a realm where the objects of manipulation all seem vague.
What I had in mind was that you’re written about the difficulties you’ve had with social skills, to point where you’ve assumed that people were deliberately giving you unfollowable advice.
I suggest that most people have as much difficulty getting started on logic as you have (had?) with social skills.
In that case, like with the relative ease I have explaining other topics, the problem is that people cannot articulate the insight that will resolve the confusion. In the social skills issue, they either assumed or were unaware of pre-requisites. And even when they were aware of the pre-requisites, they didn’t know how you’d go about satisfying them. (Remember Alicorn’s infamous advice to “just do internet dating!” and “just sample the 1000s of women your friends can favorably introduce you to!”?)
Either way, the problem could be solved with just a little effort. Once I achieve a skill or ability (including social ones), I’m always able to bring others up to my level by articulating the inferential path therebetween. Yet others cannot do the same for me. Why? Do I really have abnormal skill, or do I just take a few easy steps that others haven’t?
Coincidentally, there was a great example of laziness destroying explanatory ability, with the lazy person perfectly fine with that result. On the OB blog, a poster named mtraven “tried” to justify why regulations apply in one case but not another, but gave a woefully inadequate explanation. Another poster and I tried to get him to give a more helpful explanation by saying what other criteria he needed to satisfy.
What’s especially interesting is how, in attempting to demonstrate how impossibly difficulty the task of articulating the relevant difference is, he compared it to how “hard” it is to sufficiently explain why prisons are locked while schools are not.
But … that’s easy to explain, and I showed him how. The fact that he sees both as hard tells more about his own effort than about inherent explanatory difficulty.
(Note: that exchange was also a test of whether people can be persuaded to play fair in debate if you can just be nice to them. In that exchange, Tyrrell was “good cop” to my “bad cop”, being far more polite and deferential in making the same criticisms I did. Did that do anything to perusade mtraven to unlock his monopoly on the knowledge he claimed to have? No.)
If what you can do were common, do you think LW would need so much rationality 101 material?
Possible test: find a person who doesn’t seem to be making obvious inferences. Teach them how to do so. Ask them how their thinking has changed.
If you do teach them, my bet is that their answer will be at least as much about having efficient methods of knowing what to pay attention to as it is about putting in more effort.
If you don’t succeed at teaching them, it might suggest that you have a non-obvious skill.
Why did you decide that laziness is a more plausible explanation than you having an unusual talent?
Part of attributing laziness is assuming that you know how much effort an action requires for a particular person. Is it plausible that actions take about the same amount of effort the vast majority of people?
That’s a good idea, and my article about how to “Explain Yourself!” has been in development hell way too long now. (I recently thought of doing a “Summary Execution” article, about how to summarize an article or another’s ideas, which is also a sorely lacking skill I see in others, and equally frustrating to me.) So I guess there’s laziness on my part, but not in my explanations when I do give them.
If what you can do were common, do you think LW would need so much rationality 101 material?
That’s not teaching quite the same thing (except of course, articles that tackle it directly like “Expecting Short Inferential Distance”—which partly disagrees with me on this anyway—and “Double Illusion of Transparency”). They talk about how to think correctly in general and how to avoid bias, not specifically how to explain.
Also, do you think mtraven is abnormally bad at whatever skillset you claim I’m good at? (I call the skill “explaining”, and I think you’re calling the same thing “verbal logic”.) I mean, how hard did you have to look to find an articulable reason why prisons but not schools are locked? [1]
People don’t honestly get stumped on that one, do they?
Alternatively, the issue may be one of understanding: I have abnormally high standards for what counts as “understanding” and only purport to be an expert (and therefore offer to explain something) when I’ve reached Level 2 in my hierarchy. Perhaps people think they’re qualified to explain when their understanding is actually much more shallow.
[1] I avoid mentioning, of course, that some schools do lock their kids in, but we can confine the question to the canonical case.
Just a reasonable inference based on the general attitude about proper use of voting that seems to be prevalent and that people pick up here.
Could you walk me through the reasoning for your downvote so I can better avoid making unhelpful posts in the future?
The question was “What do you anticipate now that you didn’t before?”
If he answers that he anticipates devotion and prayer making him more patient, loving, and humble, and also more happy and optimistic—that indeed answers the question and doesn’t justify your open contempt.
That you call it “uncontroversial” or that you say you’re personally interested in other aspects of Mormonism, is both false and irrelevant—it wasn’t even your question that he was responding to. If the original person asking the question was more interested in miraculous (not psychological) anticipations, then he should have specified it better.
In short you criticized the answer, when it seems you should have criticized the question.
Then you kept proclaiming what calcsam’s intentions were.
Lastly, if I could downvote you twice for the same post, I’d have done it again after you edited for wrongly assuming and falsely proclaiming that it was calcsam who downvoted you. You have no excuse for that. It was just a falsehood with which you slandered calcsam, and even attributed it on his “inability to otherwise express frustration”.
I’d urge you stop cheaply psychoanalyzing people, especially when you end up wrong about your conclusions.
calcsam knows very well what regulars here are curious about. A legalistic focus on giving answers that are technically responsive while evading the very things he knows people want answers to is not defensible, and you should not be blaming the questioner for failing to close enough loopholes.
Or perhaps you consider this to be a good refutation of Mormonism, rather than a condescending dodge of the central points of dispute?
Wait, are there other instances where you think I’ve cheaply psychoanalyzed people? I want to know if there’s a trend I didn’t notice.
I think you’re confusing the criticism “This evidence is not surprising enough to be strong evidence that lifts the prior improbability of Mormonism” with the criticism “You are not answering this question honestly.” The answer was to the point. It doesn’t lift Mormonism. It doesn’t even come close. But it wasn’t leaving anything out, I expect, because I expect that there isn’t anything else.
In my book, pretending to have evidence that non-trivially lifts Mormonism (or indeed, anything) and then, when prompted, offering evidence that does no such thing is dishonesty.
If you confuse dishonesty with confusion, you’ll perceive a lot of ill-will that isn’t really there.
I considered that hypothesis, but confused people generally aren’t able to so specifically tailor their responses to be unhelpful. Confusion says, “Sure, let’s find its shape by tossing flour at it!”, not “Hah! Got that one covered—the dragon in my garage is flour-permeable!”
I think Sam is confused in the sense that he believes that these pleasant feelings he gets in connection with Mormonism do lift it.
Actually, I tend to agree with the statement that I just speculated Sam might believe. For example, Sam’s experiences seem to rule out the possibility that religious experience leads you to Truth and Hinduism is the One True Religion. If that possibility is ruled out, the probability that religious experience leads you to Truth and Mormonism is the One True Religion is slightly increased.
The possibility that you can feel anything if you pray enough is lifted even more, and should have been high to start with since there are so many reports of prayer getting that sort of result, but perhaps Sam didn’t consider that hypothesis. I could imagine human-looking creatures and a contrived universe for which feelings during prayer are a reliable means of investigating the truth.
Hmm, this seems to demolish the idea that DavidM’s reported meditation experiences are evidence of anything interesting, since DavidM has probably meditated much more than Sam prayed, and they’re essentially the same process. Damn, I was hoping there was something there.
I don’t think he ever claimed to have that.
You seem to be commenting on the basis of an implicit norm that goes something like “if you make a claim, you’re also claiming that you have evidence for that claim strong enough to convince x-rationalists”. But AFAICT, calcsam has never done anything of the kind. To the contrary, he said he isn’t interested in preaching (read: trying to present evidence) and would be happy to not discuss religion at all.
He simply thought we were curious and offered to reply questions here, he didn’t say that he thought his answers would persuade us.
I don’t see how calcsam’s initial post in any way implies that he doesn’t intend to “present relevant evidence”; the clause you refer to would, if read the way you suggest, take away the entire purpose of anyone asking their questions here. In the context of discussions like this “not preach” means something more like “not condemn you for reaching different conclusions”, not “I will make no attempt to say relevant things”.
Further, he was aware the group was interested his basis for his Mormon-specific claims, not the more general ones that happen to also be used effectively by Mormons, like I would be doing (and did), if I said, in parody, that the proof of the LW worldview is in the very existence of technology. Presenting evidence for non-specific practices while purporting to justify Mormonism, and knowing everyone is interested in such Mormon-specific evidence, is hard to read as anything but dishonesty.
I think you’re overestimating how clear-headed most people are about verbal logic—a subject that’s easy for you.
I have no such skill; I simply spend 2% more effort than than the median mouth-breather.
There was an article here about how people overestimate the difficulty of finding a creative middle way between two controversial options, while in reality, it’s simple: you just:
1) Look for better options.
2) When you find a superior option, go with it.
These are easy steps, yet people rarely do both. (If someone knows what article I’m talking about, please link it.)
I think something similar is going on here: my “secret” to the ease you see in my verbal logic is this:
1) Look for the inferential gap between you and the other person.
2) When you find it, trace it out.
The only difficulty in applying this method (once aware of it at least) is getting over one’s fear of losing a monopoly on knowledge.
I think you underestimate how hard it is to apply a little more effort in a realm where the objects of manipulation all seem vague.
What I had in mind was that you’re written about the difficulties you’ve had with social skills, to point where you’ve assumed that people were deliberately giving you unfollowable advice.
I suggest that most people have as much difficulty getting started on logic as you have (had?) with social skills.
In that case, like with the relative ease I have explaining other topics, the problem is that people cannot articulate the insight that will resolve the confusion. In the social skills issue, they either assumed or were unaware of pre-requisites. And even when they were aware of the pre-requisites, they didn’t know how you’d go about satisfying them. (Remember Alicorn’s infamous advice to “just do internet dating!” and “just sample the 1000s of women your friends can favorably introduce you to!”?)
Either way, the problem could be solved with just a little effort. Once I achieve a skill or ability (including social ones), I’m always able to bring others up to my level by articulating the inferential path therebetween. Yet others cannot do the same for me. Why? Do I really have abnormal skill, or do I just take a few easy steps that others haven’t?
Coincidentally, there was a great example of laziness destroying explanatory ability, with the lazy person perfectly fine with that result. On the OB blog, a poster named mtraven “tried” to justify why regulations apply in one case but not another, but gave a woefully inadequate explanation. Another poster and I tried to get him to give a more helpful explanation by saying what other criteria he needed to satisfy.
What’s especially interesting is how, in attempting to demonstrate how impossibly difficulty the task of articulating the relevant difference is, he compared it to how “hard” it is to sufficiently explain why prisons are locked while schools are not.
But … that’s easy to explain, and I showed him how. The fact that he sees both as hard tells more about his own effort than about inherent explanatory difficulty.
(Note: that exchange was also a test of whether people can be persuaded to play fair in debate if you can just be nice to them. In that exchange, Tyrrell was “good cop” to my “bad cop”, being far more polite and deferential in making the same criticisms I did. Did that do anything to perusade mtraven to unlock his monopoly on the knowledge he claimed to have? No.)
I think you have an unusual skill.
If what you can do were common, do you think LW would need so much rationality 101 material?
Possible test: find a person who doesn’t seem to be making obvious inferences. Teach them how to do so. Ask them how their thinking has changed.
If you do teach them, my bet is that their answer will be at least as much about having efficient methods of knowing what to pay attention to as it is about putting in more effort.
If you don’t succeed at teaching them, it might suggest that you have a non-obvious skill.
Why did you decide that laziness is a more plausible explanation than you having an unusual talent?
Part of attributing laziness is assuming that you know how much effort an action requires for a particular person. Is it plausible that actions take about the same amount of effort the vast majority of people?
That’s a good idea, and my article about how to “Explain Yourself!” has been in development hell way too long now. (I recently thought of doing a “Summary Execution” article, about how to summarize an article or another’s ideas, which is also a sorely lacking skill I see in others, and equally frustrating to me.) So I guess there’s laziness on my part, but not in my explanations when I do give them.
That’s not teaching quite the same thing (except of course, articles that tackle it directly like “Expecting Short Inferential Distance”—which partly disagrees with me on this anyway—and “Double Illusion of Transparency”). They talk about how to think correctly in general and how to avoid bias, not specifically how to explain.
Also, do you think mtraven is abnormally bad at whatever skillset you claim I’m good at? (I call the skill “explaining”, and I think you’re calling the same thing “verbal logic”.) I mean, how hard did you have to look to find an articulable reason why prisons but not schools are locked? [1]
People don’t honestly get stumped on that one, do they?
Alternatively, the issue may be one of understanding: I have abnormally high standards for what counts as “understanding” and only purport to be an expert (and therefore offer to explain something) when I’ve reached Level 2 in my hierarchy. Perhaps people think they’re qualified to explain when their understanding is actually much more shallow.
[1] I avoid mentioning, of course, that some schools do lock their kids in, but we can confine the question to the canonical case.