I take issue with paths forward. It’s flawed by an underlying entitlement. People don’t owe you an answer. Only from within a premise of agreeing with PF can you demand of other people in the way that you demand answers.
For whatever reason that we cannot know, the person doesn’t want to give you an answer. That doesn’t mean they are irrational, they are an external actor, blaming an external actor on your internal ability to not get an answer is just externalising your problems and then not solving them. You don’t actually create rationality, you wall off irrationality and say “we won’t touch that”.
I disagree. I believe that if you want to get an answer, do as PET suggests and own the problem. If you have an issue, it’s your problem, you are the one responsible for solving the problem. Blaming someone else and not solving the problem yourself just wipes out your own agency.
the issue isn’t: does X person owe Y person an answer. it’s: issue X must be answered, by someone, as part of humanity making intellectual progress
people who do not participate in this are not progress-making intellectuals. of course, if they are instead answering issues Y and Z, that’s good. but sufficiently bad prioritization (e.g. ignoring a bunch of hard issues while addressing easy ones) will waste one’s career.
and what should one do about this? well, try to have some process so your prioritization isn’t biased.
I take issue with paths forward. It’s flawed by an underlying entitlement. People don’t owe you an answer. Only from within a premise of agreeing with PF can you demand of other people in the way that you demand answers.
For whatever reason that we cannot know, the person doesn’t want to give you an answer. That doesn’t mean they are irrational, they are an external actor, blaming an external actor on your internal ability to not get an answer is just externalising your problems and then not solving them. You don’t actually create rationality, you wall off irrationality and say “we won’t touch that”.
I disagree. I believe that if you want to get an answer, do as PET suggests and own the problem. If you have an issue, it’s your problem, you are the one responsible for solving the problem. Blaming someone else and not solving the problem yourself just wipes out your own agency.
the issue isn’t: does X person owe Y person an answer. it’s: issue X must be answered, by someone, as part of humanity making intellectual progress
people who do not participate in this are not progress-making intellectuals. of course, if they are instead answering issues Y and Z, that’s good. but sufficiently bad prioritization (e.g. ignoring a bunch of hard issues while addressing easy ones) will waste one’s career.
and what should one do about this? well, try to have some process so your prioritization isn’t biased.
And if I disagree on whether issue x must me answered?
Or if I believe in problem ownership. “Issue x answering” is your problem and not mine. Have fun with that. Have a nice day.
Well this is again based on a personal opinion of what is progress making and what is priority. If we disagree on those details? Then what?