I didn’t exactly disagree with the content, right?
Part of the problem is just that writing something good about epistemic rationality is really hard, even if you stick to the 101 level—and, well, I don’t really care about 101 anymore. But I have plenty of sympathy for those writing more practical posts.
And kudos (in the form of an upvote) to you for suggesting something to improve the niceness of rationalists—as has been pointed out many times, that’s something we should work on.
Yeah, instrumental rationality is (epistemically) easier—on the writer as well as on the reader. Epistemic rationality requires rigor, which usually implies a lot of math. Instrumental rationality can be pretty successful with a few examples and a moderately useful analogy.
I didn’t exactly disagree with the content, right?
Part of the problem is just that writing something good about epistemic rationality is really hard, even if you stick to the 101 level—and, well, I don’t really care about 101 anymore. But I have plenty of sympathy for those writing more practical posts.
No, you didn’t.
And kudos (in the form of an upvote) to you for suggesting something to improve the niceness of rationalists—as has been pointed out many times, that’s something we should work on.
Yeah, instrumental rationality is (epistemically) easier—on the writer as well as on the reader. Epistemic rationality requires rigor, which usually implies a lot of math. Instrumental rationality can be pretty successful with a few examples and a moderately useful analogy.