Since you don’t want to sound narcissistic, consider counting the number of times you use “I” “my” and “me” before posting. Also avoid the temptation to share your whole mental process and focus on conclusions and supporting evidence that moves beyond personal anecdote. Don’t defend yourself, defend your ideas.
The avoidance of ‘I’, ‘my’ and ‘me’ is good advice, and something I’ve kept an eye out for. In this post it looks like they mostly show up when actually describing personal anecdotes, so the way to cut down on them would be to remove or reduce the anecdotes.
As for sharing the mental process, that information exists as an instruction and guide to doing this kind of thing—it’s actually fairly central to the point of the post.
Regarding the defense of ideas rather than one’s personality, it might be nice if we existed in an idealized setting in which ideas were considered on a level completely separate from the speaker. But it’s not just ideas that we’re judging, and the speaker’s personality is relative information. For example, look at your first comment, regarding the narcissistic feel to the posts. What does it matter if I were narcissistic? I could be the biggest asshole on earth and still be right. But it is relevant—we don’t want some asshole running around and putting himself above everyone else.
The point is that your personal thoughts and experiences leading up to the useful ideas actually detract from your presentation of the ideas. If we think this in terms of signal-to-noise ratio, your idea is signal and your personal experience is noise.
For example, appeals courts spend the minimum time possible on the facts before setting out and applying the law. Facts required to give context to the legal discussion are the only facts mentioned.
In short, consider what you would write if you were totally prohibited from mentioning your personal experiences at all. Sticking as close to that as possible will improve your presentation.
The point is that your personal thoughts and experiences leading up to the useful ideas actually detract from your presentation of the ideas.
Yes, I agree that can happen. But, per the the topic of this post, there are cases where personal thoughts and experiences are very relevant, namely when the topic under discussion is personal thought and experience. If one is attempting to get inside the head of another, information about the content of that head is quite topical. We would lose something if were to model every form of human expression off of the appeals courts.
I appreciate personal anecdote. Sometimes I think anecdotes are the most valuable parts of an essay. It all depends on the style and the preferences of the audience. I don’t criticize HPMOR on the grounds that it focuses too much on Harry and not enough on rationality concepts...
I have asked him to “move beyond” not “eliminate”. Personal anecdote obviously has its place; but it doesn’t dominate on lesswrong, nor should it. As for HPMOR: different form, different purpose. (Though I do occasionally yearn for a bit more conceptualizing there too, - but that’s just personal preference and not grounds for criticism) Frank genuinely seems to want—and need—to improve his posts: my comments are blunt but not unfair.
Since you don’t want to sound narcissistic, consider counting the number of times you use “I” “my” and “me” before posting. Also avoid the temptation to share your whole mental process and focus on conclusions and supporting evidence that moves beyond personal anecdote. Don’t defend yourself, defend your ideas.
The avoidance of ‘I’, ‘my’ and ‘me’ is good advice, and something I’ve kept an eye out for. In this post it looks like they mostly show up when actually describing personal anecdotes, so the way to cut down on them would be to remove or reduce the anecdotes.
As for sharing the mental process, that information exists as an instruction and guide to doing this kind of thing—it’s actually fairly central to the point of the post.
Regarding the defense of ideas rather than one’s personality, it might be nice if we existed in an idealized setting in which ideas were considered on a level completely separate from the speaker. But it’s not just ideas that we’re judging, and the speaker’s personality is relative information. For example, look at your first comment, regarding the narcissistic feel to the posts. What does it matter if I were narcissistic? I could be the biggest asshole on earth and still be right. But it is relevant—we don’t want some asshole running around and putting himself above everyone else.
The point is that your personal thoughts and experiences leading up to the useful ideas actually detract from your presentation of the ideas. If we think this in terms of signal-to-noise ratio, your idea is signal and your personal experience is noise.
For example, appeals courts spend the minimum time possible on the facts before setting out and applying the law. Facts required to give context to the legal discussion are the only facts mentioned.
In short, consider what you would write if you were totally prohibited from mentioning your personal experiences at all. Sticking as close to that as possible will improve your presentation.
Yes, I agree that can happen. But, per the the topic of this post, there are cases where personal thoughts and experiences are very relevant, namely when the topic under discussion is personal thought and experience. If one is attempting to get inside the head of another, information about the content of that head is quite topical. We would lose something if were to model every form of human expression off of the appeals courts.
I appreciate personal anecdote. Sometimes I think anecdotes are the most valuable parts of an essay. It all depends on the style and the preferences of the audience. I don’t criticize HPMOR on the grounds that it focuses too much on Harry and not enough on rationality concepts...
I have asked him to “move beyond” not “eliminate”. Personal anecdote obviously has its place; but it doesn’t dominate on lesswrong, nor should it. As for HPMOR: different form, different purpose. (Though I do occasionally yearn for a bit more conceptualizing there too, - but that’s just personal preference and not grounds for criticism) Frank genuinely seems to want—and need—to improve his posts: my comments are blunt but not unfair.