I want to learn more during disagreements but I’m not because I keep winning.
I cannot wait until someone really kicks my ass.
Actually, you (you personally, not some general “you”) often don’t notice when you lose on this forum, because people give up on you and disengage, some explicitly, some silently. You might be misinterpreting this as winning, but, given that neither you nor they changed their minds, and since neither is better off, both parties lost.
You like metrics, so here is one. If you look back through your exchanges here, what is the ratio of the number of threads where people are convinced by your logic (or you are convinced by theirs) to the number of threads where people simply stopped replying or tapped out?
I regarded our exchange the exact same way. Unfortunately, that doesn’t give us any insight into the subject.
To your credit, you had a good point and I realized that there was an additional factor that supported your point that you may not know about, so I tossed it in:
Food: Now that you’ve said “a few hundred calories makes a difference”, I see that this could be a potential setback for them. That was a good point. I don’t know whether they eat a bit more or less, though I know that they can experience reactive hypoglycemia if they don’t space and balance their meals properly to avoid blood sugar crashes.
To my credit, you asserted that a person claiming an estimated IQ of 220 must be lying or from the future but completely failed to acknowledge my point when I said we have used IQ tests in recent decades that did give scores like those due to miscalibration, so people who can honesty claim an IQ score that high are not, by default, lying. You reacted as if I was assuming a perfectly accurate method was used and this guy’s true IQ was 220. However, I had stated that I was arguing that your assertion that the person must be “lying or from the future” was incorrect.
This is why I got irritated with you and wanted to write you off.
What we need to be asking here is not “Who irritates the most people during debates?”—people can be irritated by the difficulty of being made to grapple with good reasoning skills just as easily as the annoyance of tolerating poor reasoning skills. The question should not even be “Who gives up on their debates most frequently?” because if your opponent is just shooting logical fallacy silly string, it’s justified to end it—so you don’t always lose a precious learning opportunity when you cut it short. What I think we should be asking is “When we get frustrated in a debate, how can we tell where the problem is?”
You know, I think I’ve rested enough from our debate now that if you wanted to take me up on my open invitation to administer ass kickings to my ideas, I’d be up for another bout with you.
You know, I think I’ve rested enough from our debate now that if you wanted to take me up on my open invitation to administer ass kickings to my ideas, I’d be up for another bout with you.
Regardless of the merit of intellectual masochism it may be politically expedient for you to ease up on using this language to describe your interactions. If you already find it infuriating that shminux is able to quote you for the purpose of doing reputation damage then shame on you if he fools you twice. Be more careful with your words in order to not make yourself an easy target.
To put it another way, talking about how much you like ass kickings and inviting ‘bouts’ is not the optimal way for you to provoke the kind of quality intellectual challenge you desire.
Alright, I see that you probably have a good point Wedrifid. I would like your advice if you have some. Also, did you get the two emails I sent around 20 hours ago?
Actually, you (you personally, not some general “you”) often don’t notice when you lose on this forum, because people give up on you and disengage.
But how does anybody know who was ultimately right? In order to make a statement like this, you must first assume that you know who was right. If there was a debate about it, then it’s likely to have been the sort of topic where there’s some kind of ambiguity—either obvious ambiguity or some hidden pitfall that one person or the other is trying to point out—so what’s the chance you’re right about who won? If the debate was never finished, then there are points that haven’t been heard yet. Sometimes a good point very far into a debate can change the whole outcome. It seems to me that often the entire reason for a disagreement is that one or both people were missing some information that changes their perspective. As you’re aware, reality is very complex—there are a lot of different specializations that people can learn and it can take years to learn enough to have a good understanding. Sometimes applying the information or concepts from one specialization to a discussion with someone outside that specialization radically changes the outcome of the discussion. There can be a LOT of information to compare during a debate—and although it would be nice to know which pieces are missing from the other person’s perspective immediately, and although we can all make guesses, often this is not apparent until the topic has been discussed in depth. I bring specializations to this group that are different from the main specializations the group has. For example, I know a lot about psychology. Being a nerd, there are a lot of things I’ve researched and learned about that may be different—and here I am exchanging information with others who have all researched things that may be different from what’s common to the group. There is going to be a lot of information to exchange before it’s clear what perspective is best, and before an agreement is possible.
You might be misinterpreting this as winning, but, given that neither you nor they changed their minds, and since neither is better off, both parties lost.
I agree that it’s best if people agree after the debate. Coming to a point where people have exchanged enough information where they can actually agree can be very difficult. If people are giving up before the process is complete, I’m not sure what I can do about it. I have started to see a pattern where there are certain sets of information that I have which seem to be root causes for a large ratio of disagreements, so I have begun writing posts about them. Unfortunately nobody can unload all their relevant information in any small amount of time, and the fact that we have different information will cause disagreements until then. I am calibrating with you guys by reading the sequences and beginning to write some articles to bridge these gaps. It will take me some time.
If I’m wrong about something, I hope I’ll figure it out eventually. If you, or anybody else wants to be persistent with me, or recommend a specific article that you think will fill an ignorant patch in my head, I’d be happy to try to get further.
You ignored both my points: the definition of winning in a discussion (at least on this forum) as updating and a specific way of measuring it. We both lost. Tapping out.
An unusual fact: I think you are one of the few Lesswrongers to use ‘debate’ to refer to something other than formal debates. More specifically, I think that you are using the string ‘debate’ to refer to what most on this forum would call arguments or discussions or disagreements.
This is unfair to me, Shminux. I joined on August 12. That a lot of my debates are unfinished is probably due to the fact that debates can take time to reach a conclusion. It’s annoying that you and 13 voters seem to think that anything can be gleaned from taking an inventory of them at this time. That’s like giving a person a test that takes an hour and scoring them after five minutes.
It didn’t dawn on me that you might actually be serious about wanting me to go count up all my debates and see how many were unfinished until today—because that would be so ridiculously inconclusive.
Secondly, that you quoted me out of context is making me look like an ass. Having “I want to learn more during disagreements but I’m not because I keep winning.” floating there is probably going to be interpreted as “I keep winning on this forum” when, in reality, I’ve only been here for a few weeks—I hadn’t had any wins or losses at that point—and a key reason I joined is because I was hoping to get my ass kicked.
You want to know the real situation? I’m not getting enough intellectual stimulation in real life. I’m in too small a pond. That’s the context in which I am saying “I keep winning.” I was really looking forward to losing some debates HERE for that reason. It looks to be a bigger pond.
You’re making me look like an ass, and there’s no good reason for it.
You want to talk about why you (and perhaps some of your friends) and I are frustrating one another? Let’s talk about it. But don’t lets mix up this frustration with a bunch of other things or go creating metrics that won’t accurately measure diddly and wouldn’t support your point (that a bunch of unfinished debates means I’m losing a bunch of debates) anyway.
Let’s focus on the frustration and see if we can figure out why it happens.
Actually, you (you personally, not some general “you”) often don’t notice when you lose on this forum, because people give up on you and disengage.
But how does anybody know who was ultimately right?
Outside view!
You’re a smart person on Less Wrong. So are your opponents. My prior for you being on the right side of the debate is < 50%, by symmetry. (I assign a nontrivial probability that both participants are wrong.)
I can know that something is happening statistically without being able to point to a single definite instance of it.
Actually, you (you personally, not some general “you”) often don’t notice when you lose on this forum, because people give up on you and disengage, some explicitly, some silently. You might be misinterpreting this as winning, but, given that neither you nor they changed their minds, and since neither is better off, both parties lost.
You like metrics, so here is one. If you look back through your exchanges here, what is the ratio of the number of threads where people are convinced by your logic (or you are convinced by theirs) to the number of threads where people simply stopped replying or tapped out?
I regarded my exchange with Epiphany on intelligence & the gifted as an example of this.
I regarded our exchange the exact same way. Unfortunately, that doesn’t give us any insight into the subject.
To your credit, you had a good point and I realized that there was an additional factor that supported your point that you may not know about, so I tossed it in:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kk/why_are_individual_iq_differences_ok/77vs
To my credit, you asserted that a person claiming an estimated IQ of 220 must be lying or from the future but completely failed to acknowledge my point when I said we have used IQ tests in recent decades that did give scores like those due to miscalibration, so people who can honesty claim an IQ score that high are not, by default, lying. You reacted as if I was assuming a perfectly accurate method was used and this guy’s true IQ was 220. However, I had stated that I was arguing that your assertion that the person must be “lying or from the future” was incorrect.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kk/why_are_individual_iq_differences_ok/77f5
This is why I got irritated with you and wanted to write you off.
What we need to be asking here is not “Who irritates the most people during debates?”—people can be irritated by the difficulty of being made to grapple with good reasoning skills just as easily as the annoyance of tolerating poor reasoning skills. The question should not even be “Who gives up on their debates most frequently?” because if your opponent is just shooting logical fallacy silly string, it’s justified to end it—so you don’t always lose a precious learning opportunity when you cut it short. What I think we should be asking is “When we get frustrated in a debate, how can we tell where the problem is?”
You know, I think I’ve rested enough from our debate now that if you wanted to take me up on my open invitation to administer ass kickings to my ideas, I’d be up for another bout with you.
Regardless of the merit of intellectual masochism it may be politically expedient for you to ease up on using this language to describe your interactions. If you already find it infuriating that shminux is able to quote you for the purpose of doing reputation damage then shame on you if he fools you twice. Be more careful with your words in order to not make yourself an easy target.
To put it another way, talking about how much you like ass kickings and inviting ‘bouts’ is not the optimal way for you to provoke the kind of quality intellectual challenge you desire.
Alright, I see that you probably have a good point Wedrifid. I would like your advice if you have some. Also, did you get the two emails I sent around 20 hours ago?
But how does anybody know who was ultimately right? In order to make a statement like this, you must first assume that you know who was right. If there was a debate about it, then it’s likely to have been the sort of topic where there’s some kind of ambiguity—either obvious ambiguity or some hidden pitfall that one person or the other is trying to point out—so what’s the chance you’re right about who won? If the debate was never finished, then there are points that haven’t been heard yet. Sometimes a good point very far into a debate can change the whole outcome. It seems to me that often the entire reason for a disagreement is that one or both people were missing some information that changes their perspective. As you’re aware, reality is very complex—there are a lot of different specializations that people can learn and it can take years to learn enough to have a good understanding. Sometimes applying the information or concepts from one specialization to a discussion with someone outside that specialization radically changes the outcome of the discussion. There can be a LOT of information to compare during a debate—and although it would be nice to know which pieces are missing from the other person’s perspective immediately, and although we can all make guesses, often this is not apparent until the topic has been discussed in depth. I bring specializations to this group that are different from the main specializations the group has. For example, I know a lot about psychology. Being a nerd, there are a lot of things I’ve researched and learned about that may be different—and here I am exchanging information with others who have all researched things that may be different from what’s common to the group. There is going to be a lot of information to exchange before it’s clear what perspective is best, and before an agreement is possible.
I agree that it’s best if people agree after the debate. Coming to a point where people have exchanged enough information where they can actually agree can be very difficult. If people are giving up before the process is complete, I’m not sure what I can do about it. I have started to see a pattern where there are certain sets of information that I have which seem to be root causes for a large ratio of disagreements, so I have begun writing posts about them. Unfortunately nobody can unload all their relevant information in any small amount of time, and the fact that we have different information will cause disagreements until then. I am calibrating with you guys by reading the sequences and beginning to write some articles to bridge these gaps. It will take me some time.
If I’m wrong about something, I hope I’ll figure it out eventually. If you, or anybody else wants to be persistent with me, or recommend a specific article that you think will fill an ignorant patch in my head, I’d be happy to try to get further.
You ignored both my points: the definition of winning in a discussion (at least on this forum) as updating and a specific way of measuring it. We both lost. Tapping out.
That’s all right here: I agree that it’s best if people agree after the debate.
An unusual fact: I think you are one of the few Lesswrongers to use ‘debate’ to refer to something other than formal debates. More specifically, I think that you are using the string ‘debate’ to refer to what most on this forum would call arguments or discussions or disagreements.
This is unfair to me, Shminux. I joined on August 12. That a lot of my debates are unfinished is probably due to the fact that debates can take time to reach a conclusion. It’s annoying that you and 13 voters seem to think that anything can be gleaned from taking an inventory of them at this time. That’s like giving a person a test that takes an hour and scoring them after five minutes.
It didn’t dawn on me that you might actually be serious about wanting me to go count up all my debates and see how many were unfinished until today—because that would be so ridiculously inconclusive.
Secondly, that you quoted me out of context is making me look like an ass. Having “I want to learn more during disagreements but I’m not because I keep winning.” floating there is probably going to be interpreted as “I keep winning on this forum” when, in reality, I’ve only been here for a few weeks—I hadn’t had any wins or losses at that point—and a key reason I joined is because I was hoping to get my ass kicked.
You want to know the real situation? I’m not getting enough intellectual stimulation in real life. I’m in too small a pond. That’s the context in which I am saying “I keep winning.” I was really looking forward to losing some debates HERE for that reason. It looks to be a bigger pond.
You’re making me look like an ass, and there’s no good reason for it.
You want to talk about why you (and perhaps some of your friends) and I are frustrating one another? Let’s talk about it. But don’t lets mix up this frustration with a bunch of other things or go creating metrics that won’t accurately measure diddly and wouldn’t support your point (that a bunch of unfinished debates means I’m losing a bunch of debates) anyway.
Let’s focus on the frustration and see if we can figure out why it happens.
Outside view!
You’re a smart person on Less Wrong. So are your opponents. My prior for you being on the right side of the debate is < 50%, by symmetry. (I assign a nontrivial probability that both participants are wrong.)
I can know that something is happening statistically without being able to point to a single definite instance of it.
Thanks, now we’ll see whether anything worthwhile results from this.