Oh come on. You know what I meant with the first part. There’s no number of deaths in history comparable to this number.
Where did I get that idea? Frequently quoted on this site is, “Not every change is improvement, but improvement starts with a change” or something to that liking. This site is all about mitigating cognitive biases as well as related fields, so it IS about change. Learning about biases and mitigating them is all about change. Or maybe I was under the false assumption that the people wanted to mitigate the biases and in reality they just want to learn about them.
I thought I started out fine. I’m not trying to kick shit up. The other person said “That you don’t know other big numbers?” so I responded with the same tone.
It appears that you took christiankl’s comment to be an inflammatory tone. C could have said better things, and that’s up to him to be better in the future too.
Ask a side point—this is how a traditional flame war starts.
“There’s no other number comparable to it.” (hyperbole) ”What is this supposed to mean? That you don’t know other big numbers?” (challenge) ”Oh come on.” (objection)
A shortcut to discussion here is that it has very little of the hyperbole on either side. He might be giving you shit for the hyperbole but he didn’t escalate where,
“Or maybe I was under the false assumption that the people wanted to mitigate the biases and in reality they just want to learn about them.” Is escalating
Oh come on. You know what I meant with the first part.
To me the expressed sentiment feels, like talking to someone without a mass background who’s impressed by big numbers and who generally knows no numbers in that category. $60 billion for example is near the NIH budget.
If I want to focus on deaths the number of bacteria that die within myself in a year is likely higher than 60 billion.
This site is all about mitigating cognitive biases as well as related fields, so it IS about change.
It’s interesting that you don’t defend the idea that this website is supposed to be about pushing for change in your reply but a more general one, that this website is about valuing change.
Creating internal alignment through a CFAR technique like internal double crux can lead to personal change but there’s no pushing involved.
It’s interesting that you don’t defend the idea that this website is supposed to be about pushing for change in your reply but a more general one, that this website is about valuing change.
I don’t follow. I did defend that its about change.
There’s a difference between “here’s an argument for veganism, take it or leave it” and “you guys aren’t rationalists because you’re not adopting my favored position.”
Oh come on. You know what I meant with the first part. There’s no number of deaths in history comparable to this number.
Where did I get that idea? Frequently quoted on this site is, “Not every change is improvement, but improvement starts with a change” or something to that liking. This site is all about mitigating cognitive biases as well as related fields, so it IS about change. Learning about biases and mitigating them is all about change. Or maybe I was under the false assumption that the people wanted to mitigate the biases and in reality they just want to learn about them.
Careful now. If you just try to kick up shit people will start ignoring you.
Try: “I am confused because...”
I thought I started out fine. I’m not trying to kick shit up. The other person said “That you don’t know other big numbers?” so I responded with the same tone.
Isn’t mitigating biases change?
It appears that you took christiankl’s comment to be an inflammatory tone. C could have said better things, and that’s up to him to be better in the future too.
Ask a side point—this is how a traditional flame war starts.
“There’s no other number comparable to it.” (hyperbole)
”What is this supposed to mean? That you don’t know other big numbers?” (challenge)
”Oh come on.” (objection)
A shortcut to discussion here is that it has very little of the hyperbole on either side. He might be giving you shit for the hyperbole but he didn’t escalate where,
“Or maybe I was under the false assumption that the people wanted to mitigate the biases and in reality they just want to learn about them.”
Is escalating
Very true. Thanks for catching me. I need to work on my communication skills.
Zarm—slightly less wrong already!
To me the expressed sentiment feels, like talking to someone without a mass background who’s impressed by big numbers and who generally knows no numbers in that category. $60 billion for example is near the NIH budget.
If I want to focus on deaths the number of bacteria that die within myself in a year is likely higher than 60 billion.
It’s interesting that you don’t defend the idea that this website is supposed to be about pushing for change in your reply but a more general one, that this website is about valuing change.
Creating internal alignment through a CFAR technique like internal double crux can lead to personal change but there’s no pushing involved.
Rationalists should win. We do care about instrumental rationality. Epistemic rationality is a means to this end. Doesn’t that mean “change”?
I don’t follow. I did defend that its about change.
There’s a difference between “here’s an argument for veganism, take it or leave it” and “you guys aren’t rationalists because you’re not adopting my favored position.”
I never said the second quote. Someone was arguing that this site isn’t about change. I argued it is.
I believe that was a fair paraphrazation of your original post, which did in fact come off as rather accusatory to me.
You didn’t defend that it’s about “pushing to change”.