Not that I should ignore the part about not being nearly careful enough in your eyes, of course
You could actually take that as a third validation. After all I am declaring that you are successfully achieving what you set out to achieve as an instrumental goal—portray a lack of credibility. It would be totally implausible for me to maintain (or for you to cause me to maintain) a significantly lowered estimation of your credibility while simultaneously believing that you excelled in the ‘careful thinking’ department as well as the previously mentioned categories.
I disagree entirely, and think there is some sort of “lets pretend we are talking about what we say we are talking about” bias at work here.
Will SAYS he is talking about reducing his credibility. He then does not use a host of tools which would do that very effectively ( I think there are many choices, but making errors of fact and logic would be a good start). Speaking cryptically is NOT a very good way to reduce your credibility, except possibly among some subset of people.
What Will is more successfully doing is
1) intriguing a subset of people
2) tweaking the crap out of a large subset of people (in a way that seems orthogonal to credibility seems to me)
Just because he SAYS he is trying to reduce his credibility does not mean that is what he is actually trying to do. I am not sure what he IS trying to do.
Yeah, but come on, losing credibility in the eyes of the masses is like the easiest thing in the world. Find a taboo, then break it. Losing credibility in the eyes of the wise, though, is impossible. Some people will know I’m a good rationalist no matter how many shenanigans I pull—I’d have to start breaking laws or something to make them think I’d finally gone full schizo. I guess I could just claim to be God, but it’s so hard not to be meta, the relevant people would see through my act quickly. The only choice is to avoid them, and move into the forest for good.
Losing credibility in the eyes of the wise, though, is impossible.
Not so. Be wrong on stuff that matters when you clearly had enough evidence available to reach the correct decision (and they previously would have expected you to be correct). If that doesn’t cause you to lose credibility in their eyes then I reject either your definition of “credibility” or “wise”.
I guess I could just claim to be God
It would be sufficient to claim that there is a god (and it is this particular God) despite the information you had available. See above.
He is bright enough and informed enough.
Presumably, “good enough” depends on at least all three factors, and strength in one can offset deficits in others.
Thanks, wedrifid, that means a lot to me. :) (Not that I should ignore the part about not being nearly careful enough in your eyes, of course.)
You could actually take that as a third validation. After all I am declaring that you are successfully achieving what you set out to achieve as an instrumental goal—portray a lack of credibility. It would be totally implausible for me to maintain (or for you to cause me to maintain) a significantly lowered estimation of your credibility while simultaneously believing that you excelled in the ‘careful thinking’ department as well as the previously mentioned categories.
I disagree entirely, and think there is some sort of “lets pretend we are talking about what we say we are talking about” bias at work here.
Will SAYS he is talking about reducing his credibility. He then does not use a host of tools which would do that very effectively ( I think there are many choices, but making errors of fact and logic would be a good start). Speaking cryptically is NOT a very good way to reduce your credibility, except possibly among some subset of people.
What Will is more successfully doing is 1) intriguing a subset of people 2) tweaking the crap out of a large subset of people (in a way that seems orthogonal to credibility seems to me)
Just because he SAYS he is trying to reduce his credibility does not mean that is what he is actually trying to do. I am not sure what he IS trying to do.
Yeah, but come on, losing credibility in the eyes of the masses is like the easiest thing in the world. Find a taboo, then break it. Losing credibility in the eyes of the wise, though, is impossible. Some people will know I’m a good rationalist no matter how many shenanigans I pull—I’d have to start breaking laws or something to make them think I’d finally gone full schizo. I guess I could just claim to be God, but it’s so hard not to be meta, the relevant people would see through my act quickly. The only choice is to avoid them, and move into the forest for good.
Not so. Be wrong on stuff that matters when you clearly had enough evidence available to reach the correct decision (and they previously would have expected you to be correct). If that doesn’t cause you to lose credibility in their eyes then I reject either your definition of “credibility” or “wise”.
It would be sufficient to claim that there is a god (and it is this particular God) despite the information you had available. See above.
You’d be surprised. Many people I know think this fact is true, some think it should be obvious. And these are wise people.