Both questions are important, and have potential for bringing good info. They shouldn’t be mixed up, one of them shouldn’t be considered while forgetting the other, and where one of them can’t be readily answered, you should just work with the other. Pursuing “Why” is how you improve on a faulty heuristic, for example, fixing a bug in a program without rewriting it from scratch.
I don’t see it, list the three. When applied to the context of these comments, the post says, “If you don’t remember why you decided to believe X, ask yourself, is X true? (That is, should you believe X?)”. Which is one of the options I listed. What I didn’t explicitly consider here is the condition of not remembering the reasons, in which case, Eliezer suggests, you are safer off not going there lest you come up with new rationalizations, and stick to the question you have a better chance of answering based on the facts.
No. Your own words “separately from” in between quoted sentences with question marks were more than sufficient. Making other people explain things that they should not need to explain has undesirable connotations.
There is a give explanations and justifications, there is a time to decline. Consider this to be a ‘5 second example’ of when not to ‘list three’.
Downvoted for spending more words explaining your non-response than it would have taken to just give Nesov the benefit of the doubt and be explicit.
Everyone is capable of misunderstanding trivial things, so the notion “should not need to explain” looks suspicious to me (specifically, it looks like posturing rather than honest communication). Can you explain it, or does it self-apply?
Making other people explain things that they should not need to explain has undesirable connotations.
In what sense you shouldn’t need to explain it? If you assume that I really do understand what you mean, but ask for other reasons, you are incorrect. That was not a rhetorical question. The only effect of not explaining in this case that I see is that I will remain ignorant of what you meant.
(In general, I noticed that I often can have trouble understanding things that people assume should be evident (I agree that they should be evident, in the hindsight), and I need explicit guidance to get what is meant. I can understand arbitrarily difficult things, but not always easily. My intuition can have trouble noticing the obvious.)
Obviously the words can be different, but how do you identify or distinguish the meanings? What particular distinction are you drawing attention to?
(Also, “Your own words “separately from” in between quoted sentences with question marks were more than sufficient” suggests that I already listed three meanings myself, but again, which ones?)
For example, “What should you believe?” and “What is the truth?” are somewhat different questions, but it looks to me that these are the same for the purpose of this discussion. I don’t know which distinction you allude to (This one? Probably not. Something else?). There are two questions that I listed in my comments, but also questions in the post. The questions in the post seem to map to my questions. You believe that one of them doesn’t map. Which one?
(It’s not even an interesting question. A simple answer would’ve prevented this whole sub-discussion.)
A simple answer would’ve prevented this whole sub-discussion.
It would have avoided the meta discussion—but that is the only part that was interesting or relevant to the thread. There is an important counterpoint to Eliezer’s “ask for examples” prescription. Just like demands of “Where is your evidence?” demands of the form “Give me some examples?” are often best left unanswered. They are powerful argument tactics regardless of whether they should be given the subject. The context, degree of mutual respect and expectations of flow of the conversation matter a lot when choosing whether or not to go along with the other person’s demand.
Yes, if not for the relevance to the topic at hand I would have averted the whole sub-discussion. Probably by simply ignoring the request, which is often the optimal response.
Just like demands of “Where is your evidence?” demands of the form “Give me some examples?” are often best left unanswered.
In usual practice, there are many useful techniques that don’t try to clarify the situation. But on this forum it’s also possible to actually answer with similar efficiency, even if not in an expected manner, for example “I believe absence of citable evidence is not a problem here” or “Not interesting enough for me to discuss further.” That would be an actual reason, out in the open.
I believe absence of citable evidence is not a problem here
I like that one and I expect I shall make use of it. Mind you I expect it would often result in much the same response to this one given how similar the message.
EDIT: Below may not reply to the current version of parent.
And that is an example of a response that doesn’t warrant a “Do Not Reply” warning. You made your disagreement clear rather than setting bait (whether sincere or not being unimportant).
Now the subject is merely insufficiently interesting to argue about. It really doesn’t matter that much in what combinations the questions are conceptually bundled in a model.
And that is (edit: or rather was, prior to Vlad’s edit) an example of a response that doesn’t warrant a “Do Not Reply” warning. You made your disagreement clear rather than setting bait (whether sincere or not being unimportant).
And again I fail to interpret this step of the game of subtlety (from my tone-deaf perspective). There are multiple things in this paragraph that I can’t interpret. (Which edit do you refer to? What’s a “”Do Not Reply” warning”? Why “warning”? What disagreement? What bait?) Seriously, it’s like that.
Both questions are important, and have potential for bringing good info. They shouldn’t be mixed up, one of them shouldn’t be considered while forgetting the other, and where one of them can’t be readily answered, you should just work with the other. Pursuing “Why” is how you improve on a faulty heuristic, for example, fixing a bug in a program without rewriting it from scratch.
All three. You already had two, neither of which matches Eliezer’s.
I don’t see it, list the three. When applied to the context of these comments, the post says, “If you don’t remember why you decided to believe X, ask yourself, is X true? (That is, should you believe X?)”. Which is one of the options I listed. What I didn’t explicitly consider here is the condition of not remembering the reasons, in which case, Eliezer suggests, you are safer off not going there lest you come up with new rationalizations, and stick to the question you have a better chance of answering based on the facts.
I notice wedrifid still did not explicitly answer you, so for completeness:
What exactly do I believe? Why do I believe it?
Why is what I believe true? Is it true?
Whatever question was brought up by linking to “Ask whether, not why”.
(Given the abundance of question marks, I’m not sure how that obviously parses into “three” questions)
And what Vladimir_Nesov meant by “both” was presumably:
Whether
Why
No. Your own words “separately from” in between quoted sentences with question marks were more than sufficient. Making other people explain things that they should not need to explain has undesirable connotations.
There is a give explanations and justifications, there is a time to decline. Consider this to be a ‘5 second example’ of when not to ‘list three’.
Downvoted for spending more words explaining your non-response than it would have taken to just give Nesov the benefit of the doubt and be explicit.
Everyone is capable of misunderstanding trivial things, so the notion “should not need to explain” looks suspicious to me (specifically, it looks like posturing rather than honest communication). Can you explain it, or does it self-apply?
More to the point—far more words than saying absolutely nothing. Almost always the best way to keep free of other people’s games.
In what sense you shouldn’t need to explain it? If you assume that I really do understand what you mean, but ask for other reasons, you are incorrect. That was not a rhetorical question. The only effect of not explaining in this case that I see is that I will remain ignorant of what you meant.
(In general, I noticed that I often can have trouble understanding things that people assume should be evident (I agree that they should be evident, in the hindsight), and I need explicit guidance to get what is meant. I can understand arbitrarily difficult things, but not always easily. My intuition can have trouble noticing the obvious.)
Obviously the words can be different, but how do you identify or distinguish the meanings? What particular distinction are you drawing attention to?
(Also, “Your own words “separately from” in between quoted sentences with question marks were more than sufficient” suggests that I already listed three meanings myself, but again, which ones?)
For example, “What should you believe?” and “What is the truth?” are somewhat different questions, but it looks to me that these are the same for the purpose of this discussion. I don’t know which distinction you allude to (This one? Probably not. Something else?). There are two questions that I listed in my comments, but also questions in the post. The questions in the post seem to map to my questions. You believe that one of them doesn’t map. Which one?
(It’s not even an interesting question. A simple answer would’ve prevented this whole sub-discussion.)
It would have avoided the meta discussion—but that is the only part that was interesting or relevant to the thread. There is an important counterpoint to Eliezer’s “ask for examples” prescription. Just like demands of “Where is your evidence?” demands of the form “Give me some examples?” are often best left unanswered. They are powerful argument tactics regardless of whether they should be given the subject. The context, degree of mutual respect and expectations of flow of the conversation matter a lot when choosing whether or not to go along with the other person’s demand.
Yes, if not for the relevance to the topic at hand I would have averted the whole sub-discussion. Probably by simply ignoring the request, which is often the optimal response.
In usual practice, there are many useful techniques that don’t try to clarify the situation. But on this forum it’s also possible to actually answer with similar efficiency, even if not in an expected manner, for example “I believe absence of citable evidence is not a problem here” or “Not interesting enough for me to discuss further.” That would be an actual reason, out in the open.
I like that one and I expect I shall make use of it. Mind you I expect it would often result in much the same response to this one given how similar the message.
EDIT: Below may not reply to the current version of parent.
And that is an example of a response that doesn’t warrant a “Do Not Reply” warning. You made your disagreement clear rather than setting bait (whether sincere or not being unimportant).
Now the subject is merely insufficiently interesting to argue about. It really doesn’t matter that much in what combinations the questions are conceptually bundled in a model.
What changed? (I guess the first paragraph refers to the conditions for having this reaction to a comment, though not sure.)
And again I fail to interpret this step of the game of subtlety (from my tone-deaf perspective). There are multiple things in this paragraph that I can’t interpret. (Which edit do you refer to? What’s a “”Do Not Reply” warning”? Why “warning”? What disagreement? What bait?) Seriously, it’s like that.