I appreciated this post and found its arguments persuasive. Thanks for writing this!
The one thing I wish had been different was that the essay extensively argues against “argumentative charity”, but I never got a sense of what exactly the thing is that’s being argued against.
Steelmanning and the Ideological Turing Test get extensive descriptions, while argumentative charity is described as “a complete mess of a concept”. Which, fair enough, but if the concept defies definition, I’d instead appreciate a couple examples to understand what not to do.
I figured I’d at least get a sense of the problem of charity from the extensive quotes in “Things I’ve said”, but even there I felt like the quotes expected me to already know what exactly this “charity” thing is. Unfortunately, I have a rough idea at best.
I appreciated this post and found its arguments persuasive. Thanks for writing this!
The one thing I wish had been different was that the essay extensively argues against “argumentative charity”, but I never got a sense of what exactly the thing is that’s being argued against.
Steelmanning and the Ideological Turing Test get extensive descriptions, while argumentative charity is described as “a complete mess of a concept”. Which, fair enough, but if the concept defies definition, I’d instead appreciate a couple examples to understand what not to do.
I figured I’d at least get a sense of the problem of charity from the extensive quotes in “Things I’ve said”, but even there I felt like the quotes expected me to already know what exactly this “charity” thing is. Unfortunately, I have a rough idea at best.
Not everybody knows.