My impression is that when rationalists make objections, they tend not to explicitly distinguish between correcting failure and revealing possible improvements.
If A is abstractly true, and B is 1. abstractly true 2. superficially contradictory with A 3. true in a more relevant way most of the time to most people
I expect rationalists who want to prioritize B to speak as if issuing corrections to people who focus on A, instead of being open-minded that there’s good reason for A in unrecognized/rare(ly considered) but necessarily existing contexts, and instead of offering their personal impression of what an improvement would look like as merely that: a personal impression.
In spite of this, I still love you guys more than any other culture; love your ambition, clarity of judgment, and charitability. I’m not a post-rat; I struggle with rationality.
My impression is that when rationalists make objections, they tend not to explicitly distinguish between correcting failure and revealing possible improvements.
If A is abstractly true, and B is
1. abstractly true
2. superficially contradictory with A
3. true in a more relevant way most of the time to most people
I expect rationalists who want to prioritize B to speak as if issuing corrections to people who focus on A, instead of being open-minded that there’s good reason for A in unrecognized/rare(ly considered) but necessarily existing contexts, and instead of offering their personal impression of what an improvement would look like as merely that: a personal impression.
In spite of this, I still love you guys more than any other culture; love your ambition, clarity of judgment, and charitability. I’m not a post-rat; I struggle with rationality.