Meta-comment: most replies at time of posting seem to be questioning whether a problem exists and quibbling with the style of the post, rather than proposing solutions. This doesn’t seem like a good sign.
Objection: it is highly irrational to propose solutions to non-existent problems. Insofar as someone considers the OP to have failed to raise a genuine problem, there is every reason for them not to start proposing solutions.
Furthermore, as another commenter has pointed it is an act of generosity to interpret him as having coherently stated any particular problem at all.
My interpretation of the original post was that they were identifying the problem that LW posters are ‘talking about rationality without putting it into practice .’ I then attempted to give an example of how one could instrumentally use the rationality techniques discussed on the site to achieve ones goals.
Whether or not it is the case that LW is failing to apply rationality techniques enough is an empirical question that I agree the OP hasn’t proven. However whether or not it is the case demonstrations of how instrumental rationality might work still seem to be a useful exercise.
My top comment was semi-flippantly pointing out that commenters are doing what the OP accused them of by discussing the post rather than what seems the more useful task of proposing solutions.
Furthermore, as another commenter has pointed it is an act of generosity to interpret him as having coherently stated any particular problem at all.
Possibly I am interpreting the OP generously in the problem they are presenting, but I don’t understand why this is a bad thing. When meaning is uncertain surely it is best to assume the most creditable interpretation in order to move discussion forward? (And contributes to general norms of politeness.)
Objection: it is highly irrational to propose solutions to non-existent problems. Insofar as someone considers the OP to have failed to raise a genuine problem, there is every reason for them not to start proposing solutions.
Furthermore, as another commenter has pointed it is an act of generosity to interpret him as having coherently stated any particular problem at all.
My interpretation of the original post was that they were identifying the problem that LW posters are ‘talking about rationality without putting it into practice .’ I then attempted to give an example of how one could instrumentally use the rationality techniques discussed on the site to achieve ones goals.
Whether or not it is the case that LW is failing to apply rationality techniques enough is an empirical question that I agree the OP hasn’t proven. However whether or not it is the case demonstrations of how instrumental rationality might work still seem to be a useful exercise.
My top comment was semi-flippantly pointing out that commenters are doing what the OP accused them of by discussing the post rather than what seems the more useful task of proposing solutions.
Possibly I am interpreting the OP generously in the problem they are presenting, but I don’t understand why this is a bad thing. When meaning is uncertain surely it is best to assume the most creditable interpretation in order to move discussion forward? (And contributes to general norms of politeness.)