The standard understanding of koans that dominates pretty much everywhere is in line with what Doriana quotes.
I disagree. I would predict that most people have no idea what “koan” means, those that have seriously studied Buddhism are aware of the controversy, and a significant mass of people (especially represented in this demographic) are more familiar with the use of “koan” in programming, as with Ruby koans.
The concern seems to be that those who haven’t actually studied varieties of Buddhism but are somehow aware of the word “koan” might be confused—but the word is clearly defined before its first use in this sequence:
(A ‘koan’ is a puzzle that the reader is meant to attempt to solve before continuing. It’s my somewhat awkward attempt to reflect the research which shows that you’re much more likely to remember a fact or solution if you try to solve the problem yourself before reading the solution; succeed or fail, the important thing is to have tried first . This also reflects a problem Michael Vassar thinks is occurring, which is that since LW posts often sound obvious in retrospect, it’s hard for people to visualize the diff between ‘before’ and ‘after’; and this diff is also useful to have for learning purposes. So please try to say your own answer to the koan—ideally whispering it to yourself, or moving your lips as you pretend to say it, so as to make sure it’s fully explicit and available for memory—before continuing; and try to consciously note the difference between your reply and the post’s reply, including any extra details present or missing, without trying to minimize or maximize the difference.)
When I google “koan”, the first result is Wikipedia which says a koan is “a story, dialogue, question, or statement, which is used in Zen practice to provoke the “great-doubt”, and test the students progress in Zen practice”. Very Zen, that supports my side. The second result is Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, which says a koan is “a paradox to be meditated upon that is used to train Zen Buddhist monks to abandon ultimate dependence on reason”. My side. The third result is for a page titled “101 Zen Koans”, which again supports my belief.
Eliezer has a history of associating mysticism with rationality, as well.
My personal concern is that using words wrong is annoying because I don’t like people mucking up my conceptual spaces. I can’t disassociate koans from mysticism and riddles, which makes it awkward and aesthetically unpleasing for me to approach problems of rationality from a “koan”.
That said, it’s probably too late to change the format of the problems in this current sequence. But I’d like it to never happen again after this gets done.
I suspect it will continue to happen. Invoking the cultural trappings of a certain kind of mysticism while discussing traditionally “rational” topics is, as you note, a popular practice… and not only of Eliezer’s.
I recommend treating the word “koan” as used here as a fancy way of saying “exercise”.
I disagree. I would predict that most people have no idea what “koan” means, those that have seriously studied Buddhism are aware of the controversy, and a significant mass of people (especially represented in this demographic) are more familiar with the use of “koan” in programming, as with Ruby koans.
The concern seems to be that those who haven’t actually studied varieties of Buddhism but are somehow aware of the word “koan” might be confused—but the word is clearly defined before its first use in this sequence:
When I google “koan”, the first result is Wikipedia which says a koan is “a story, dialogue, question, or statement, which is used in Zen practice to provoke the “great-doubt”, and test the students progress in Zen practice”. Very Zen, that supports my side. The second result is Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, which says a koan is “a paradox to be meditated upon that is used to train Zen Buddhist monks to abandon ultimate dependence on reason”. My side. The third result is for a page titled “101 Zen Koans”, which again supports my belief.
Eliezer has a history of associating mysticism with rationality, as well.
My personal concern is that using words wrong is annoying because I don’t like people mucking up my conceptual spaces. I can’t disassociate koans from mysticism and riddles, which makes it awkward and aesthetically unpleasing for me to approach problems of rationality from a “koan”.
That said, it’s probably too late to change the format of the problems in this current sequence. But I’d like it to never happen again after this gets done.
I suspect it will continue to happen. Invoking the cultural trappings of a certain kind of mysticism while discussing traditionally “rational” topics is, as you note, a popular practice… and not only of Eliezer’s.
I recommend treating the word “koan” as used here as a fancy way of saying “exercise”.