The posts titled dark arts has both simply language and complex language in it.
If you mislead via using simple language that’s bad. If you mislead by using complex language that’s
also bad.
Neither complex nor simple language is inherently dark.
The other two don’t contain the term dark arts.
Eliezers post on stories doesn’t label them dark arts. He does the opposite. He says that in
a world where people care about informing people use stories.
He says that they are distant and not a way to signal authority in academia.
That’s not the same thing as labeling them as dark.
I think you misread Robins article as well. It also doesn’t use the term dark arts and explicitly
says people practicing dark arts sometimes use language that isn’t emotional for singalling purposes.
As far as your use of dark arts goes, saying that System I is
mainly the amygdala and System II is mainly the prefrontal cortex.
I’m not exactly sure to what extend that’s unsupported neurobabble. To the extend that it is,
don’t do things like that. Don’t simplify complex scienctific issues in a way that ends up
with wrong claims. Don’t make wrong claims about neuroscience to motivate people
to take up rational thinking habits.
Thanks, the feedback is appreciated. It sounds like the crux of the matter is misleading people, whatever the specific strategies involved. We’ll work hard to try to avoid making wrong claims in order to motivate people to take up rational thinking habits. I think that’s probably the main danger area for us to watch out for, glad you pointed it out.
The posts titled dark arts has both simply language and complex language in it. If you mislead via using simple language that’s bad. If you mislead by using complex language that’s also bad.
Neither complex nor simple language is inherently dark.
The other two don’t contain the term dark arts. Eliezers post on stories doesn’t label them dark arts. He does the opposite. He says that in a world where people care about informing people use stories.
He says that they are distant and not a way to signal authority in academia. That’s not the same thing as labeling them as dark.
I think you misread Robins article as well. It also doesn’t use the term dark arts and explicitly says people practicing dark arts sometimes use language that isn’t emotional for singalling purposes.
As far as your use of dark arts goes, saying that System I is mainly the amygdala and System II is mainly the prefrontal cortex.
I’m not exactly sure to what extend that’s unsupported neurobabble. To the extend that it is, don’t do things like that. Don’t simplify complex scienctific issues in a way that ends up with wrong claims. Don’t make wrong claims about neuroscience to motivate people to take up rational thinking habits.
Thanks, the feedback is appreciated. It sounds like the crux of the matter is misleading people, whatever the specific strategies involved. We’ll work hard to try to avoid making wrong claims in order to motivate people to take up rational thinking habits. I think that’s probably the main danger area for us to watch out for, glad you pointed it out.