The process of true Bayesians coming to agreement bears precious little resemblance to a typical human argument.
;
You’ve been willfully ignorant and willfully misinterpreted me
You have a bad model of me.
Either you are being irrational or Aumann is wrong
Aumann’s Agreement Theorem only applies to perfectly rational agents in particular idealized circumstances, as much as it’s used colloquially hereabouts as though it says anything about humans.
And yes, I’m being massively irrational. I am a human. You are also being massively irrational. If you have figured out how to stop doing that, then please let us know.
your above fallacies
I did not see any fallacies. Given that I am an expert on logic, I expect that you’re just using the word wrong.
your disdain for debate and your rejection of “convincing” because it’s apparently associated with debate is incredibly stupid.
I’m still unsure what you mean by “stupid” on the object level.
For humans, being in debate-mode tends to be a bad idea with respect to truth-seeking. Once you start arguing for a position, it is very difficult to update your beliefs on new evidence.
If you have evidence, state your evidence, update on the evidence presented by others, and everybody wins. Entering into debate-mode or being rude is a great way to discourage rationality in both yourself and any respondents.
“If you have evidence, state your evidence, update on the evidence presented by others, and everybody wins.”
The people who downvote the evidence win more.
In the spoiler problem from a while ago, someone else linked to an example conversation purporting to demonstrate why the policy was a good idea. I demonstrated that it was impossible, once the user had asked his question, for the conversation to have ended without causing the alleged harm done by revealing the spoiler. Someone responded by telling me that it’s not up for discussion and no-one except Eliezer is allowed to have an opinion on whether it is a good or effective policy.
Someone responded by telling me that it’s not up for discussion and no-one except Eliezer is allowed to have an opinion on whether it is a good or effective policy.
To clarify, I don’t think this, and you are of course allowed to have an opinion (as long as you’ve filled out the proper paperwork). I just meant that he has veto power. (Also, I was rather frustrated with the conversation at that point. Sorry.)
Someone responded by telling me that it’s not up for discussion and no-one except Eliezer is allowed to have an opinion on whether it is a good or effective policy.
Do you understand why people (me included) feel that you under-clarify your arguments?
Do you realise that we (me, and I guess thornblake as well) do not mean you any harm? That harming you could not possibly help us (sorry, it could, marginally so, if it actually had a behavioural impact)?
Furthermore, it is hard to get social benefits from downvoting, since others can’t see anyone downvote you. This does NOT have the same social effect as denouncing something in public.
Note:
;
You have a bad model of me.
Aumann’s Agreement Theorem only applies to perfectly rational agents in particular idealized circumstances, as much as it’s used colloquially hereabouts as though it says anything about humans.
And yes, I’m being massively irrational. I am a human. You are also being massively irrational. If you have figured out how to stop doing that, then please let us know.
I did not see any fallacies. Given that I am an expert on logic, I expect that you’re just using the word wrong.
I’m still unsure what you mean by “stupid” on the object level.
For humans, being in debate-mode tends to be a bad idea with respect to truth-seeking. Once you start arguing for a position, it is very difficult to update your beliefs on new evidence.
If you have evidence, state your evidence, update on the evidence presented by others, and everybody wins. Entering into debate-mode or being rude is a great way to discourage rationality in both yourself and any respondents.
“If you have evidence, state your evidence, update on the evidence presented by others, and everybody wins.”
The people who downvote the evidence win more.
In the spoiler problem from a while ago, someone else linked to an example conversation purporting to demonstrate why the policy was a good idea. I demonstrated that it was impossible, once the user had asked his question, for the conversation to have ended without causing the alleged harm done by revealing the spoiler. Someone responded by telling me that it’s not up for discussion and no-one except Eliezer is allowed to have an opinion on whether it is a good or effective policy.
To clarify, I don’t think this, and you are of course allowed to have an opinion (as long as you’ve filled out the proper paperwork). I just meant that he has veto power. (Also, I was rather frustrated with the conversation at that point. Sorry.)
I don’t believe you.
I dispute the accuracy of that summary, but I suppose it’s possible Random832 got that impression from the conversation starting here.
Ah, I could see someone making that interpretation.
To quote, add a single greater-than sign (>) before the quote.
You are clearly already in debate mode and you have been for quite a while.
Stop.
I’m confused. I’m curious.
Can you see his point of view?
Do you understand why people (me included) feel that you under-clarify your arguments?
Do you realise that we (me, and I guess thornblake as well) do not mean you any harm? That harming you could not possibly help us (sorry, it could, marginally so, if it actually had a behavioural impact)?
Furthermore, it is hard to get social benefits from downvoting, since others can’t see anyone downvote you. This does NOT have the same social effect as denouncing something in public.