Yes, I think that’s an excellent rephrase. Perhaps with a “To what degree...” tacked onto the front of it.
It is probably not an uncontroversial rephrase, though, since the equation of intelligence with the ability to juggle large numbers of mental objects is itself probably not uncontroversial.
That said, I endorse it.
(Though Nornagest is also correct that there’s a “are the Sequences actually good for conveying rationality?” interpretation, which I personally find a less-interesting question.)
I have indeed, and am fond of it. During my days as a technical writer, I had that list tacked up on my wall for a time.
And yeah, invoking concrete examples when things get too abstract to follow is a fine, fine thing. Worst case, it makes very clear to others where my understanding is flawed.
There is a fair bit of this sort of concrete work on LW posts—both Sequence and non—but there’s always room for more.
Yes, I think that’s an excellent rephrase. Perhaps with a “To what degree...” tacked onto the front of it.
It is probably not an uncontroversial rephrase, though, since the equation of intelligence with the ability to juggle large numbers of mental objects is itself probably not uncontroversial.
That said, I endorse it.
(Though Nornagest is also correct that there’s a “are the Sequences actually good for conveying rationality?” interpretation, which I personally find a less-interesting question.)
.
This blog is all about illustrating cognitive biases with concrete examples.
I have indeed, and am fond of it. During my days as a technical writer, I had that list tacked up on my wall for a time.
And yeah, invoking concrete examples when things get too abstract to follow is a fine, fine thing. Worst case, it makes very clear to others where my understanding is flawed.
There is a fair bit of this sort of concrete work on LW posts—both Sequence and non—but there’s always room for more.