[the post’s] title and central thesis rest on the exactly backward implication that both Rob’s and my posts were based on ungrounded theory
Er, where does the OP say this…? I see no such implication. (Indeed, if anything, the OP seems to be saying that the posts in question are based on, so to speak, un-theory’d ground…)
Rob’s and my posts … were both built entirely out of studying and attempting to model what actually works in practice, i.e. what are the observable behaviors of people who actually-in-practice consistently and reliably produce both a) clear thinking and b) effective communication of that clear thinking, in a way that is relatively domain-agnostic.
Well… sure, you can say that. But then… anyone could say that, right? I could write a post that recommended the opposite of any given thing you recommend (e.g., “cultivating an adversarial attitude is good, while cultivating a cooperative attitude leads to worse outcomes”), and I could also claim that this recommendation was “built entirely out of studying and attempting to model what actually works in practice”. And then what would we have? Two competing claims, both backed up by exactly the same thing (i.e., nothing except assertion—“trust me, guys, I know what I’m talking about”), right?
So, Zack (as I understand him) is saying, roughly: “nah, that doesn’t seem like a good guideline, actually, for these-and-such reasons”. Clearly you have a different view, but what is the use of claiming that your recommendation is grounded in experience? I have my own view—and my view is grounded in experience. Zack has his view—and his view is presumably also grounded in experience. We can all claim this, with some justification. Zack is also providing an explanation for his view of the matter. No doubt you disagree with it, and that’s fine, but where is the confusion?
There’s a question of whether there really is disagreement. If there isn’t, then we can both trust that Duncan and Rob really based their guidelines on their experience (which we might also especially appreciate), and notice that it fits our own experience. If there’s disagreement then it’s indeed time to go beyond saying “it’s grounded in experience” and exchange further information.
Er, where does the OP say this…? I see no such implication. (Indeed, if anything, the OP seems to be saying that the posts in question are based on, so to speak, un-theory’d ground…)
Literally the title (and then the first few paragraphs).
I don’t understand. How does the title imply this? How do the first few paragraphs?
I suppose you could read this implication into the title and introduction, if you were so inclined…? I didn’t, however. I don’t think your claim that “[the post’s] title and central thesis rest on” this implication is well-grounded in what the OP actually says.
Er, where does the OP say this…? I see no such implication. (Indeed, if anything, the OP seems to be saying that the posts in question are based on, so to speak, un-theory’d ground…)
Well… sure, you can say that. But then… anyone could say that, right? I could write a post that recommended the opposite of any given thing you recommend (e.g., “cultivating an adversarial attitude is good, while cultivating a cooperative attitude leads to worse outcomes”), and I could also claim that this recommendation was “built entirely out of studying and attempting to model what actually works in practice”. And then what would we have? Two competing claims, both backed up by exactly the same thing (i.e., nothing except assertion—“trust me, guys, I know what I’m talking about”), right?
So, Zack (as I understand him) is saying, roughly: “nah, that doesn’t seem like a good guideline, actually, for these-and-such reasons”. Clearly you have a different view, but what is the use of claiming that your recommendation is grounded in experience? I have my own view—and my view is grounded in experience. Zack has his view—and his view is presumably also grounded in experience. We can all claim this, with some justification. Zack is also providing an explanation for his view of the matter. No doubt you disagree with it, and that’s fine, but where is the confusion?
There’s a question of whether there really is disagreement. If there isn’t, then we can both trust that Duncan and Rob really based their guidelines on their experience (which we might also especially appreciate), and notice that it fits our own experience. If there’s disagreement then it’s indeed time to go beyond saying “it’s grounded in experience” and exchange further information.
Well, I certainly disagree! So, yes, there is disagreement.
Ok then. I’m glad the last two paragraphs weren’t just hypothetical for the sake of devil advocacy.
Literally the title (and then the first few paragraphs).
I don’t understand. How does the title imply this? How do the first few paragraphs?
I suppose you could read this implication into the title and introduction, if you were so inclined…? I didn’t, however. I don’t think your claim that “[the post’s] title and central thesis rest on” this implication is well-grounded in what the OP actually says.