Just noting that this entire post is an overt strawman; its title and central thesis rest on the exactly backward implication that both Rob’s and my posts were based on ungrounded theory when they 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. In the analogy of “physicists” vs. “engineers,” those posts were not written by physicists.
There are other flaws with it beyond that, but repeated past experience shows that further engagement would be extremelyun-worthwhile; I just felt called to note aloud the core confusion-inducing move the author of this post is making, in case other people failed to recognize the spell being cast.
[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.
I don’t think the typical reader would interpret the title and opening paragraphs as claiming that you and Rob haven’t tried to study and model what works in practice?
My intent was to play off an analogy Yudkowsky made between “rational-ists” (those who study rationality) and “physics-ists” (those who study physics). I’m saying that I don’t want the study of rationality itself as a subject matter to be conflated with any particular set of discourse norms, because I think different discourse norms have different use-cases, much like how different motor designs or martial arts have different use-cases. That’s totally compatible with you and Rob having put a lot of work into studying and modeling what actually works in practice!
The martial arts analogy seems apt: if I point out that different styles of martial arts exist, I’m not saying that some particular karate master (whose post happened to inspire mine) hasn’t tried to study what works. I’m saying that ju-jitsu, boxing, tai quan dao, &c. also exist. The subject matter of “fighting” is bigger than what any one karate master knows.
(We might have a substantive disagreement about this, if you don’t think a competing school of “rationalists” could have grounds to contest your guidelines?)
There are other flaws with it beyond that, but repeated past experience shows that further engagement would be extremely un-worthwhile
If you think it would help readers not be misled by my mistakes, feel free to point out the other flaws, too! Writing a comment under my post doesn’t put you under any obligation to engage with me.
Just noting that this entire post is an overt strawman; its title and central thesis rest on the exactly backward implication that both Rob’s and my posts were based on ungrounded theory when they 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. In the analogy of “physicists” vs. “engineers,” those posts were not written by physicists.
There are other flaws with it beyond that, but repeated past experience shows that further engagement would be extremely un-worthwhile; I just felt called to note aloud the core confusion-inducing move the author of this post is making, in case other people failed to recognize the spell being cast.
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.
Thanks for commenting!
I don’t think the typical reader would interpret the title and opening paragraphs as claiming that you and Rob haven’t tried to study and model what works in practice?
My intent was to play off an analogy Yudkowsky made between “rational-ists” (those who study rationality) and “physics-ists” (those who study physics). I’m saying that I don’t want the study of rationality itself as a subject matter to be conflated with any particular set of discourse norms, because I think different discourse norms have different use-cases, much like how different motor designs or martial arts have different use-cases. That’s totally compatible with you and Rob having put a lot of work into studying and modeling what actually works in practice!
The martial arts analogy seems apt: if I point out that different styles of martial arts exist, I’m not saying that some particular karate master (whose post happened to inspire mine) hasn’t tried to study what works. I’m saying that ju-jitsu, boxing, tai quan dao, &c. also exist. The subject matter of “fighting” is bigger than what any one karate master knows.
(We might have a substantive disagreement about this, if you don’t think a competing school of “rationalists” could have grounds to contest your guidelines?)
If you think it would help readers not be misled by my mistakes, feel free to point out the other flaws, too! Writing a comment under my post doesn’t put you under any obligation to engage with me.