The kind of mental model you need of friendship to model it in a way where that sentence makes sense might not be conductive to winning friends.
For me personally, Bayes thinking is useful when I have some model that is wrong, but I refuse to let go of. In this case, I did not like “vibing” with people. I wanted all interactions to be problem solving-y in some way. Because I wanted the world to be like that, I didn’t accept evidence that people do not prefer it. But I could look at attempts to make friends and notice “oh, vibing is pretty effective for bonding, I should change my mind”. And just because I realized that through “rationality” does not make the conclusion wrong, or inimical to friend-making.
My friend and I agree that having high interpersonal intelligence would be better, but we disagree that logical-mathematical intelligence can be applied to social relationships. That second claim he makes is actually really strong. Since the logical techniques I was using are just identifying simple patterns, for them to be useless requires social relations to be so chaotic that no theories can be applied. This is clearly not the case.
To steelman my friend, he may believe that using logic will make me nervous. Many people hold this view. I have not found it in practice. Often in a social interaction I say to myself “take a step back, listen more, talk less” and find the interaction much improved for both parties.
It’s problematic to have a mental model where you expect people to either be blues or greens and not be open for someone to come with a different position.
Thats an unfair characterization of my statement. My post does not say that my friends epistemic position is permanent or bad. I just said his position is different from mine and I disagree with it. In the blue and green allegory, people get their empirical positions from a factional and ideological conflict. I do not think labeling my friends “way of thinking” on a single issue is the same thing. If I had said “how dare you, you filthy toolboxist!” I would be guilty, but I did not.
The idea of orthogonality isn’t part of toolbox thinking the way it was previously described.
I am confused by this statement.
Edit: removed a paragraph to improve “hugging the query”
If there are blues, greens, reds and oranges and when you are dealing with a orange you want to label them as either blue or green and label them green because you are blue you are not going to have them be happy with the label.
Since the logical techniques I was using are just identifying simple patterns, for them to be useless requires social relations to be so chaotic that no theories can be applied.
No, if you override emotions as the motivating factor for actions with intellectual guidelines that can harmful even if the intellectual guidelines are based on patterns that exist.
I am confused by this statement.
If you look at the people in EY’s post about toolbox thinking and lawful thinking, EY uses David Chapman as an example for toolbox thinking.
He uses Julia Galef as an example for lawful thinking and as far as I remember Julia Galef is a person who doesn’t believe that people should override their way of social habits with intellectual models. (Flag—My view on Galef is second-hand information from maybe 2016)
If there are blues, greens, reds and oranges and when you are dealing with a orange you want to label them as either blue or green and label them green because you are blue you are not going to have them be happy with the label.
This statement “Affirms the antecedent”. If I saw SMB and toolboxism as blue vs. green conflict , then yes I would label any position into either category. However, there are other reasons I might categorize my friend as a toolboxist. In this case, his beliefs match the definition of toolboxism given in the linked post “There is no one correct way to arrive at the truth (...) The only way to get better at finding the correct answer is through experience and wisdom, with a lot of insight and luck, just as one would master a trade such as woodworking.” His interpretation of multiple intelligences, as each adapted to their own field of endeavor and non-transferrable, matches the the definition (Tristanm has a SMB interpretation of multiple intelligences which I prefer)
No, if you override emotions as the motivating factor for actions with intellectual guidelines that can harmful even if the intellectual guidelines are based on patterns that exist.
I disagree. People “override emotions” all the time with intellectual guidelines. For example, bankers exponentially discount when they want to hyperbolically discount. I might want to buy a girl a drink, but realize that doing so would offend her, so I don’t.
I see that Tristanm and EY use different definitions of Toolboxism, which might explain some of the confusion.
For me personally, Bayes thinking is useful when I have some model that is wrong, but I refuse to let go of. In this case, I did not like “vibing” with people. I wanted all interactions to be problem solving-y in some way. Because I wanted the world to be like that, I didn’t accept evidence that people do not prefer it. But I could look at attempts to make friends and notice “oh, vibing is pretty effective for bonding, I should change my mind”. And just because I realized that through “rationality” does not make the conclusion wrong, or inimical to friend-making.
My friend and I agree that having high interpersonal intelligence would be better, but we disagree that logical-mathematical intelligence can be applied to social relationships. That second claim he makes is actually really strong. Since the logical techniques I was using are just identifying simple patterns, for them to be useless requires social relations to be so chaotic that no theories can be applied. This is clearly not the case.
To steelman my friend, he may believe that using logic will make me nervous. Many people hold this view. I have not found it in practice. Often in a social interaction I say to myself “take a step back, listen more, talk less” and find the interaction much improved for both parties.
Thats an unfair characterization of my statement. My post does not say that my friends epistemic position is permanent or bad. I just said his position is different from mine and I disagree with it. In the blue and green allegory, people get their empirical positions from a factional and ideological conflict. I do not think labeling my friends “way of thinking” on a single issue is the same thing. If I had said “how dare you, you filthy toolboxist!” I would be guilty, but I did not.
I am confused by this statement.
Edit: removed a paragraph to improve “hugging the query”
If there are blues, greens, reds and oranges and when you are dealing with a orange you want to label them as either blue or green and label them green because you are blue you are not going to have them be happy with the label.
No, if you override emotions as the motivating factor for actions with intellectual guidelines that can harmful even if the intellectual guidelines are based on patterns that exist.
If you look at the people in EY’s post about toolbox thinking and lawful thinking, EY uses David Chapman as an example for toolbox thinking.
He uses Julia Galef as an example for lawful thinking and as far as I remember Julia Galef is a person who doesn’t believe that people should override their way of social habits with intellectual models. (Flag—My view on Galef is second-hand information from maybe 2016)
This statement “Affirms the antecedent”. If I saw SMB and toolboxism as blue vs. green conflict , then yes I would label any position into either category. However, there are other reasons I might categorize my friend as a toolboxist. In this case, his beliefs match the definition of toolboxism given in the linked post “There is no one correct way to arrive at the truth (...) The only way to get better at finding the correct answer is through experience and wisdom, with a lot of insight and luck, just as one would master a trade such as woodworking.” His interpretation of multiple intelligences, as each adapted to their own field of endeavor and non-transferrable, matches the the definition (Tristanm has a SMB interpretation of multiple intelligences which I prefer)
I disagree. People “override emotions” all the time with intellectual guidelines. For example, bankers exponentially discount when they want to hyperbolically discount. I might want to buy a girl a drink, but realize that doing so would offend her, so I don’t.
I see that Tristanm and EY use different definitions of Toolboxism, which might explain some of the confusion.