We should want to successfully correct people when they use wrong methods to arrive at an answer, regardless of whether the answer is correct or not. [‘should’ replaced with ‘want to successfully’ in response to comment below by Shokwave.]
I try to avoid criticizing people when they are right. If they genuinely deserve criticism, I will not need to wait long for an occasion where they are wrong.
It seems to me that Eliezer avoids criticizing people when they are right because it takes more effort to convince them that their methods are incorrect in this case. In other words, the (social, cognitive, etc.) costs of correcting someone’s reasoning are greater when their final answer is correct.
I found JoshuaZ’s comment to be uninformative because he did not provide evidence for his implicit claim that Cowell’s beliefs about cryonics are from faulty reasoning (or other traits associated with stupidity).
We should correct people when they use wrong methods to arrive at an answer, regardless of whether the answer is correct or not.
The goal is not to emit truthful propositions; the goal is to make the other believe truthful propositions. Paraphrased from Pavitra’s comment.
Avoid criticizing people when they are right not because it takes more effort to convince them—but because all your effort will merely convince them more strongly of their own position, thanks to hardwired faults in the human brain.
Ah, okay. I agree that it would be a bad idea to criticize someone if doing so is more likely to strengthen an incorrect belief or faulty reasoning in that person.
I no longer agree with my use of the word ‘should’ in my first sentence in the grandparent comment.
However, I stand by my wording in the third paragraph—if you have strengthened an incorrect position in someone, then you have not convinced them at all. It still better to convince someone that their reasoning is wrong when it is wrong, but you have brought up the good point that a failed attempt to convince someone can do harm.
Even though this is plausible, don’t criticize people when they get the right answer. There’s a post about that somewhere.
edit—This was all I could find, although I thought it was more developed than that one line.
We
shouldwant to successfully correct people when they use wrong methods to arrive at an answer, regardless of whether the answer is correct or not.[‘should’ replaced with ‘want to successfully’ in response to comment below by Shokwave.]
In the post that you linked to, Eliezer wrote:
It seems to me that Eliezer avoids criticizing people when they are right because it takes more effort to convince them that their methods are incorrect in this case. In other words, the (social, cognitive, etc.) costs of correcting someone’s reasoning are greater when their final answer is correct.
I found JoshuaZ’s comment to be uninformative because he did not provide evidence for his implicit claim that Cowell’s beliefs about cryonics are from faulty reasoning (or other traits associated with stupidity).
The goal is not to emit truthful propositions; the goal is to make the other believe truthful propositions. Paraphrased from Pavitra’s comment.
Avoid criticizing people when they are right not because it takes more effort to convince them—but because all your effort will merely convince them more strongly of their own position, thanks to hardwired faults in the human brain.
Ah, okay. I agree that it would be a bad idea to criticize someone if doing so is more likely to strengthen an incorrect belief or faulty reasoning in that person.
I no longer agree with my use of the word ‘should’ in my first sentence in the grandparent comment.
However, I stand by my wording in the third paragraph—if you have strengthened an incorrect position in someone, then you have not convinced them at all. It still better to convince someone that their reasoning is wrong when it is wrong, but you have brought up the good point that a failed attempt to convince someone can do harm.