Right. I kinda implied it was part of the solution but didn’t say it explicitly enough, and may edit.
The problem for implementation, of course, is that explaining your reasoning is toxic in worlds with the models we describe. It’s the opposite of not taking positions, staying hidden and destroying records. It opens you up to being blamed for any aspect of your reasoning. That’s pretty terrible. It’s doubly terrible if you’re in any sort of double-think equilibrium (see SSC here). Because now, you can’t explain your reasoning.
Political contexts are poisonous, of course, in this and so many other ways, so politics should be kept as small as possible. In most contexts, however, including political ones, the solution is to give no credit for those that don’t explain, or even to assign negative credit for punditry that isn’t demonstrably more accurate than the corwd—which leads to a wonderful incentive to shut up unless you can say something more than “I think X will happen.”
And in collaborative contexts, people are happy to give credit for mostly correct thinking that assist their own, rather than attack for mistakes. We should stay in those contexts and build them out where possible—positive sum thinking is good, and destroying, or at least ignoring, negative sum contexts is often good as well.
Right. I kinda implied it was part of the solution but didn’t say it explicitly enough, and may edit.
The problem for implementation, of course, is that explaining your reasoning is toxic in worlds with the models we describe. It’s the opposite of not taking positions, staying hidden and destroying records. It opens you up to being blamed for any aspect of your reasoning. That’s pretty terrible. It’s doubly terrible if you’re in any sort of double-think equilibrium (see SSC here). Because now, you can’t explain your reasoning.
Political contexts are poisonous, of course, in this and so many other ways, so politics should be kept as small as possible. In most contexts, however, including political ones, the solution is to give no credit for those that don’t explain, or even to assign negative credit for punditry that isn’t demonstrably more accurate than the corwd—which leads to a wonderful incentive to shut up unless you can say something more than “I think X will happen.”
And in collaborative contexts, people are happy to give credit for mostly correct thinking that assist their own, rather than attack for mistakes. We should stay in those contexts and build them out where possible—positive sum thinking is good, and destroying, or at least ignoring, negative sum contexts is often good as well.