As a LessWrong mod, I’ve been sitting and thinking about how to make the conversation go well for days now and have been stuck on what exactly to say. This intention setting is a good start.
I think to your list I would add judging each argument and piece of data on its merits, .i.e., updating on evidence even if it pushes against the position we currently hold.
Phrased alternatively, I’m hoping we don’t: treating arguments as soldiers: accepting bad arguments because they favor our preferred conclusion, rejecting good arguments because they don’t support our preferred conclusion. I think there’s a risk in this cases of knowing which side you’re on and then accepting and rejecting all evidence accordingly.
Thanks, Anna!
As a LessWrong mod, I’ve been sitting and thinking about how to make the conversation go well for days now and have been stuck on what exactly to say. This intention setting is a good start.
I think to your list I would add judging each argument and piece of data on its merits, .i.e., updating on evidence even if it pushes against the position we currently hold.
Phrased alternatively, I’m hoping we don’t: treating arguments as soldiers: accepting bad arguments because they favor our preferred conclusion, rejecting good arguments because they don’t support our preferred conclusion. I think there’s a risk in this cases of knowing which side you’re on and then accepting and rejecting all evidence accordingly.