That’s not what I argued. I do understand that this might be the first time many people thought of this and it might take more explanation to rally people around it.
On one hand, if it’s the first time many people have heard of this, then it is definitely not consensus. On the other hand, the idea that we should monitor how well various workers perform they jobs (including when their jobs involve making predictions), is not exactly novel. Ultimately though, I don’t know what your idea is, you didn’t explain for what purpose the predictions should be measured, I’ve only make a few guesses of my own.
The goals of the Fabians also hadn’t much details. That’s not the point.
If you don’t need the demands to be detailed, then I propose “we want more good things, and fewer bad things”—everyone can support that. Seriously though, I don’t know what the value of demands without details is. When you lack them, different people can fill them in very differently, and a lot of consensus is going to be fake.
On the other hand, there might be some other goal. I haven’t read Scott’s post yet (I expect many people haven’t, I’d encourage you to add some explanation to your post, why having such a list would be good).
I think LW exists to be a place for complex arguments and there’s no need to make arguments shorter.
I think that referring to other popular writing is okay and there’s no reason to explain things anew. It gives people who want to engage with the argument the opportunity to do so.
I think that referring to other popular writing is okay and there’s no reason to explain things anew. It gives people who want to engage with the argument the opportunity to do so.
Yes, it’s ok. But I’ve read Scott’s book review now, and I still don’t know why you think having such a list is good, or why it’s ok for the points to be woefully vague. In general, it’s good to explain things.
I think LW exists to be a place for complex arguments and there’s no need to make arguments shorter.
I’m not parsing this. What are you replying to? Did I say something should be shorter? In fact, I’m saying that your post is too short.
On one hand, if it’s the first time many people have heard of this, then it is definitely not consensus. On the other hand, the idea that we should monitor how well various workers perform they jobs (including when their jobs involve making predictions), is not exactly novel. Ultimately though, I don’t know what your idea is, you didn’t explain for what purpose the predictions should be measured, I’ve only make a few guesses of my own.
If you don’t need the demands to be detailed, then I propose “we want more good things, and fewer bad things”—everyone can support that. Seriously though, I don’t know what the value of demands without details is. When you lack them, different people can fill them in very differently, and a lot of consensus is going to be fake.
On the other hand, there might be some other goal. I haven’t read Scott’s post yet (I expect many people haven’t, I’d encourage you to add some explanation to your post, why having such a list would be good).
I think LW exists to be a place for complex arguments and there’s no need to make arguments shorter.
I think that referring to other popular writing is okay and there’s no reason to explain things anew. It gives people who want to engage with the argument the opportunity to do so.
Yes, it’s ok. But I’ve read Scott’s book review now, and I still don’t know why you think having such a list is good, or why it’s ok for the points to be woefully vague. In general, it’s good to explain things.
I’m not parsing this. What are you replying to? Did I say something should be shorter? In fact, I’m saying that your post is too short.