The main issue for me to write comments is whether I think discussion to a conclusion is available. Rationalists can’t just agree to disagree, but in practice almost all discussions end without agreement and without explanation of reasons for ending the discussion by the party choosing to end the discussion. Just like at most other forums, most conversations seem to have short time limits which are very hard to override regardless of the content of the discussion.
I’m interested in things like finding and addressing double cruxes and otherwise getting some disagreements resolved. I want conversations where at least one of us learns something significant. I don’t like for us each to give a few initial arguments and then stop talking. Generally I’ve already heard the first few things that other people say (and often vice versa too), so the value in the conversation mostly comes later. (The initial part of the discussion where you briefly say your position mostly isn’t skippable. There are too many common positions, that I’ve heard before, for me to just guess what you think and jump straight into the new stuff.)
I occasionally write comments even without an expectation of substantive discussion. That’s mostly because I’m interested in the topic and can use writing to help improve my own thoughts.
He said, “Well, um, I guess we may have to agree to disagree on this.”
I [Yudkowsky] said: “No, we can’t, actually. There’s a theorem of rationality called Aumann’s Agreement Theorem which shows that no two rationalists can agree to disagree. If two people disagree with each other, at least one of them must be doing something wrong.”
...
Robert Aumann’s Agreement Theorem shows that honest Bayesians cannot agree to disagree
...
Regardless of our various disputes, we [Yudkowsky and Hanson] both agree that Aumann’s Agreement Theorem extends to imply that common knowledge of a factual disagreement shows someone must be irrational.
...
Nobel laureate Robert Aumann—who first proved that Bayesian agents with similar priors cannot agree to disagree
Do you think I’m misunderstanding the sequences or do you disagree with them?
Just because it’s not fully proven in practice by math doesn’t mean it isn’t a broadly true and useful idea.
It is fully proven by the math, but it requires a set of stringent conditions about honesty and shared information which are unlikely to obtain in real world situations. As explained in the rationality article. Did you read it?
It’s not that you misunderstood the summary versions, it’s that the summary versions are inaccurate. In general, you should summarise something as it operates under the prevalent, realistic conditions. So “you can’t use Bayes for everything” and “people aren’t suddenly going to start agreeing, even if they are rational”.
Thanks for the answer! I didn’t think of it that way, but I actually agree that I prefer when the post crystallize both sides of the disagreement, for example in a double crux.
The main issue for me to write comments is whether I think discussion to a conclusion is available. Rationalists can’t just agree to disagree, but in practice almost all discussions end without agreement and without explanation of reasons for ending the discussion by the party choosing to end the discussion. Just like at most other forums, most conversations seem to have short time limits which are very hard to override regardless of the content of the discussion.
I’m interested in things like finding and addressing double cruxes and otherwise getting some disagreements resolved. I want conversations where at least one of us learns something significant. I don’t like for us each to give a few initial arguments and then stop talking. Generally I’ve already heard the first few things that other people say (and often vice versa too), so the value in the conversation mostly comes later. (The initial part of the discussion where you briefly say your position mostly isn’t skippable. There are too many common positions, that I’ve heard before, for me to just guess what you think and jump straight into the new stuff.)
I occasionally write comments even without an expectation of substantive discussion. That’s mostly because I’m interested in the topic and can use writing to help improve my own thoughts.
If you read all the way through the rationalwiki article on Aumanns Theorem, there is a clear explanation as to why it cannot apply in practice.
...
...
...
Do you think I’m misunderstanding the sequences or do you disagree with them?
Just because it’s not fully proven in practice by math doesn’t mean it isn’t a broadly true and useful idea.
It is fully proven by the math, but it requires a set of stringent conditions about honesty and shared information which are unlikely to obtain in real world situations. As explained in the rationality article. Did you read it?
It’s not that you misunderstood the summary versions, it’s that the summary versions are inaccurate. In general, you should summarise something as it operates under the prevalent, realistic conditions. So “you can’t use Bayes for everything” and “people aren’t suddenly going to start agreeing, even if they are rational”.
Thanks for the answer! I didn’t think of it that way, but I actually agree that I prefer when the post crystallize both sides of the disagreement, for example in a double crux.