This certainly accords with my experience. I didn’t find his posts on FOOM persuasive, but after speaking to him in person I’ve shifted significantly towards the idea that his side of the debate is closer to the truth.
Was it a matter of him explaining points he had made publicly in a different way, or did he provide an entirely new approach when talking with you?
Also, I know a few people who are devastatingly persuasive in a one-on-one conversation, regardless of whether they are right, who can’t necessarily write or publicly debate as well as they speak in a private, relaxed context. Maybe Hanson is more charismatic in person and so you are giving him more credit?
It’s not the usual kind of charisma—I didn’t feel a strong need to win his approval, relative to how much I do with other smart people. It’s rather that he was extremely quick to understand my arguments and point out important aspects I hadn’t considered, which makes it easier for me to consider that my argument might be flawed. So that’s an aptitude, but it’s one better correlated with good argument than the aptitude of charisma is.
I don’t think he’s publicly made the argument he made with me—it feels like until I spoke to him, I couldn’t see a way that his broad “outside view” predictions could translate into any specific outcome you might predict with an inside view. Now I can see how it might work.
This certainly accords with my experience. I didn’t find his posts on FOOM persuasive, but after speaking to him in person I’ve shifted significantly towards the idea that his side of the debate is closer to the truth.
Was it a matter of him explaining points he had made publicly in a different way, or did he provide an entirely new approach when talking with you?
Also, I know a few people who are devastatingly persuasive in a one-on-one conversation, regardless of whether they are right, who can’t necessarily write or publicly debate as well as they speak in a private, relaxed context. Maybe Hanson is more charismatic in person and so you are giving him more credit?
It’s not the usual kind of charisma—I didn’t feel a strong need to win his approval, relative to how much I do with other smart people. It’s rather that he was extremely quick to understand my arguments and point out important aspects I hadn’t considered, which makes it easier for me to consider that my argument might be flawed. So that’s an aptitude, but it’s one better correlated with good argument than the aptitude of charisma is.
I don’t think he’s publicly made the argument he made with me—it feels like until I spoke to him, I couldn’t see a way that his broad “outside view” predictions could translate into any specific outcome you might predict with an inside view. Now I can see how it might work.