Like most things, it’s a matter of trade-offs. In order to raise all of my objections simultaneously, I’d have to think of all the objections before I communicate any of them. Perhaps my opponent could use the time I spend thinking up the second objection to ponder the first one? Maybe he would be quickly convinced by the first objection so that I don’t have to keep thinking? (I do think the post does a valuable service of pointing out a strategy that can be applied on a situational basis.)
It also seems worth pointing out that two rationalists debating with each other should perhaps avoid accusing each other of “moving the goalpost” in order to not impose the cost of having to think up all objections before communicating them.
It also seems worth pointing out that two rationalists debating with each other should perhaps avoid accusing each other of “moving the goalpost” in order to not impose the cost of having to think up all objections before communicating them.
Or, operate on the assumption that one might have to make multiple goals in order to win a game.
I do think that the idea of moving goalposts is useful—it would be problematic if “RA” responded to “WA”’s evidence about gender differences in engineering skill by questioning the validity of the evidence or saying that that didn’t matter somehow. But bringing up a different argument about a different aspect of someone’s claim is not the same thing.
Like most things, it’s a matter of trade-offs. In order to raise all of my objections simultaneously, I’d have to think of all the objections before I communicate any of them. Perhaps my opponent could use the time I spend thinking up the second objection to ponder the first one? Maybe he would be quickly convinced by the first objection so that I don’t have to keep thinking? (I do think the post does a valuable service of pointing out a strategy that can be applied on a situational basis.)
It also seems worth pointing out that two rationalists debating with each other should perhaps avoid accusing each other of “moving the goalpost” in order to not impose the cost of having to think up all objections before communicating them.
Or, operate on the assumption that one might have to make multiple goals in order to win a game.
I do think that the idea of moving goalposts is useful—it would be problematic if “RA” responded to “WA”’s evidence about gender differences in engineering skill by questioning the validity of the evidence or saying that that didn’t matter somehow. But bringing up a different argument about a different aspect of someone’s claim is not the same thing.