Ugh, you mean, don’t say things you believe to be false in the moment you say it. It’s okay to fib a bit for effect.
You don’t know what you saw, and you don’t remember what you thought about it in the moment. All you have is slowly fading and constantly reprocessed memories. There is no way to keep it all straight, though you might as well try, subject to acknowledging above caveats.
Unless you are you (Logan), or Scott or Eliezer, and maybe a few other people, you tend to feel very sure of something when you state it.
Again “unfalsifiable twaddle out of your ass” feels like truth to most people.
Yes, try to be accurate, and fail, and hopefully realize that you failed. The Scout mindset is impossibly hard, though it is a noble thing to keep trying.
It’s not terrible to start with one hypothesis if you can test it. If you are a programmer debugging some algorithm, you check your hypotheses one at a time, usually. Or maybe one subspace of hypotheses at a time.
Figuring out which is which is usually the hardest part. Sometimes you can just have a smoke despite all those other smokers dying from lesions.
No argument there. (See Duncan’s post)
It feels like motte and bailey is often figuring out the domain of applicability. “God is love”… with a few provisos that only become clear after extensive discussion. (Also see 1.)
Yeah… “my shitty model of you is more accurate than your own”. Most of the time we are not even aware that this is what we believe.
Excellent rant, 10⁄10. My instinctive pushback:
Ugh, you mean, don’t say things you believe to be false in the moment you say it. It’s okay to fib a bit for effect.
You don’t know what you saw, and you don’t remember what you thought about it in the moment. All you have is slowly fading and constantly reprocessed memories. There is no way to keep it all straight, though you might as well try, subject to acknowledging above caveats.
Unless you are you (Logan), or Scott or Eliezer, and maybe a few other people, you tend to feel very sure of something when you state it.
Again “unfalsifiable twaddle out of your ass” feels like truth to most people.
Yes, try to be accurate, and fail, and hopefully realize that you failed. The Scout mindset is impossibly hard, though it is a noble thing to keep trying.
It’s not terrible to start with one hypothesis if you can test it. If you are a programmer debugging some algorithm, you check your hypotheses one at a time, usually. Or maybe one subspace of hypotheses at a time.
Figuring out which is which is usually the hardest part. Sometimes you can just have a smoke despite all those other smokers dying from lesions.
No argument there. (See Duncan’s post)
It feels like motte and bailey is often figuring out the domain of applicability. “God is love”… with a few provisos that only become clear after extensive discussion. (Also see 1.)
Yeah… “my shitty model of you is more accurate than your own”. Most of the time we are not even aware that this is what we believe.