I bet you use the same “fast moving explanation” with your friends to speed up communication.
Isn’t a normative argument. If indeed I follow certain behavior, doesn’t make it less of an error. There could be valid reasons for the behavior not being an error, but me following it isn’t one of them.
The hope with pointing out that you do it, would be that you’d remember why you do it… it’s friggin effective. (also, my other reply makes the reasoning for this more explicit)
The hope with pointing out that you do it, would be that you’d remember why you do it...
I try not to.
it’s friggin effective
For achievement of what purpose? There certainly is a place for communication of one’s position, but not where the position is already known, and is being used as an argument.
Imagine that Alice and Bob go into a room and Alice explains an interesting idea to Bob. They leave the room together after time t.
If a method exists, whereby Alice and Bob can instead leave the room in t-x time, with Bob knowing the same information, then this method of communicating can be said to yield a time savings of x compared to the previous method.
It’s not an answer to my question about the purpose, it’s a restatement of another aspect of it efficiency.
(Maybe you mean “stopping an argument is sometimes in order”? I agree, but that an argument didn’t proceed still doesn’t warrant you to assume as settled in the conversation things that your interlocutor doesn’t agree with.)
There certainly is a place for communication of one’s position, but not where the position is already known, and is being used as an argument.
Why not? My view is you take a normal conversation/discussion, and then proceed as fast as you can toward resolution (being careful that it’s the same resolution).
My view is you take a normal conversation/discussion, and then proceed as fast as you can toward resolution (being careful that it’s the same resolution).
I don’t understand this. What’s “resolution”? You can’t assume a bottom line and then rationalize your way towards it faster. You are not justified in agreeing with me faster than it takes you to understand and accept the necessary arguments. Sometimes you’ll even find an error along the way that will convince me that my original position was wrong.
Comment on downvoting of the parent: In this comment, I explained why I wrote what I wrote in the grandparent comment. How should I interpret the downvotes? Discouragement of explaining one’s actions? (Probably not!) A signal that I shouldn’t have made that statement in the grandparent the way I have? (But then the grandparent should’ve been downvoted, and this comment possibly upvoted for clarification.) Punishment for inferred lying about my movites? (If that’s how you read me, please say so, I never lie about things like this, I can make errors though and I’d like to understand them.)
Isn’t a normative argument. If indeed I follow certain behavior, doesn’t make it less of an error. There could be valid reasons for the behavior not being an error, but me following it isn’t one of them.
The hope with pointing out that you do it, would be that you’d remember why you do it… it’s friggin effective. (also, my other reply makes the reasoning for this more explicit)
I try not to.
For achievement of what purpose? There certainly is a place for communication of one’s position, but not where the position is already known, and is being used as an argument.
Time Savings.
Imagine that Alice and Bob go into a room and Alice explains an interesting idea to Bob. They leave the room together after time t.
If a method exists, whereby Alice and Bob can instead leave the room in t-x time, with Bob knowing the same information, then this method of communicating can be said to yield a time savings of x compared to the previous method.
It’s not an answer to my question about the purpose, it’s a restatement of another aspect of it efficiency.
(Maybe you mean “stopping an argument is sometimes in order”? I agree, but that an argument didn’t proceed still doesn’t warrant you to assume as settled in the conversation things that your interlocutor doesn’t agree with.)
I should start waiting before replying to you :p
Why not? My view is you take a normal conversation/discussion, and then proceed as fast as you can toward resolution (being careful that it’s the same resolution).
I don’t understand this. What’s “resolution”? You can’t assume a bottom line and then rationalize your way towards it faster. You are not justified in agreeing with me faster than it takes you to understand and accept the necessary arguments. Sometimes you’ll even find an error along the way that will convince me that my original position was wrong.
Not implied by grandparent.
Likely not, this phrase was given as an example of hypothesis that I can see and that’s probably not right. I can’t find a reasonable hypothesis yet.
Comment on downvoting of the parent: In this comment, I explained why I wrote what I wrote in the grandparent comment. How should I interpret the downvotes? Discouragement of explaining one’s actions? (Probably not!) A signal that I shouldn’t have made that statement in the grandparent the way I have? (But then the grandparent should’ve been downvoted, and this comment possibly upvoted for clarification.) Punishment for inferred lying about my movites? (If that’s how you read me, please say so, I never lie about things like this, I can make errors though and I’d like to understand them.)