Taking arguments more seriously than you possibly should. I feel like I see all the time on rationalist communities people say stuff like “this argument by A sort of makes sense, you just need to frame it in objective, consequentialist terms like blah blah blah blah blah” and then follow with what looks to me like a completely original thought that I’ve never seen before.
Rather than—or at least in addition to—being a bug, this strikes me as one of charity’s features. Most arguments are, indeed, neither original nor very good. Inasmuch as you can substitute them for more original and/or coherent claims, then so much the better, I say.
Rather than—or at least in addition to—being a bug, this strikes me as one of charity’s features. Most arguments are, indeed, neither original nor very good. Inasmuch as you can substitute them for more original and/or coherent claims, then so much the better, I say.
Yes. But it’s not doing any favors to anybody if you pretend that a new coherent argument is the same as an old incoherent argument. In my experience, the authors of the previous argument are often hesitant to agree with the new rephrasing—it’s not written in the terms they use to understand the world.
It is also likely not written in the way they understand the world. I mean If charity is assuming that the other person is saying something interesting and worth consideration, such approach strikes me as an exact opposite:
Here, this is your bad, unoriginal argument, but I changed it into something better.
I mean, if you are better at arguing for the other side than your opposition, why do you even speak with them?
Rather than—or at least in addition to—being a bug, this strikes me as one of charity’s features. Most arguments are, indeed, neither original nor very good. Inasmuch as you can substitute them for more original and/or coherent claims, then so much the better, I say.
Yes. But it’s not doing any favors to anybody if you pretend that a new coherent argument is the same as an old incoherent argument. In my experience, the authors of the previous argument are often hesitant to agree with the new rephrasing—it’s not written in the terms they use to understand the world.
It is also likely not written in the way they understand the world. I mean If charity is assuming that the other person is saying something interesting and worth consideration, such approach strikes me as an exact opposite:
I mean, if you are better at arguing for the other side than your opposition, why do you even speak with them?