Because it contributes nothing substantive to the site; we’re aware of the problem of grounding actions, and this doesn’t help solve it.
ETA: On reflection, I made this point way too harshly, in an attempt to be cute. Sorry about that.
ETA2: Someone seems to be modding down everyone who’s replied to this. Just so you know, it’s not me. I don’t vote on comments in arguments I’m directly involved in, and I’ve made a big deal about adhering to this in the past.
Because it contributes nothing substantive to the site; we’re aware of the problem of grounding actions, and this doesn’t help solve it.
I think these questions are important. In fact, I have built the habit of asking myself the question “What do I want?”, which prompts thinking along similar lines. (I did actually vote the post down, but just because it presents something as “fundamental to rationality” when it just isn’t. It is rather a useful tool of applied rationality.
What would have been particularly interesting is if MBlume presented some insights into what he has gained from this kind of introspection, including any changes he has made to “what he is doing” based on the “why he is doing it” sucking.
I don’t think our positions are very different on this. Like I said to Morendil and JGW, the fact that this is a good question for discussion makes it belong on the site—but in Open Thread. In its top-level form, it needs to do a more thorough handling of the topic.
I don’t think our positions are very different on this.
Yes, I was expressing a similar position, so included it here to reduce clutter.
I wonder why the grandparent was downvoted. It wasn’t particularly controversial position. Presumably either because it was in reply to your comment so someone voted systematically, assuming it was a fundamental disagreement (other replies to your comment were downvoted at some stage) or because of a parenthetical confession that I too downvoted the post (although I’d expect more umbrage to be taken at your burn!)
I see a lot of value in the post, which can help a person to expose a disconnect between their normative ideal of what they should do and what they actually are doing. A large part of the point is that this rationality stuff is not just theoretical, it has practical implications, and we should remember to apply the practical lessons in our daily lives.
The short, easy to remember “What are you doing? And why are you doing it?” is great for prompting oneself to examine how well they are practically applying rationality, how effective they are at achieving their goals.
Perhaps, but at its current state, it still seems more appropriate for open thread. For a top-level comment, I would expect to see more detail, take us through examples, and generally provide a more thorough exposition of how to best go about the process.
Agreed, nothing is lost by posting something in the open thread first, and then posting an expanded version if it generates interest. Personally, I’d like to see the idea expanded.
I agree that the post has little substantive content, but it may generate some interesting discussion even while sitting at 0.
You could fault it for timing—the flood of former lurkers who saying Hi, sometimes with interesting commentary, is already too much to keep up with—but I’d rather downvote an overly long post than a short one. Less of a strain on my attention economy.
Voting this post down.
Because it contributes nothing substantive to the site; we’re aware of the problem of grounding actions, and this doesn’t help solve it.
ETA: On reflection, I made this point way too harshly, in an attempt to be cute. Sorry about that.
ETA2: Someone seems to be modding down everyone who’s replied to this. Just so you know, it’s not me. I don’t vote on comments in arguments I’m directly involved in, and I’ve made a big deal about adhering to this in the past.
I think these questions are important. In fact, I have built the habit of asking myself the question “What do I want?”, which prompts thinking along similar lines. (I did actually vote the post down, but just because it presents something as “fundamental to rationality” when it just isn’t. It is rather a useful tool of applied rationality.
What would have been particularly interesting is if MBlume presented some insights into what he has gained from this kind of introspection, including any changes he has made to “what he is doing” based on the “why he is doing it” sucking.
I don’t think our positions are very different on this. Like I said to Morendil and JGW, the fact that this is a good question for discussion makes it belong on the site—but in Open Thread. In its top-level form, it needs to do a more thorough handling of the topic.
Yes, I was expressing a similar position, so included it here to reduce clutter.
I wonder why the grandparent was downvoted. It wasn’t particularly controversial position. Presumably either because it was in reply to your comment so someone voted systematically, assuming it was a fundamental disagreement (other replies to your comment were downvoted at some stage) or because of a parenthetical confession that I too downvoted the post (although I’d expect more umbrage to be taken at your burn!)
I see a lot of value in the post, which can help a person to expose a disconnect between their normative ideal of what they should do and what they actually are doing. A large part of the point is that this rationality stuff is not just theoretical, it has practical implications, and we should remember to apply the practical lessons in our daily lives.
The short, easy to remember “What are you doing? And why are you doing it?” is great for prompting oneself to examine how well they are practically applying rationality, how effective they are at achieving their goals.
Perhaps, but at its current state, it still seems more appropriate for open thread. For a top-level comment, I would expect to see more detail, take us through examples, and generally provide a more thorough exposition of how to best go about the process.
Agreed, nothing is lost by posting something in the open thread first, and then posting an expanded version if it generates interest. Personally, I’d like to see the idea expanded.
I agree that the post has little substantive content, but it may generate some interesting discussion even while sitting at 0.
You could fault it for timing—the flood of former lurkers who saying Hi, sometimes with interesting commentary, is already too much to keep up with—but I’d rather downvote an overly long post than a short one. Less of a strain on my attention economy.
Perhaps, but that would better justify making it an open thread comment.