How can I put little effort but be perceived like someone worth listening? I thought announcing a monetary prize for someone who could find error in my reasoning 😅
I don’t think this is a good approach, and could easily backfire. The problem isn’t that you need people to find errors in your reasoning. It’s that you need to find the errors in your reasoning, fix them as best you can, iterate that a few times, then post your actual reasoning in a more thorough form, in a way that is collaborative and not combative. Then what you post may be in a form where it’s actually useful for other people to pick it apart and discuss further.
The fact that you specify you want to put in little effort is a major red flag. So is the fact that you want to be perceived as someone worth listening to. The best way to be perceived as being worth listening to is to be worth listening to, which means putting in effort. An approach that focuses on signaling instead of being is a net drain on the community’s resources and cuts against the goal of having humanity not die. It takes time and work to understand a field well enough for your participation to be a net positive.
That said, it’s clear you have good questions you want to discuss, and there are some pretty easy ways to reformat your posts that would help. Could probably be done in at most an extra hour per post, less as it becomes habitual.
Some general principles:
Whenever possible, start from a place of wanting to learn and collaborate and discover instead of wanting to persuade. Ask real questions, not rhetorical questions. Seek thought partners, and really listen to what they have to say.
If you do want to change peoples’ minds about something that is generally well-accepted as being well-supported, the burden of proof is on you, not them. Don’t claim otherwise. Try not to believe otherwise, if you can manage it. Acknowledge that other people have lots of reasons for believing what they believe.
Don’t call people stupid or blind.
Don’t make broad assumptions about what large groups of people believe.
Don’t say you’re completely certain you’re right, especially when you are only offering a very short description of what you think, and almost no description of why you think it, or why anyone else should trust or care about what you think.
Don’t make totalizing statements without a lot of proof. You seem to often get into trouble with all-or-nothing assumptions and conclusions that just aren’t justified.
Lay out your actual reasoning. What are your premises, and why do you believe them? What specific premises did you consider? What premises do you reject that many others accept, and why? And no, something like “orthogonality thesis” is not a premise. It’s the outcome of a detailed set of discussions and arguments that follow from much simpler premises. Look at what you see as assumptions, then drill down into them a few more layers to find the actual underlying assumptions.
Cite your sources. What have you done/read/studied on the topic? Where are you drawing specific claims from? This is part of your own epistemic status evaluation and those others will need to know. You should be doing this anyway for your own benefit as you learn, long before you start writing a post for anyone else.
You may lump the tone of this one under “dogmatic,” but the Twelve Virtues of Rationality really are core principles that are extraordinarily useful for advancing both individual and community understanding of pretty much anything. Some of these you already are showing, but pay more attention to 2-4 and 8-11.
How can I put little effort but be perceived like someone worth listening? I thought announcing a monetary prize for someone who could find error in my reasoning 😅
I don’t think this is a good approach, and could easily backfire. The problem isn’t that you need people to find errors in your reasoning. It’s that you need to find the errors in your reasoning, fix them as best you can, iterate that a few times, then post your actual reasoning in a more thorough form, in a way that is collaborative and not combative. Then what you post may be in a form where it’s actually useful for other people to pick it apart and discuss further.
The fact that you specify you want to put in little effort is a major red flag. So is the fact that you want to be perceived as someone worth listening to. The best way to be perceived as being worth listening to is to be worth listening to, which means putting in effort. An approach that focuses on signaling instead of being is a net drain on the community’s resources and cuts against the goal of having humanity not die. It takes time and work to understand a field well enough for your participation to be a net positive.
That said, it’s clear you have good questions you want to discuss, and there are some pretty easy ways to reformat your posts that would help. Could probably be done in at most an extra hour per post, less as it becomes habitual.
Some general principles:
Whenever possible, start from a place of wanting to learn and collaborate and discover instead of wanting to persuade. Ask real questions, not rhetorical questions. Seek thought partners, and really listen to what they have to say.
If you do want to change peoples’ minds about something that is generally well-accepted as being well-supported, the burden of proof is on you, not them. Don’t claim otherwise. Try not to believe otherwise, if you can manage it. Acknowledge that other people have lots of reasons for believing what they believe.
Don’t call people stupid or blind.
Don’t make broad assumptions about what large groups of people believe.
Don’t say you’re completely certain you’re right, especially when you are only offering a very short description of what you think, and almost no description of why you think it, or why anyone else should trust or care about what you think.
Don’t make totalizing statements without a lot of proof. You seem to often get into trouble with all-or-nothing assumptions and conclusions that just aren’t justified.
Lay out your actual reasoning. What are your premises, and why do you believe them? What specific premises did you consider? What premises do you reject that many others accept, and why? And no, something like “orthogonality thesis” is not a premise. It’s the outcome of a detailed set of discussions and arguments that follow from much simpler premises. Look at what you see as assumptions, then drill down into them a few more layers to find the actual underlying assumptions.
Cite your sources. What have you done/read/studied on the topic? Where are you drawing specific claims from? This is part of your own epistemic status evaluation and those others will need to know. You should be doing this anyway for your own benefit as you learn, long before you start writing a post for anyone else.
You may lump the tone of this one under “dogmatic,” but the Twelve Virtues of Rationality really are core principles that are extraordinarily useful for advancing both individual and community understanding of pretty much anything. Some of these you already are showing, but pay more attention to 2-4 and 8-11.
Nice. I also have an offer—begin with yourself.
I do, yes.