I hate that sub. I was subbed for like a week before I realized that it was always awful like that.
chaosmosis
Karma: 346
I didn’t have any specific format in mind, but you’d be right otherwise.
I agree but also still think that tone is very overemphasized. We should encourage less reaction to tone instead of taking it as inevitable and a reasonable complaint in response to a comment, which is what I think that we currently do.
Teach the best case that there is for each of several popular opinions. Give the students assignments about the interactions of these different opinions, and let/require the students the students to debate which ones are best, but don’t give a one-sided approach.
The Best Way Anyone Have Found So Far By A Fair Margin.
This also seems problematic, for the same reasons.
Your post didn’t come across as abrasive, Luke’s did. Sorry for my bad communication.
My impression is that Nietzsche tries to make his philosophical writings an example of his philosophical thought in practice. He likes levity and jokes, so he incorporates them in his work a lot. Nietzsche sort of shifts frames a lot and sometimes disorients you before you get to the meaning of his work. But, there are lots of serious messages within his sarcastic one liners, and also his work comprises a lot more than just sarcastic one liners.
I feel like some sort of comparison to Hofstadter might be apt but I haven’t read enough Hofstadter to do that competently, and I think Nietzsche would probably use these techniques more than Hofstadter so the comparison isn’t great.
Reading Nietzsche is partially an experience, as well as an intellectual exercise. That doesn’t accurately convey what I want to say because intellectual exercises are a subset of experiences and all reading is a kind of experience, but I think that sentence gets the idea across at least.
I’m trying to think what I would do. I don’t know how I’d go about creating the groundwork for the conversation or selecting the person with whom I would converse. But here’s an outline of how I think the conversation might go.
Me: What do you believe about epistemology?
Them: I believe X.
Me: I believe that empiricism works, even if I don’t know why it works. I believe that if something is useful that’s sufficient to justify believing in it, at least up to the point where it stops being useful. This is because I think changing one’s epistemology only makes sense if it’s motivated by one’s values since truth is not necessarily an end in itself.
I think X is problematic because it ignores Y and assumes Z. Z is a case of bad science, and most scientists don’t Z.
What do you believe about morality?
Them: I believe A.
Me: I believe that morality is a guide to human behavior that seeks to discriminate between right and wrong behavior. However, I don’t believe that a moral system is necessarily objective in the traditional sense. I think that morality has to do with individual values and desires since desires are the only form of inherently motivational facts and are thus the key link between epistemic truth and moral guidance. I think individuals should pursue their values, although I often get confused when those values contradict.
I sort of believe A, in that _. But I disagree with A because X.
What do you think philosophy is and ought to be, if anything?
Them: Q.
Me: Honestly, I don’t know or particularly care about the definitions of words because I’m mainly only interested in things that achieve my values. But, I think that philosophy, whatever its specific definition, ought to be aimed towards the purpose of clarifying morality and epistemology because I think that would be a useful step towards achieving my individual values.
First, make sure that they’re actually approachable at all.
Second, don’t approach them in a combative fashion, like this post does. You need to approach them by understanding their specific view of morality and epistemology and their view of how philosophy relates to that, and how it should relate to it, or even if they think it does or should at all. Approach them from a perspective that is explicitly open to change. Ask lots of questions, then ask follow up questions. These questions shouldn’t be combative, although they should probably expose assumptions that are at least seemingly questionable.
Third, make sure you know what you’re getting into yourself. Some of those guys are very smart, and they have a lot more experience than you do. Do your homework.
Hume and Nietzsche are both excellent exceptions to your general rule.
Also, #4 seems completely fine to me.
1 Length is only good insofar as it adds to meaning. Most length on LessWrong doesn’t do that. For example, I can summarize your first point as:
Long comments make arguments clearer and make communication faster. Good communication is good, within certain limits, and I think most comments fall within those limits.
I don’t think any important information is lost there. I disagree with your assessment of communication practices on LessWrong.
2 I don’t think we should react to differences in tone the way that we do. The fact that our community has different norms depending on whether or not you use certain tones is problematic. We should try to minimize the impact that things like tone have. Substantive issues ought to be a priority and they ought to dominate to the point where things like tone barely matter at all.
3 Disclaimers discourage argumentative clash and take extra time to think of beforehand. Simply putting down a disclaimer allows you to marginalize issues that others might have with your post, it makes relevant criticism superficially appear less relevant. A better practice that we should be cultivated is to simply concede things after those things are pointed out.
4 The mindset of lines of retreat seems to stem from the idea that arguments are soldiers meant to defend your social status. Mental lines of retreat might be good but discursive ones are generally a way of avoiding responsibility.
5 Cross apply my above response to your argument about tone.
You say that they are good social skills. I agree, given the social norms of this site. But I think those social norms are detrimental to cultivating rationality efficiently and so I want to go about changing the social norms of this site.
But it’s exactly things like leaving lines of retreat and using a polite tone that allows them to be less personally involved and not get caught up in things like having to “defeat” their “opponent”.
I don’t think so. At best, we’ve just changed the nature of the game.
EDIT: Upon reflection, this last point is basically the essence of my criticism. We’ve just changed the game to make it more superficially rational, but that is more resource intensive and it masks the underlying mindsets that are bad instead of actually changing them.
Though his comment might also be a sinister meta-signaling-signaling trolling :P
People make verbose and lengthy comments instead of short and simple ones. People always speak in a certain type of tone, signalling that they are smart but also that they are Reasonable and they are listening to the points of their opponents. People lace their comments with subtle disclaimers and possible lines of retreat. People take care to use an apologetic tone.
I think some of this is a somewhat rational reaction to the amount of nitpicking that happens on this site, which is something that I’m also opposed to. But some of this exists on its own and it shouldn’t.
I’d prefer it if we just got to the point and stated in the argument as simply as possible. I don’t know how to change the norms on this site and don’t think any macro-action could do it. Individual people (no, no one specific) just need to relax and to be less personally involved in the site or in the things they say and the arguments that they make.
Also, the karma system may or may not be exacerbating this behavior, I’m not sure.
In my experience, the people on this site don’t perceive signalling as wrong or useless, even when it’s superficial. I do not understand why that’s so because I perceive most of signalling as a waste of resources and think that cultivating a community which tried to minimize unnecessary signalling would be good.
Making the Babyeaters/SuperHappy posts into an audio story might draw new people to the site.
If you’re not interested in discussing the ethics of time travel, why did you respond to my comment which said
I don’t understand why it’s morally wrong to kill people if they’re all simultaneously replaced with marginally different versions of themselves. Sure, they’ve ceased to exist. But without time traveling, you make it so that none of the marginally different versions exist. It seems like some kind of act omission distinction is creeping into your thought processes about time travel.
with
Because our morality is based on our experiential process. We see ourselves as the same person. Because of this, we want to be protected from violence in the future, even if the future person is not “really” the same as the present me.
It seems pretty clear that I was talking about time travel, and your comment could also be interpreted that way.
But, whatever.
I’m protecting someone over not-someone.
This ignores that insofar as going back in time kills currently existing people it also revives previously existing ones. You’re ignoring the lives created by time travel.
Experientially, we view “me in 10 seconds” as the same as “me now.” Because of this, the traditional arguments hold, at least to the extent that we believe that our impression of continuous living is not just a neat trick of our mind unconnected to reality. And if we don’t believe this, we fail the rationality test in many more severe ways than not understanding morality. (Why would I not jump off buildings, just because future me will die?)
If you’re defending some form of egoism, maybe time travel is wrong. From a utilitarian standpoint, preferring certain people just because of their causal origins makes no sense.
practically compute
Your argument is that it is hard and impractical, not that it is impossible, and I think that only the latter type is a reasonable constraint on moral considerations, although even then I have some qualms about whether or not nihilism would be more justified, as opposed to arbitrary moral limits. I also don’t understand how anthropic arguments might come into play.
Your argument makes no sense.
“Time travel is too improbable to worry about preserving yous affected by it. Given that, it makes sense to want to protect the existence of the unmodified future self over the modified one.”
Those two sentences do not connect. They actually contradict.
Also, you’re doing moral epistemology backwards, in my view. You’re basically saying, “it would be really convenient if the content of morality was such that we could easily compute it using limited cognitive resources”. That’s an argumentum ad consequentum which is a logical fallacy.
This is like the opposite of game theory. Assuming that everyone takes the same action as you instead of assuming that everyone does what is in their own best interest.