Exactly, it’s all about the concepts underlying the tool and recognizing situations when a certain tool has a better ROI than some other one at solving a problem at hand.
But, sometimes it can be hard to make a fair judgement on whether you really know something or just think that you know. So, it might definitely be useful to know a few other techniques/tools of doing the same thing in order to foolproof yourself.
“But poorly put-together sentences do detract from a message, irrational as that may be.” Why is it irrational?
“The most rational behaviour a rationalist can have is to be rational.” Meditate on it some more.
″...my objection that knowing three programming languages is not a requirement of rationality...” I said at least three, because there are at least three ways to do the same thing. Some are more efficient at one thing and others are more efficient at other things.
“Given that human rationality is a subject still being explored, making a definitive claim that something is a key requirement of rationality is incredibly arrogant in the face of ignorance.” It is incredibly arrogant, but it is also a very useful tool in deductive reasoning.
I feel like I’m being trolled by a spell-checking bot. You haven’t contributed anything to this topic other than your sceptism, which is the most basic tool anyone in their right might is able to use.
You said that “They [languages] aren’t exercises in anything”. Which I think is not true.
Thanks for the English lessons, bye.