Alicorn comments on Controlling your inner control circuits - Less Wrong

45 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 26 June 2009 05:57PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (146)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Alicorn 28 June 2009 03:34:30PM 1 point [-]

I don't think the principle of charity generally extends so far as to make people reinterpret you when you don't go to the trouble of phrasing your comments so they don't sound obviously wrong.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 28 June 2009 03:55:12PM *  2 points [-]

If you see a claim that has one interpretation making it obviously wrong and another one sensible, and you expect a sensible claim, it's a simple matter of robust communication to assume the sensible one and ignore the obviously wrong. It's much more likely that the intended message behind the inapt textual transcription wasn't the obviously wrong one, and the content of communication is that unvoiced thought, not the text used to communicate it.

Comment author: thomblake 28 June 2009 04:44:41PM 2 points [-]

it's a simple matter of robust communication to assume the sensible one and ignore the obviously wrong.

But if the obvious interpretation of what you said was obviously wrong, then it's your fault, not the reader's, if you're misunderstood.

the content of communication is that unvoiced thought, not the text used to communicate it.

All a reader can go by is the text used to communicate the thought. What we have on this site is text which responds to other text. I could just assume you said "Why yes, thoughtfulape, that's a marvelous idea! You should do that nine times. Purple monkey dishwasher." if I was expected to respond to things you didn't say.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 28 June 2009 05:00:17PM 1 point [-]

My point is that the prior under which you interpret the text is shaped by the expectations about the source of the text. If the text, taken alone, is seen as likely meaning something that you didn't expect to be said, then the knowledge about what you expect to be said takes precedence over the knowledge of what a given piece of text could mean if taken out of context. Certainly, you can't read minds without data, but the data is about minds, and that's a significant factor in its interpretation.

Comment author: pjeby 28 June 2009 05:05:53PM 1 point [-]

If the text, taken alone, is seen as likely meaning something that you didn't expect to be said, then the knowledge about what you expect to be said takes precedence

This is why people often can't follow simple instructions for mental techniques - they do whatever they already believe is the right thing to do, not what the instructions actually say.