= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nanani comments on Agree, Retort, or Ignore? A Post From the Future - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (84)
I find that people sometimes misread my intent (perhaps I am not clear enough) or use words in a different way to me. So continuing the discussion wouldn't increase their knowledge of the world apart from the little bit that refers to me, which doesn't seem worthwhile.
I feel a forum where no argument is unresolved would work better if there was a way of splitting people into groups with different view points. Then anyone from that group could make arguments on its behalf.
You can just view a person's profile and see their past posts. That way you can check quickly what side of a previous argument they argued.
Given that people can change their minds over time, and rationalists especially are likely to do so as data and evidence mounts, having a readily visible viewpoint-signature strikes me as a bad idea.
Offline of course, this happens all the time. For instance, if women are most likely to support X, so a female entering a debate is probably supporting X.
I'm not sure what you are responding to here. I don't want to give people a label of non-foom believer or whatever. That would be one way of splitting people into groups but not the way I was thinking of.