= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov 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)
It does: you can often change the subject, give a non-answer or even be silent for a few moments and then try to continue the conversation without giving the answer.
Not just a reply, but a bare position statement (that's the right term, should also work as a signal for this mode: "My position [statement]: ..."), possibly without explanation.
Does the link to epistemic hygiene (sorry for using a nonstandard term) resolve this misunderstanding? The point is that knowledge about assertions leaks through, biasing intuition about facts (blog:"do we believe everything we're told?", wiki:"Dangerous knowledge"), so it's a bad idea to fill your mind with hypotheses that you have no reason to believe -- it's knowably miscalibrated availability. As a result, observing unexplained assertions is a pointless or sometimes even harmful activity, but in this case it's exactly what is asked of the last-worder.
Yes, you're right. My statement was too strong. It still seems to me that its easier to ignore arguments online. In a real-time conversation you can remind someone that he hasn't responded to your argument, in which case he loses much of his plausible deniability. Online, such reminders seem to work very poorly, in my experience, to the extent that almost nobody even bothers to try them.
I'm not sure what exactly you are proposing here. Can you describe how you think the feature should work?
Actually, no. Thanks for asking.
Isn't the fact that someone else believes in it strong enough to have stated it in public sufficient reason for me to put some weight into that hypotheses?
I can understand this if you mean random assertions, but I think that observing unexplained assertions made by others in good faith would be beneficial on average, even if sometimes harmful. Do you disagree?
No, the link does not help at all. The second quoted sentence is clear, but it doesn't seem remotely like the wiki. If that is what you (and others) mean by the phrase, then you should change the wiki. One difference is that the wiki is written as if it is about specific procedures (hand-washing), while the point here is the problem (hygiene).