= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Technologos comments on Playing the Meta-game - 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 (44)
Blast. Not what I was going for at all.
I was trying to focus on the framing issue, to suggest that arguing for rationalist positions in the normal manner is an uphill battle and that one solution is instead to highlight the many ways in which rationalism and its consequents can concretely improve people's lives. The objective, then, would be to make people's introductions to rationalism smoother by emphasizing the light at the end of the tunnel, rather than the (substantial) amount of things they have to internalize before they can get there.
I certainly wasn't intending to flatter myself, and I'd hoped the links justified my statements about rationalism; is there a change you'd suggest that could fix that?
My reaction was kinda the same. The story was interesting, and a post with the story alone might have gotten an upvote from me. But the rest sounded a bit too much like an applause light. I didn't feel like the end provided any new information. It just vaguely declared that rationalists could win by thinking outside the box and linked to a bunch of old posts.
I turned the lights out. Thanks for the suggestions!
I can certainly understand re: the applause lights; I suppose I was too positively affected by the Schelling-pointmas.
I probably should have framed the post as a reaction to the recent discussions about contrarianism, as I was in part hypothesizing that rationalism's widespread adoption is impaired by being seen that way.
You should try writing a one-line self-contained description of the idea you wanted to communicate in the post, followed by a one-paragraph abstract and a several-items plan -- that'll help to focus the idea, bringing it closer to a legible explanation.
I still don't understand your intended message. I know that my description doesn't reflect the idea you wanted to communicate: but it never got through, and the above comment doesn't help.
I made a couple of changes that might improve things a bit, summarizing particularly at the end.
I'm reflecting on my experience trying to bridge the inferential distance between myself and people with whom I am arguing, and I'm trying to suggest that we should re-frame our discussions with non-rationalists in a manner that shows we're on their side, that we share their goals, in order to make our contrarian positions more easily accepted.