= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Debate tools: an experience report - 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 (72)
I think I've come across this once before. It wouldn't have sprung to mind as connected to argument mapping, so thanks for the connection.
I'm afraid, though, that from the outside it doesn't look like it contributes much to what I'm after, which is exposing the structure of the cryonics debate or decision. Or is there some place where the source code to the inferential chains is published?
The intent is to have a shared model, that allows a conversation to turn away from "doesn't - does so", and toward "this spot is where we disagree".
I wasn't sure I liked this idea, but I'm definitely in favor of it now.
I suspect that for non-trivial discussions, turning your arguments into one of these formal models would take more skull sweat than the usual ad hoc methods of identifying where exactly two people disagree. And the people who really need help with this are the people who would take one look at the premise of the worldview manager and laugh contemptuously, then not think about it any more.
I also suspect that the process of actually making one of these formal models would be a good exercise in breaking down your ideas, and could give interesting inights. The model of libertarian ideas is a good example of this.