Vladimir_Nesov comments on Woo! - Less Wrong

7 Post author: BenAlbahari 21 February 2010 08:19AM

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

Comments (57)

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

Comment author: BenAlbahari 21 February 2010 09:25:07AM *  0 points [-]

The term is actually derived from the verb to "woo".

The definition "A woo is a label for a commonly used argument or strategy to persuade" encompasses any commonly used and persuasive argument, including both valid and invalid arguments, or arguments that may or not be valid depending on how they're used (such as the Consensus Woo).

I think however an attribute attached to each Woo of its intrinsic validity would be a good idea. That kind of data could then be used to rate experts according to how often they use bad arguments, and hence contribute to the calculation of Eliezer's Correct Contrarian Cluster.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 February 2010 11:15:05AM *  7 points [-]

Etymology of a word doesn't get to decide the connotations elicited by it in the reader.

Comment author: BenAlbahari 21 February 2010 02:23:15PM 0 points [-]

ata asked me "why the name" so I answered. I of course agree with you that connotations are more important than etymology. Frankly however, I was hoping for deeper feedback. If connotations were the only problem I was dealing with here, then I'd be very satisfied.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 February 2010 02:31:48PM *  3 points [-]

I get the impression you underestimate the importance of such trivial (to fix) defects.

The "why" questions may hide plenty of depth. Why did you choose this label? If you answer with etymology, then etymology must be for you the most important not-obvious-to-the-reader consideration about this decision, singling it out from all the other reasonable options. Otherwise, why would you give this particular detail of the process of reaching the decision? (Most likely, because of rationalization-causing bias, but then it's not the real answer to the "why" question.)

Comment author: BenAlbahari 22 February 2010 08:29:34AM 0 points [-]

I concede. The name is changed to "pitch". HT loqi who suggested the name + everyone else who gave feedback.

Comment author: BenAlbahari 21 February 2010 02:38:59PM 0 points [-]

I'm open to your suggestion that I've underestimated its importance. What's your alternative suggestion then? (I elaborated below in my reply to Jack on the issues with naming.)