= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Mass_Driver comments on Book Review: The Root of Thought - 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 (91)
Because it's a good assumption. Explaining is nothing but tracing out your own internal model's inferential relationships between the concepts. The only bar to this would be not knowing it. So I don't see what kind of "explaining skill" there is that goes above and beyond that.
Soliciting feedback, for its part, is but a matter of asking, "do you understand [link in my ontology]?" and/or watching and listening for when they say the don't understand.
(And I take it you don't find the term "nepocu" to be particularly annoying?)
No, I think Cyan is right. Have you read Eliezer's "A Technical Explanation of Technical Explanation?" You may wish to write "A Lay Explanation of Lay Explanation." I would certainly read and probably vote up such an article.
I don't see, though, how I'm describing a different kind of explanation, or a distinctly lay one. The explanation standards I'm giving are what you would need to give for a technical explanation as well, in the case where your listener starts from a point of less knowledge about your field (i.e. a far nepocu).
The technical explanation only differs in terms of its greater detail (afaict -- you may mean something else); it doesn't change in type.