= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
woozle comments on Criteria for Rational Political Conversation - 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 (39)
Suggestion: Supply links explaining references. You can't achieve common knowledge unless you have common priors.
I can certainly attempt that. I considered doing so originally, but thought it would be too much like "explaining the joke" (a process notorious for efficient removal of humor). I also had this idea that the references were so ubiquitous by now that they were borderline cliche. I'm glad to discover that this is not the case... I think.
Two years ago, I wouldn't have gotten the brontosaurus reference. I got it today only because last year someone happened to include "Anne Elk" in their reference and that provided enough context for a successful Google. There are no ubiquitous references.
That said, cata has a point too, as do you with the thing about explaining jokes. Like everything else in successful communication, it comes down to a balancing act.
Yes, I agree, it's a balancing act.
My take on references I don't get is either to ignore them, to ask someone ("hey, is this a reference to something? I don't get why they said that."), or possibly to Google it if looks Googleable.
I don't think it should be a cause for penalty unless the references are so heavy that they interrupt the flow of the argument. It's possible that I did that, but I don't think I did.
The problem is that the references have such a strained connection to what you're talking about that they are basically non sequiturs whether you understand them or not.