= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on What I've learned from Less Wrong - 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 (232)
That's how great arguments work: you agree with every step (and after a while you start believing things you didn't originally). The progress is made by putting such arguments into words, to be followed by other people faster and more reliably than they were arrived at, even if arriving at them is in some contexts almost inevitable.
Additionally, clarity offered by a carefully thought-through exposition isn't something to expect without a targeted effort. This clarity can well serve as the enabling factor for making the next step.
And to avoid people giving in to their motivated cognition, you present the steps in order, and the conclusion at the end. To paraphrase Yudkowsky's explanation of Bayes Theorem:
This method of presenting great arguments is probably the most important thing I learned from philosophy, incidentally.
There are nevertheless also conclusions that you agreed with all along. Sometimes hindsight bias makes you think you agreed all along when you really didn't. But other times you genuinely agreed all along.
You can skip to the end of Yvain's post (the one referenced here) and read the summary - assuming you haven't read the post already. Specifically, this statement: "We should blame and stigmatize people for conditions where blame and stigma are the most useful methods for curing or preventing the condition, and we should allow patients to seek treatment whenever it is available and effective." If you agree with this statement without first reading Yvain's argument for it, then that's evidence that you already agreed with Yvain's conclusions without needing to be led gradually step by step through his long argument.
"That's how great arguments work: you agree with every step (and after a while you start believing things you didn't originally)."
Also how great propaganda works.
If you are going to describe a "great argument" I think you need to put more emphasis on it being tied to the truth rather than being agreeable. I would say truly great arguments tend not to be agreeable, b/c the real world is so complex that descriptions without lots of nuance and caveats are pretty much always wrong. Whereas simplicity is highly appealing and has a low cognitive processing cost.
Oh. I only agree with argument steps that are truthful.