= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shokwave comments on Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People - 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 (420)
Part of my criteria for determining goodness of ideas is feasibility. I would be being dishonest if the idea was not feasible.
Mm, okay, let's put it another way than "good" then. Perhaps: "That's a desireable outcome and your method would work if we had the resources, but we don't."
Well, okay, I think I see something. This post and this comment communicate that people often use arguments to support monolithic beliefs. People might be thinking that the first option you gave earlier is saying "I'm on your side, we need to work together to kill this 'unfeasible' enemy soldier" whereas the second is more like "Your idea is dumb and I will throw arguments at you until you retreat or surrender".
A kind of politeness, then, I could use, encourage, and appreciate when receiving would be an effort to communicate that we both want the outcome, your method has obstacles, can we fix these obstacles or find another route?
That's exactly it.