= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Why Our Kind Can't Cooperate - 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 (186)
I'm not sure what this was supposed to add, especially with emphasis. Whose opinion would we think it is?
I've been told that my writing sounds preachy or even religious-fanatical. I do write a lot of propositions without saying "In my opinion" in front of each one. I do have a standard boilerplate that I am to put at the beginning of each missive:
First, please read this caveat: Please do not accept anything I say as True.
Ever.
I do write a lot of propositions, without saying, "In My Opinion" before each one. It can sound preachy, like I think I've got the Absolute Truth, Without Error. I don't completely trust anything I have to say, and I suggest you don't, either.
Second, I invite you to listen (read) in an unusual way. "Consider it": think WITH this idea for a while. There will be plenty of time to refute it later. I find that, if I START with, "That's so wrong!", I really weaken my ability to "pan for the gold".
If you have a reaction (e.g. "That's WRONG!"), please gently save it aside for later. For just a while, please try on the concept, test drive it, use the idea in your life. Perhaps you'll see something even beyond what I offered.
There will plenty of time to criticize, attack, and destroy it AFTER you've "panned for the gold". You won't be missing an opportunity.
Third, I want you to "get" what I offered. When you "get it", you have it. You can pick it up and use it, and you can put it down. You don't need to believe it or understand it to do that. Anything you BELIEVE is "glued to your hand"; you can't put it down.
-=-= END Boilerplate
In that post, I got lazy and just threw in the tag line at the end. My mistake. I apologize. I won't do that again.
With respect and high regard,
Rick Schwall
Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens (playing the game to win, but not claiming I am the star of the team)
This only makes it worse, because you can't excuse a signal. (See rationalization, signals are shallow).
Also: just because you believe you are not fanatical, doesn't mean you are not. People can be caught in affective death spirals even around correct beliefs.
Vladimir_Nesov wrote on 11 September 2009 08:34:32AM:
This only makes what worse? Does it makes me sound more fanatical?
Please say more abut "you can't excuse a signal". Did you mean I can't reverse the first impression the signal inspired in somebody's mind? Or something else?
OK I'll start with a prior = 10% that I am fanatical and / or caught in an affective death spiral.
What do you recommend I do about my preachy style?
I appreciate your writings on LessWrong. I'm learning a lot.
Thank you for your time and attention.
With respect and high regard,
Rick Schwall, Ph.D.
Saving Humanity from Homo Sapiens (seizing responsibility, (even if I NEVER get on the field)
I suggest trying to determine your true confidence on each statement you write, and use the appropriate language to convey the amount of uncertainty you have about its truth.
If you receive feedback that indicates that your confidence (or apparent confidence) is calibrated too high or too low, then adjust your calibration. Don't just issue a blanket disclaimer like "All of that is IN MY OPINION."
OK.
Actually, I'm going to restrain myself to just clarifying questions while I try to learn the assumed, shared, no-need-to-mention-it body of knowledge you fellows share.
Thanks.