= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Open Thread, April 2011 - 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 (109)
Read the sequences and you'll probably learn to not make the epistemic errors that generate this position, in which case I expect you'll change your mind. I believe it's a bad idea to argue about ideologies on object level, they tend to have too many anti-epistemic defenses to make it efficient or even productive, rather one should learn a load of good thinking skills that would add up to eventually fixing the problem. (On the other hand, the metaethics sequence, which is more directly relevant to your problem, is relatively hard to understand, so success is not guaranteed, and you can benefit from a targeted argument at that point.)
You know, I was hoping the gentle admonition to casually read a million words had faded away from the local memepool.
Your usage here also happens to serve as an excellent demonstration of the meaning of the phrase as described on RW. I suggest you try not to do that. Pointing people to a particular post or at worst a particular sequence is much more helpful. (I realise it's also more work before you hit "comment", but I suggest that's a feature of such an approach rather than a bug.)
Do please consider the possibility that to read the sequences is not, in fact, to cut'n'paste them into your thinking wholesale.
TheCosmist: the sequences are in fact useful for working out what people here think, and for spotting when what appears to be an apposite comment by someone is in fact a callout. ciphergoth has described LW as "a fan site for the sequences", which it's growing into more than, but which is still useful to know as the viewpoint of many long-term readers. It took me a couple of months of casual internet-as-television-time reading to get through them, since I was actively participating here and all.
Sequences are a specific method of addressing this situation, not a general reference. I don't believe individual references would be helpful, instead I suggest systematic training. I wrote:
You'd need to address this argument, not just state a deontological maxim that one shouldn't send people to read the sequences.
I wasn't stating a deontological maxim - I was pointing that you were being bloody rude in a highly unproductive manner that's bad for the site as a whole. "I suggest you try not to do that."
Again, you fail to address the actual argument. Maybe the right thing to do is to stay silent, you could argue that. But I don't believe that pointing out references to individual ideas would be helpful in this case.
Also, consider "read the sequences" as a form of book recommendation. Book recommendations are generally not considered "bloody rude". If you never studied topology, and want to understand Smirnov metrization theorem, "study the textbook" is the right kind of advice.
Actually changing your mind is an advanced exercise.