Vladimir_Nesov comments on The 5-Second Level - Less Wrong

111 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 May 2011 04:51AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (310)

Comments (310)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 08 May 2011 10:42:05AM 0 points [-]

I don't see it, list the three. When applied to the context of these comments, the post says, "If you don't remember why you decided to believe X, ask yourself, is X true? (That is, should you believe X?)". Which is one of the options I listed. What I didn't explicitly consider here is the condition of not remembering the reasons, in which case, Eliezer suggests, you are safer off not going there lest you come up with new rationalizations, and stick to the question you have a better chance of answering based on the facts.

Comment author: thomblake 09 May 2011 02:22:04PM 1 point [-]

I notice wedrifid still did not explicitly answer you, so for completeness:

What exactly do I believe? Why do I believe it?
Why is what I believe true? Is it true?
Whatever question was brought up by linking to "Ask whether, not why".

(Given the abundance of question marks, I'm not sure how that obviously parses into "three" questions)

And what Vladimir_Nesov meant by "both" was presumably:

Whether
Why

Comment deleted 08 May 2011 10:45:35AM * [+] (11 children)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 08 May 2011 10:52:05AM * 1 point [-]

Making other people explain things that they should not need to explain has undesirable connotations.

In what sense you shouldn't need to explain it? If you assume that I really do understand what you mean, but ask for other reasons, you are incorrect. That was not a rhetorical question. The only effect of not explaining in this case that I see is that I will remain ignorant of what you meant.

(In general, I noticed that I often can have trouble understanding things that people assume should be evident (I agree that they should be evident, in the hindsight), and I need explicit guidance to get what is meant. I can understand arbitrarily difficult things, but not always easily. My intuition can have trouble noticing the obvious.)

Comment deleted 08 May 2011 11:00:15AM [-]

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 08 May 2011 11:05:03AM * 1 point [-]

Obviously the words can be different, but how do you identify or distinguish the meanings? What particular distinction are you drawing attention to?

(Also, "Your own words "separately from" in between quoted sentences with question marks were more than sufficient" suggests that I already listed three meanings myself, but again, which ones?)

For example, "What should you believe?" and "What is the truth?" are somewhat different questions, but it looks to me that these are the same for the purpose of this discussion. I don't know which distinction you allude to (This one? Probably not. Something else?). There are two questions that I listed in my comments, but also questions in the post. The questions in the post seem to map to my questions. You believe that one of them doesn't map. Which one?

(It's not even an interesting question. A simple answer would've prevented this whole sub-discussion.)

Comment deleted 08 May 2011 11:39:48AM [-]

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 08 May 2011 11:54:42AM 0 points [-]

Just like demands of "Where is your evidence?" demands of the form "Give me some examples?" are often best left unanswered.

In usual practice, there are many useful techniques that don't try to clarify the situation. But on this forum it's also possible to actually answer with similar efficiency, even if not in an expected manner, for example "I believe absence of citable evidence is not a problem here" or "Not interesting enough for me to discuss further." That would be an actual reason, out in the open.

Comment deleted 08 May 2011 11:14:58AM * [-]

Comment author: loqi 10 May 2011 06:34:42PM 0 points [-]

Downvoted for spending more words explaining your non-response than it would have taken to just give Nesov the benefit of the doubt and be explicit.

Everyone is capable of misunderstanding trivial things, so the notion "should not need to explain" looks suspicious to me (specifically, it looks like posturing rather than honest communication). Can you explain it, or does it self-apply?

Comment author: wedrifid 10 May 2011 08:20:40PM * -1 points [-]

Downvoted for spending more words explaining your non-response than it would have taken to just give Nesov the benefit of the doubt and be explicit.

More to the point - far more words than saying absolutely nothing. Almost always the best way to keep free of other people's games.

Vladimir_Nesov comments on The 5-Second Level - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (310)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (310)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login