= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Remind Physicalists They're Physicalists - 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 (76)
What kind of protocol do you envision? Detailed review is way too much work in most cases, a single perceived flaw is easy to point out, and parts that seem correct usually both cover most of the essay and are expected to be seen as correct by most readers.
(More detailed feedback could be gathered using a new software tool, I suspect, like voting on sections of the text, and then summarizing the votes over the text with e.g. its color. It would be more realistic than asking for a different social custom for the same reason normal voting works and asking for feedback about overall impression doesn't.)
One possible format is:
"I like X and Y. More like that, please. But I think B isn't quite right, because Z."
This could actually work... Fighting abundance of choice with sampling. I would modify it this way:
So this is a more informative form of "IAWYC, but..."
Exactly!