Expressing disagreement as a false lack of understanding
I've found that saying, "I don't think I understand what you mean by that" or "I don't see why you're saying so" is a useful tactic when somebody says something apparently nonsensical.
Yes, when you actually don't understand, saying that you don't understand is rarely a bad idea. It's when you understand but disagree that proclaiming an inability to comprehend the other's viewpoint is ill-advised.
Referring [to] an "individual's CEV".
I think this is a good idea, because humans aren't expected utility maximizers.
I could be wrong, but this may be a terminology issue.
Coherence: Strong agreement between many extrapolated individual volitions ...
Coherence: Strong agreement between many extrapolated individual volitions ...
It would indeed appear that EY originally defined coherence that way. I think it's legitimate to extend the meaning of the term to "strong agreement among the different utility functions an individual maximizes in different situations." You don't necessarily agree, and that's fine, because this is partly a subjective issue. What, if anything, would you suggest instead of "CEV" to refer to a person's utility function at reflective equilibrium? Just "eir EV" could work, and I think I've seen that around here before.
This thread is for discussing anything that doesn't seem to deserve its own post.
If the resulting discussion becomes impractical to continue here, it means the topic is a promising candidate for its own thread.