= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Epiphany comments on Less Wrong Polls in Comments - 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 (302)
Because now we can tell him: "Wedrifid, you are misshapen. An appeal to popularity filtered through a false trichotomy says so."
Well, yes, but polls that are false trichotomies are a bad idea no matter whether they insult wedrifid or not. I expect LessWrong to be really good at noticing them, actually, so I don't think that's a problem.
Your confidence is inspiring, but I'd bet some false trichotomies are more obvious than others. (Though I can't immediately think of any examples of subtler false trichotomies to rattle off, so yeah)
An example of something that is NOT a false *otomoy would be the shorter list. (See other comment)
Since we can't verify that there is not an option we don't see (appeal to ignorance is the best we've got for this), every set of options is essentially a false *otomy.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.
K I'll try this: To make sure you are not presenting a false dichotomy, not only do you need to include all the options you know of, you also need to make sure you know all the options. How do you make sure there isn't an option you don't know?
Include "Other".
This time I know better than to interpret your text in a suspicious manner. Sorry for doing that to you in the other thread. FWIW, I liked your suggestion to play rationalist taboo once I understood that it was what you were suggesting. I have woken up to the fact that I interpreted your words suspiciously due to you expressing some unfriendliness toward me. This time, my perspective is that you probably intend to be constructive. I would like to understand what you mean by telling me to "include other" but I don't. To me, this is a cryptic message. The other one seemed cryptic at first also.
As a poll option, add "other" to whatever list you think of, and then you won't leave anything out. Maybe "Other - I'll explain in a comment" if you want to drive those respondents to tell you what you missed.
She's referring to unknown unknowns.
*she
Apologies. Will fix.