= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GabrielDuquette comments on Rationality Quotes November 2012 - 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 (898)
Yes, but the additional accuracy afforded by the extra word more than excuses its intrusion.
What degree of imprecision would bother you?
I'm not sure. I would need to see a bunch of examples on a sliding scale of precision. This isn't feasible because I'm willing to accept less precision in exchange for more impact, which means that different quotes would receive distorted results.
I want this to exist in real life for all communication.
With extra points for communication which is precisely more than one different thing?
I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?
I periodically issue verbal messages that intentionally can reasonably be interpreted as having multiple different meanings. In those cases, I intentionally intend to communicate the multiple different meanings in one communication.
Different from a vague message which is intentionally vague, in that there are two or more different concepts encoded in the same message, not an concept which is intentionally vague.
Ah, ok. I don't know that I'd make the precision scale point-based.
Which makes me wonder what sort of taxonomy I would want.
EDIT: This would be a decent jumping-off point, investigation-wise (as a way to begin distinguishing precision from clarity).
Clearly, one goal is to be understood by your listener(s). I think that everything else can be converted into 'will the listener(s) understand the same thing(s) (including degree of precision) that I mean, which provides a single quantity which can be maximized, even if it is nontrivial to measure.
Which leads me to realize that saying more than one thing at once is more of an art form than a communication method. I'm fine with communicating and arting at the same time, especially when they interfere constructively.
I agree to the extent that being strategically obscure might cause a listener to pay closer attention. It's your responsibility to ensure there is something real underneath the shroud.
Or, when sharing a concept which is not precise, sometimes the right level of understanding in the listener(s) is a vague idea. Especially when collaborating on an idea which is in the process of forming.