= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Epiphany comments on Bad Concepts Repository - 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 (204)
Bad Concept: Obviousness
Consider this - what distinguishes obviousness from a first impression? Like some kind of meta semantic stop sign, "it's obvious!" can be used as an excuse to stop thinking about a question. It can be shouted out as an argument with an implication to the effect of "If you don't agree with me instantly, you're an idiot." which can sometimes convince people that an idea is correct without the person actually supporting their points. I sometimes wonder if obviousness is just an insidious rationalization that we cling to when what we really want is to avoid thinking or gain instant agreement.
I wonder how much damage obviousness has done?
I've found the statement "that does not seem obvious to me" to be quite useful in getting people to explain themselves without making them feel challenged. It's among my list of "magic phrases" which I'm considering compiling at posting at some point.
Looking forward to this.
Magic phrases please?
This seems like a good premise for a post inviting people to contribute their own "magic phrases". Sadly, I've used up my Discussion Post powers by making an idle low-quality post about weird alliances last week. I now need to rest in my crypt for a week or so until people forget about it.
OK, I'm confused. (Probably because I'm missing a joke.) Reading the above in isolation I'd take it as indicating that you posted something that got you a big ball o' negative karma, which brought you below some threshold that meant you couldn't post to Discussion any more.
Except that your "weird alliances" post is at +7, and your total karma is over 4k, and your last-30-days karma is over 200, and none of your posts or comments in the last week or so is net negative, and those are all very respectable numbers and surely don't disqualify anyone from doing anything.
So, as I say, I seem to be missing a joke. Oh well.
Making non-trivial posts carries psychological costs that I feel quite acutely. I would love to be able to plough through this (c.f. Comfort Zone Expansion) by making a lot of non-trivial posts.
Unfortunately, making non-trivial posts also carries time costs that I feel quite acutely. I have quite fastidious editorial standards that make writing anything quite time-consuming (you would be alarmed at how much time I've spent writing this response), and this is compounded by engaging in long, sticky discussions.
The Weird Alliances post was an attempt to write something quickly to lower standards, and as a result it was of lower quality than I would have liked. This made the psychological cost greater. I've yet to figure out how to unknot this perverse trade-off between psychological and time costs, but it means I would prefer to space out making posts.
Ah, OK, understood. Best of luck with the unknotting. (I'd offer advice, but I have much the same problem myself.)
Related: On Saying the Obvious
Good link. I like that Grognor mentions that obviousness is just a matter of perception and people's ideas about what's obvious will vary, so we shouldn't assume other people know "obvious" things. However, I think that it's really important for us to be aware that if you think something is obvious, you stop questioning, and you're then left with what is essentially a first impression - but I don't see Grognor mention that semantic stop sign like effect in the post, nor do I see anything about people using obviousness as a way to falsely support points.
Do you think Grognor would be interested in updating the article to include additional negative effects of obviousness? Then again putting too many points into an article makes articles confusing and less fun to read. Maybe I should write one. Do you know if anyone has written an article yet on obviousness as a meta semantic stop sign, or obviousness as a false supportive argument? If not, I'll do it.
No; he's quit LW.
Not that I could recall.
Ok, I'll post about this in the open thread to gauge interest / see if anyone else knows of a pre-existing LW post on these specific obviousness problems.
See also: Expecting Short Inferential Distances
Also related:
Illusion of Transparency: Why No One Understands You
Explainers Shoot High. Aim Low!
Double Illusion of Transparency
That's not quite what I meant, but that's a good article.
What I meant is more along the lines of... two people are trying to figure out the same thing together, one jumps to a conclusion and the other one does not. It's that distance between the first observation and the truth I am referring to, not the distance between one person's perspective and another's.
Reads that article again. I think this is my third time.
The worst professors I have had disproportionally shared the habit of dismissing as obvious concepts that weren't. Way to distract students from the next thing you were going to say.
Well, in mathematics papers it tends to mean, "I'm certain this is true, but now that I can't think of an argument at the moment".
Hahahah! Oh, that's terrible. Now I just realized that my meaning was not entirely explicit. I edited my statement to add the part about not supporting points.
That seems like just a wrong use of obvious. When I say "obvious" I usually mean I cannot explain something because my understanding is subconscious and opaque to introspection.
I'm glad you seem to be aware of this problem. Unfortunately, I don't think the rest of the world is aware of this. The dictionary currently defines obvious as meaning "easily seen" and "evident", unfortunately.