thomblake comments on Bayesian Judo - Less Wrong

71 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 31 July 2007 05:53AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (100)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jotto999 13 February 2012 05:04:09PM 1 point [-]

Interesting. Do we have any good information on the attributes of discussions or debates that are the most likely to educate the other person when they disagree? In hindsight this would be a large shortcoming of mine, having debated for years now but never invested much in trying to optimize my approach with people.

Something I've noticed: when someone takes the "conquer the debate" adversarial approach, a typical-minded audience appears more likely to be interested and side with the "winner" than if the person takes a much more reserved and cooperative approach despite having just as supported arguments. Maybe the first works well for typical audiences and the second for above-typical ones? Or maybe it doesn't matter if we can foster the second in "typical" minds. Given my uncertainty it seems highly unlikely that my approach with people is optimal.

Do you have any tips for someone interested in making a mental habit out of cooperative discussion as opposed to being adversarial? I find it very difficult, I'm an aggressive and vigorous person. Maybe if I could see a video of someone using the better approach so I can try to emulate them.

Comment author: thomblake 13 February 2012 05:09:13PM 4 points [-]

Interesting. Do we have any good information on the attributes of discussions or debates that are the most likely to educate the other person when they disagree?

Something I've noticed: when someone takes the "conquer the debate" adversarial approach, a typical-minded audience appears more likely to be interested and side with the "winner" than if the person takes a much more reserved and cooperative approach despite having just as supported arguments. Maybe the first works well for typical audiences and the second for above-typical ones?

I hope you've noticed you changed the subject here. In the first paragraph you're trying to persuade the person with whom you are conversing; in the second paragraph you're trying to convince an audience. They might well require entirely different methods.

Comment author: Jotto999 13 February 2012 05:29:25PM *  0 points [-]

You're right, I see now that the effect on audiences does not relate much to the one-on-one, so I should have kept a clear distinction. Thank you for pointing this out.

I believe this obvious mistake shows that I shouldn't comment on the sequences as I work my way through them, but rather it is better if I only start commenting after I have become familiar with them all. I am not ready yet to make comments that are relevant and coherent, and the very last thing I want to do is pollute the comment section. I am so glad about the opportunity for growth this site has, thanks very much to all.

Comment author: thomblake 13 February 2012 06:21:16PM 3 points [-]

I shouldn't comment on the sequences as I work my way through them, ... the very last thing I want to do is pollute the comment section.

Meh. Comments on old sequence posts don't add much noise, as long as the comment threads don't explode.