byrnema comments on Rationalists Are Less Credulous But Better At Taking Ideas Seriously - Less Wrong

43 Post author: Yvain 21 January 2014 02:18AM

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

Comments (285)

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

Comment author: byrnema 22 January 2014 10:00:12PM 0 points [-]

I understood (and my perspective changed quite a bit) as soon as I read about Miller's Law in the exchange you linked. I really like having a handle for the concept (for my own sake, its usefulness is curbed by not being well-known).

I believe the default interpretation of the question you asked is the interpretation that I had (that you were using the Socratic method). The reason for this being the default interpretation is that there is an obvious, intuitive answer. (This question was a good counter-argument, which is why I think it was up-voted.)

... to deflect this interpretation, your question could be worded to be less obvious, and allow more nuance. Perhaps, "If you could remain healthy indefinitely, do you expect you would ever choose to die?", or, "If you could remain healthy indefinitely, for which conditions would you ever choose to die?"

Comment author: TheOtherDave 22 January 2014 10:49:53PM 0 points [-]

(nods) Yeah, that last one would have been a good alternative, in retrospect. I got there eventually but could have gotten there sooner. (The other one is a fine question, but I already had the answer.)

Though I suspect that it, too, would have been understood as Socratic in the closed-ended sense.