= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on "Spiritual" techniques that actually work thread - 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 (68)
The problem here isn't about literal-mindedness but different experiences with the subject matter. I do have experiences where it makes no sense to talk about them on LW because I have no way to break the inferential gap.
Of course when I'm assuming that you obviously don't have those experiences and don't really know what you are talking about, then it's easy to read the intention "hard part is to explain why it works rationally / scientifically".
On LW it's my default to treat the people I'm speaking with as if they wouldn't be ignorant.
Which is nicely respectful but I feel like my knowledge is being overestimated on LW. I get the impression that I am supposed to know already that neuro-linguistic programming, for example, doesn't work. It's hard to keep up with the latest results in every field. NLP for staters was taught me 7 years ago during a postgraduate course involving software consulting techniques. So I was surprised when I was told not only it is bunk but apparently everybody save me already knows it is bunk.