= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on How An Algorithm Feels From Inside - 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 (77)
It certainly has not been my impression. I found my discussion with him about instrumentalism, here and on IRC, extremely unproductive. Seems like a pattern with other philosophical types here. Maybe they don't teach philosophers to listen, I don't know. For comparison, TheOtherDave manages to carry a thoughtful, polite and insightful discussion even when he disagrees. More regulars here could learn rational discourse from him.
Or maybe I'm falling prey to the Bright Dilettante trap and the experts in the subject matter just don't have the patience to explain things in a friendly and understandable fashion. I'm not sure how to tell.
I take back the "pseudo-" part. His answers were precise, but from a wrong domain.
Agree on both counts. I'll second your advocacy of a TheOtherDave as a posting style role model. In particular he conveys the impression that he is far better than the average lesswrong participant at understanding what people are saying to him. (Rather than the all to common practice of pattern matching a few keywords to the nearest possible stupid thing that can be refuted.)
I can tell you from experience that 'they' don't. Do you know who does teach this?
I don't know. Certainly there is some emphasis on charitable reading and steelmanning on this forum, but the results are mixed. Maybe it's taught in psychology, nursing and other areas which require empathy.
This seems like something a rationalist course could profitably teach, especially if there are no alternative ways to learn it besides informal practice.