gjm comments on Open thread, June 27 - July 3, 2016 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Clarity 27 June 2016 01:46AM

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

Comments (79)

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

Comment author: gjm 28 June 2016 11:35:21PM -2 points [-]

The question seems like it has more levels of indirection in it than necessary. I mean, to pass an ITT is to behave/speak/write just like someone with the views you're pretending to have. So how is "Say you believe X and want to pass an ITT by arguing not-X. What would you say?" different from "Say you believe not-X and want to defend it. What would you say?" or, even, just "What are the best arguments for not-X?"?