You're asking for flaws in the idea, but more often posts are downvoted for being confusing, boring, or just not particularly helpful for people who use this site.
If you go to “all posts” and sort by top weekly, you can see the kind of posts that get the most upvotes and the kind that get the most downvotes. It’s something you build up a sense for over time.
Also, I hope you won’t worry about it too much. People were downvoting the post, not you as a person. You can always analyze more top posts and try again.
Some feedback on this post:
Here's Scott Alexander's advice on making blog posts easy to read.
"You're asking for flaws in the idea, but more often posts are downvoted for being confusing, boring, or just not particularly helpful for people who use this site."
Well said.
Just to put this another way: upvotes and downvotes aren't for being right or wrong. They're for making the reader less wrong. People typically upvote when they feel they've learned something or gained a new perspective on a topic they care about. Doing that is hard, because the average LW reader has read a lot of very good material.
If you have material you want to share without subjecting it to that high bar, the "short form" post attached to your account might be a good way to do that. People are usually much more supportive and forgiving if you're not asking them for their time and attention by making a top-level post.
Good job asking for feedback! It can be really frustrating to put a bunch of work in to a post and then have it downvoted below zero, implying that everyone wishes you hadn't bothered. I've had it happen, and it sucks. Writing well for a particular audience is really hard, but also really valuable, so good job sticking with it instead of just giving up on this community like a lot of people do when their first post is downvoted.
Thank you for your advice. I will definitely consider the short-form in future for most of such dealings...
However, I still believe that there is something to this "ontological mess" thing, but the form is lacking as you point it out.
I like this community a lot because of people like you. Have a nice weekend!
The comments below are just my impressions, hope you'll find them useful.
Generally: frame the problem, define the terms, cite the sources, ask specific questions.
For example:
Statement A: Two of three children survived the day. Is this good or bad?
Answer: Neither, as it is an "is" statement. The moral judgment depends on the context, such as a woman considering aborting triplets.Statement B: Two of three children were murdered today. Is this good or bad?
Answer: This is bad because murder is considered morally wrong, making it an "ought" statement.
Statement B is a 'is' statement too. 'Is it good or bad' is by definition an ought statement.
For instance, some argue that an AI would be "dumb" to prioritize making paperclips over human life. However, this presupposes that the AI subscribes to the idea that human life ought to be prioritized, ignoring the possibility that the AI may not necessarily hold this view.
Who argues what? Some argue that the earth's flat. This doesn't make it worth discussing.
Here it seems that you're borderline strawmanning a poorly written and argued imaginary position (similarly to the section on the 'gender debate').
Also, the objection you raise misses the mark of the "AI would be dumb" argument. If I say that an intelligent system would assign high value to human life (because of training data, design, etc....) this would not amount to an 'ought' statement.
Therefore, both examples fail to describe the subject of discussion.
The Submerged Premise Problem occurs when participants in a debate operate on fundamentally different foundational beliefs or assumptions that are not explicitly stated or acknowledged. These hidden assumptions shape their arguments, leading to misunderstandings and preventing meaningful progress in discussions.
I think a better framing of the picture you paint (especially about the 'gender debate') is given in this article.
The correct thesis would be that there are no genders
I don't understand how 'no gender' would be the 'correct thesis' for either side of the debate. Not that the position is nonsensical, but why would it derive from the premises?
The discussions around the mid-2010s made these examples more prevalent, ironically affecting society's ability to understand the alignment problem in AI.
How do you establish causation?
In contrast, the culture wars before this era, such as the debate around intelligent design, were fought on more solid ontological grounds. There was a yield in these debates, with many prominent conservatives eventually accepting the theory of evolution. However, in today's social media-driven landscape, discussions often sink into the mud, lacking the same level of ontological clarity and resolution.
How do you draw a comparison of ontological ground solidity across different public debates? These statements ought to be backed with some sources and miss a lot of important context in order to draw inferences.
Looking forward for your opinion.
I personally wouldn't know how to contribute since the terms are so open ended. I would ask specific questions (after clarifying all the above).
I think the post would be fine as a first draft but requires some additional work.
I apologize if my previous tone was not as polite as your detailed response deserved. I want to acknowledge your comment and express my appreciation for your constructive feedback.
"Statement B is a 'is' statement too. 'Is it good or bad' is by definition an ought statement."
Yes obviously, but it is "more concerned" about "ought". It is hard to make formulaic examples because it is also a grammar thing.
"Who argues what? Some argue that the earth's flat. This doesn't make it worth discussing."
Sorry but this argument is very often regurgitated everywhere by "smart people" in this form. It is bit baffling to me why you think otherwise.
"This would not amount to an 'ought' statement."
Okay this again. It is quite common in discussions to "pretend" that a statement is an "ought" statement if the underlying subtext is clear.
For example if things happened in the past or aren't formulated as an imperative can be "ought" statements plainly because they center around ethics or values.
"I think a better framing of the picture you paint (especially about the 'gender debate') is given in this article."
I think you are referring to this part:
"There is an anti-transgender argument that I take very seriously. The argument goes: we are rationalists. Our entire shtick is trying to believe what’s actually true, not on what we wish were true, or what our culture tells us is true, or what it’s popular to say is true. If a man thinks he’s a woman, then we might (empathetically) wish he were a woman, other people might demand we call him a woman, and we might be much more popular if we say he’s a woman. But if we’re going to be rationalists who focus on believing what’s actually true, then we’ve got to call him a man and take the consequences."
I don't want to frame discussions but I gave an example how discussions can be inauthentic.
Before I start, I want to define a few terms.
Ontology: Concerned with the most fundamental aspects of existence and categories.
Essence: The “stuff” that makes matter more than what it is but has never been seen or found. Essence is like the core personality of something. It’s what makes a thing uniquely itself, no matter how much you change its appearance or circumstances. The true nature or soul of anything, whether it’s a person, a tree, or even an idea.
Imagine two tomatoes growing on the French and Spanish sides of the border from the same crop. In the end, you have a French tomato and a Spanish tomato because of their “essence.” For me, essence is one of the biggest biases out there.
Useful: This is an abstractionist concept (as by D. Dennett). We pretend that things have essence because it’s useful, not because essence is real.
Authentic: I am arguing outside as dictated by what is logical to inside. Arguing that homosexuals may enter heaven to evade from my inner beliefs is inauthentic.
Scientific realism, Empiricism, Rationalism, etc., all lean heavily towards Nominalism and Materialism, meaning they are highly skeptical about “essence” as a general rule.
With this, we look at 99% of the discussions around gender:
We are rationalists. Our entire shtick is trying to believe what’s actually true, not on what we wish were true (Implying that a transgender woman is not a woman because a lacking woman essence and the person is calling this out.)
Here, the "rationalist" is essentialising "woman" as if it is something that is an inherent property that he will name for truth's sake HOWEVER the other side is also essentialising woman because it is saying that transgender woman are "real woman".
The discussion is inauthentic as both rationalism and social constructivism are strongly anti-essentialist.
Now, if a Radical Christian says, “That’s not a woman,” this should be regarded as authentic regardless of whether the statement is right.
Yesterday I created this post:
This post was heavily penalized, and I am seeking to understand the rationale behind this decision. Could you please elucidate why this might be considered a flawed idea? I believe this feedback could be invaluable in identifying and addressing any biases in my thinking.