You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

gwern comments on A Valuable Asset in Your Intellectual Portfolio is Not the Same as a Good Guide - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: David_J_Balan 21 August 2011 09:29PM

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

Comments (8)

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

Comment author: gwern 21 August 2011 06:15:38PM 1 point [-]

I take your point to be that I have taken something that is really a matter of degree "how much weight should I give to the opinion of this or that person?" and turned it into something dichotomous "is this person a good guide for me or not?"

You have. To quote from your article:

One kind of adviser is someone whose opinion, by your lights, constitutes strong evidence regarding the answer...But they are only providers of valuable input, not good guides. I think the distinction between these two types of advisers is often missed...The point is that there should be two buckets for two different types of prestigious advice-giver, but we only really have one.

When I boil down your post+comment and look for sense, what I get is something prosaic like 'some people are so expert in a narrow area that their opinion alone is enough for me, but otherwise aren't very good on average; other people are that expert, but in a broader area'.

Comment author: David_J_Balan 21 August 2011 06:44:16PM -1 points [-]

The point is that these are two very different kinds of valuable advisers, but the distinction is often missed.

And while I do think in real life there is something of a dichotomy between "people whose final judgment I trust on questions like X," and "people whose final judgment I don't trust but who I still want to hear what they have to say," I think a similar point could be made with more than two categories.

Comment author: komponisto 21 August 2011 11:02:20PM 2 points [-]

Perhaps you mean to divide the population into the following three categories: (1) people who can convince you without argument, (2) people who can convince you with argument, and (3) people who can't convince you even with argument; and the thesis of the post is "Not everyone in (2) is in (1)".