= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on How can we get more and better LW contrarians? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (328)
I agree that there are errors in the "LW consensus."
I agree that a cost-effective mechanism for identifying those errors would be a valuable thing.
By your estimation, how many controversial discussions have occurred on LW in the last year?
How many of them have contributed to identifying any of those errors?
Those are both good questions (as is the implicit point about cost-effectiveness or lack thereof); I'm afraid I'm not a heavy enough reader here to quickly give accurate answers.
I'm not looking to you for accurate answers, I'm trying to understand the model you're operating on.
If you tell me you think there have been a few controversial (in the sense you describe above) discussions and you think they've contributed to identifying errors, then it makes sense to me that you think having more such discussions is valuable. I may disagree, but it's clear to me what we're disagreeing about.
If you tell me you don't think we've had any such discussions, I can sort of understanding you believing that they would be valuable if we had them, but I would also conclude I don't quite know what sorts of discussions you're talking about.
If you tell me you think we've had a few such discussions but they haven't contributed anything, then I would be very confused and want to revisit my understanding of why you believe what you believe.
Etc.