= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Rational_Brony comments on A place for casual, non-karmic discussion for lesswrongers? - 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 (88)
You've lost me from "if" onwards. What's root density? Erosion?
A bunch of people with good epistemic hygiene talking to each other; trusting each other enough to be really playful because the underlying agreement about how the world works is so strong.
Got any recommendations? Also, how to avoid an echo chamber effect (which is already enough of a problem here on LW, I'm afraid)?
Echoes are fine if they're true. I think the rationalist memplex loves to break ideas, so the ones that stick around are pretty unbreakable.
Here's the full list. Some good ones (in terms of quantity/quality/responsiveness) are sark, Rob Sica, Sister Y, Catharine G. Evans, Elizabeth, S.T. Rev, metafroth, and Michael Blume.
... I still find it kind of baffling.
And I didn't mean "echo chamber" in terms of ideas so much as in terms of habits, norms, etc. We're a rather different subculture, and it's really easy to lose track of how others thinks, a bias which may bite us in the ass later on.
Not that I understand normal people all that well, either, but huddling with my peers isn't going to help.
So follow people you disagree with. You should have no trouble finding them.
... The ideal would be to find people that I disagree with, who don't express their disagreeable opinions in a way that makes me reject them. Example; mormons, the nicer variety of zionists, anarchists, the nicer variety of randians...
But if I'm only willing to listen to people who express themselves nicely and politely and are civil about stuff, that's already a bias in itself, huh?
God isn't real. Anarchism and objectivism are tribal banners, not ways of knowing or doing. Am I missing something?
Tribal banners are usually tighly associated with ways of knowing and doing.
Nevertheless, I think we're heading away from the topic. What worries me is not understanding special tribes, but normal people. And it isn't so much that I disagree with them, more like I can`t understand them in the first place. Their opinions tend to be few and unworded, so there's little to disagree upon, let alone argue. Not to mention, they don't like to argue, they don't like philosophical or political discussions besides reconfirming whatever they already happen to believe at the moment.
It's these people that I need to fully grasp if I want to make them leave a conversation in the state of mind I want them to be in, and do the things that I want them to do. Or, barring that, at least being able to predict their behaviour would be nice.
I don't know what to tell you about that. It's a different problem from the one you first mentioned.