= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
John_Maxwell_IV comments on Robin Hanson's Cryonics Hour - 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 (27)
I don't think the following belonged in the OP, but it's worth saying:
Why was there such a difference for me between a conversation with RH and his more public outputs? My opinion is that he's very good at pointing out specific gaps in reasoning, which is extremely productive when it's your own reasoning. But when you're reading or watching Robin's exchange with someone else, it's all too tempting to think that he's picking nits and that the other person is just failing to respond in the correct way (i.e. the exact way that you'd respond, to which you don't see a counterargument from RH).
There are argumentative devices to circumvent this problem and make oneself more persuasive to an audience, but Robin doesn't seem to employ those as much as the norm.
My experience is exactly the opposite.
Thanks for the data point. If you want to give some more detail, that might be helpful.
This certainly accords with my experience. I didn't find his posts on FOOM persuasive, but after speaking to him in person I've shifted significantly towards the idea that his side of the debate is closer to the truth.
Was it a matter of him explaining points he had made publicly in a different way, or did he provide an entirely new approach when talking with you?
Also, I know a few people who are devastatingly persuasive in a one-on-one conversation, regardless of whether they are right, who can't necessarily write or publicly debate as well as they speak in a private, relaxed context. Maybe Hanson is more charismatic in person and so you are giving him more credit?
It's not the usual kind of charisma—I didn't feel a strong need to win his approval, relative to how much I do with other smart people. It's rather that he was extremely quick to understand my arguments and point out important aspects I hadn't considered, which makes it easier for me to consider that my argument might be flawed. So that's an aptitude, but it's one better correlated with good argument than the aptitude of charisma is.
I don't think he's publicly made the argument he made with me - it feels like until I spoke to him, I couldn't see a way that his broad "outside view" predictions could translate into any specific outcome you might predict with an inside view. Now I can see how it might work.
FWIW, while I've never talked to Robin in person, my experience with talking to Eliezer was pretty similar.
The very firs lesswrong meetup I ever went to (in Orange County) was attended by Yvain, Anna Salamon, and Luke (before he worked for whatever the institute is called these days). It was significantly more awesome than reading them in the blogs.
Well, while we're trading personal evaluations... when I met Yvain in person, I found him to be not quite as awesome as his writings. I suspect I come off the same way (although I have a good excuse).
I'd still really look forward to spending some time with you in a small group or alone. Maybe it is a kind-of-person thing but I have NEVER been disappointed meeting someone in person that I admire from printed word. At some level, I think I am at least as fascinated trying to understand what kind of person produces ideas like that, and the in person meetings are just chock full of information that I will never get no matter how much I read.