= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Mark_Friedenbach comments on Why didn't people (apparently?) understand the metaethics sequence? - 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 (229)
How do you know if you understood it? Is there a set of problems to test your understanding?
Agreed this is a good idea to prevent illusion of transparency.
I reaaally wish that were true.
I approve of having a poll, but isn't there a better way to do polls in the LW software?
Yes; if you click the "Show Help" button below the bottom right of the comment box, and then click the Polls Help link, you will find details about how to code polls.
Cool, thanks.
Yes, I think I understood it at the time.
Oh wow, this is very different from what I would've expected, based on the way people talk about the metaethics sequence.
Guesses as to whether this is a representative sample?
In retrospect, I should've considered the possibility that "people don't understand the metaethics sequence!" was reflective of a loud minority... on the other hand, can anyone think of reasons why this poll might be skewed towards people who understood the metaethics sequence?
Because a large subset of people who don't understand things are unaware of their misunderstanding?
Chris is surprised because he saw a lot of people saying that they themselves did not understand the sequence.
Several people have tried to explain Lesswrongian metaethics to me, only to give up in confusion. Being able to explain something is the acid test of understanding it.
I voted for No, defined by when I first read it.
No, I did not understand it or had significant trouble.