Would you like to provide some, um, analysis as to why do you believe this to be true?

I can; but more efficiently, I need you to realize a few things about our communication.

First, I would need an enormous amount of writing to make make my current beliefs clear and making sense in context.

So far this discussion is based on me saying something, and you voicing every issue about it that comes to your mind.

So far so good, that's how you always do it on LW, right?

Only, this doesn't work if there's a big inferential distance.

See, in case of a big inferential distance between us, your questions and the doubts you have sound perfectly reasonable to you, I'm sure.

However your doubts hit very far from the actual core of the problem - and seeing them just makes me feel tired.

I see that to explain anything well, I'd need to start with the basics, and force you to think about certain topics in order of ascending difficulty, make sure I dissolve your doubts and answer all questions at each step and so on.

Which is to say, I don't have the energy to go through this long and tedious process, and if you are at all interested in what I'm trying to say here, I need you to ask better questions.

In particular, if it's visible from your questions that you actually gave these topics some thought, and you are willing to explore them for other reasons that arguing with me; then I'm happy to cooperate with you, and work together to form more accurate beliefs and efficient policies.

So far, I see none of that; and no sign that you think longer than it takes you to type the comment.

Generally, and I hope here you are not too prideful to react badly to this, I think you might be harming yourself with your ability to argue and see problems with the opinions of others. I think that yes, writing lots of comments on LW can teach you something; but it also teaches you many harmful habits, such as the argue first - think later approach, which I deem harmful to long-term progress.