Inspired by terrible, terrible Facebook political arguments I've observed, I started making a list of heuristic "best practices" for constructing a good argument. My key assumptions are that (1) it's unreasonable to expect most people to acquire a good understanding of skepticism, logic, statistics, or the ways the LW-crowd thinks of as how to use words rightly, and (2) lists of fallacies to watch out for aren't actually much help in constructing a good argument.

One heuristic captured my imagination as it seems to encapsulate most of the other heuristics I had come up with, and yet is conceptually simple enough for everyone to use: Sketch it, and only draw real things. (If it became agreed-upon and well-known, I'd shorten the phrase to "Sketch it real".)

Example: A: "I have a strong opinion that increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr over ten years (WILL / WON'T) increase unemployment." B: "Oh, can you sketch it for me? I mean literally draw the steps involved with the real-world chain of events you think will really happen."

If you can draw how a thing works, then that's usually a very good argument that you understand the thing. If you can draw the steps of how one event leads to another, then that's usually a good argument that the two events can really be connected that way. This heuristic requires empiricism and disallows use of imaginary scenarios and fictional evidence. It privileges reductionist and causal arguments. It prevents many of the ways of misusing words. If I try to use a concept I don't understand, drawing its steps out will help me notice that.

Downsides: Being able to draw well isn't required, but it would help a lot. The method probably privileges anecdotes since they're easier to draw than randomized double-blind controlled trials. Also it's harder than spouting off and so won't actually be used in Facebook political arguments.

I'm not claiming that a better argument-sketch implies a better argument. There are probably extremely effective ways to hack our visual biases in argument-sketches. But it does seem that under currently prevailing ordinary circumstances, making an argument-sketch and then translating it into a verbal argument is a useful heuristic for making a good argument.

What happens in the anarchist group if someone does not wish to relinquish the stick? (Perhaps the very ethos of the group makes this unlikely. But I'm curious if there's a method for dealing with people who, as you put it in the third part, "are too fond of their own voices".)

Feedback controls. Futarchy is transparent,carried out in real time, and gives plenty of room to adjust values and change strategies if the present ones prove defective. On the other hand, a superintelligent AI would basically run as a black box. The operators would set the values, then the AI would use some method to optimize and then spit out the optimal strategy (and presumably implement it). There's no room for human feedback between setting the values and implementing the optimal strategy.

Internals seem to do better at life, pace obvious confounding: maybe instead of internals doing better by virtue of their internal locus of control, being successful inclines you to attribute success internal factors and so become more internal, and vice versa if you fail. If you don't think the relationship is wholly confounded, then there is some prudential benefit for becoming more internal.

I'm willing to bet that Internals think there's a prudential benefit to becoming more internal and Externals think the relationship is wholly confounded.

In large formal groups: Robert's Rules of Order.

Large organizations, and organizations which have to remain unified despite bitter disagreements, developed social technologies such as RRoO. These typically feature meetings that have formal, pre-specified agendas plus a chairperson who is responsible for making sure each person has a chance to speak in an orderly fashion. Of course, RRoO are overkill for a small group with plenty of goodwill toward each other.

In small formal groups: Nonce agendas and rotating speakers

The best-organized small meetings I've ever attended were organized by the local anarchists. They were an independently-minded and fierce-willed bunch who did not much agree but who had common interests, which to my mind suggests that the method they used might be effectively adapted for use in LW meetups. They used the following method, sometimes with variations appropriate to the circumstances:

1. Before and after the formal part of the meeting is informal social time.
2. Call the meeting to order. Make any reminders the group needs and any explanatory announcements that newcomers would want to know, such as these rules.
3. Pass around a clipboard for people to write agenda items down. All that is needed are a few words identifying the topic. (People can add to the agenda later, too, if they think of something belatedly.)
4. Start with first agenda item. Discuss it (see below) until people are done with it. Then move on to the next agenda item. In discussing an agenda item, start with whoever added it to the agenda, and then proceed around the circle giving everyone a chance to talk.
5. Whoever's turn it is, they not only get to speak, but they are the temporary chairperson also. If it helps, they can have a "talking stick" or "hot potato" or some physical object reminding everyone that it's their turn. They can ask questions for others to answer without giving up the talking stick. If you want to interrupt the speaker, you can raise your hand and they can call on you without giving up the talking stick.
6. Any other necessary interruptions are handled by someone saying "point of order", briefly stating what they want, and the group votes on whether to do it.

In small informal groups: Natural leaders

Sometimes people have an aversion to groups that are structured in any manner they aren't already familiar and comfortable with. There's nothing wrong with that. You can approximate the above structure by having the more vocal members facilitate the conversation:

• Within a conversation on a topic, deliberately ask people who aren't as talkative what they think about the topic.
• When the conversation winds down on a topic, deliberately ask someone what's on their mind. Be sure to let everyone have a chance.
• Tactfully interrupt people who are too fond of their own voices, and attempt to pass the speaker-role to someone else.

Harry can test the limits of Parseltongue's truth detection properties. "I am plugged in to your Horcrux network and will not be stopped by killing me now."

Background: Statistics. Something about the Welch–Satterthwaite equation is so counterintuitive that I must have a mental block, but the equation comes up often in my work, and it drives me batty. For example, the degrees of freedom decrease as the sample size increases beyond a certain point. All the online documentation I can find for it gives the same information as Wikipedia, in which k = 1/n. I looked up the original derivation and, in it, the k are scaling factors of a linear combination of random variables. So at some point in the literature after the original derivation, it was decided that k = 1/n was superior in some regard; I lack the commitment needed to search the literature to find out why.

The stupid questions:

1) Does anyone know why the statistics field settled on k = 1/n?

2) Can someone give a relatively concrete mental image or other intuitive suggestion as to why the W-S equation really ought to behave in the odd ways it does?

See this discussion in The Best Textbooks on Every Subject

I agree that the first few chapters of Jaynes are illuminating, haven't tried to read further. Bayesian Data Analysis by Gelman feels much more practical at least for what I personally need (a reference book for statistical techniques).

The general pre-requisites are actually spelled out in the introduction of Jayne's Probability Theory. Emphasis mine.

The following material is addressed to readers who are already familiar with applied mathematics at the advanced undergraduate level or preferably higher; and with some field, such as physics, chemistry, biology, geology, medicine, economics, sociology, engineering, operations research, etc., where inference is needed. A previous acquaintance with probability and statistics is not necessary; indeed, a certain amount of innocence in this area may be desirable, because there will be less to unlearn.

Having just seen this now, I like "From Artificial Intelligence to Zombies: Thinking Clearly about Truth, Value, and Winning" because it conveys just how frickin' broad The Sequences are. "The Hard Part is Actually Changing Your Mind" is good if you'd rather be catchy and give a sense of one key take-away rather than try to give a sense of the full scope of the sequences.

That's not really how word usages spread in English. Policing usage is almost a guaranteed failure. What would work much better would be for you to use these words consistently with your ideals, and then if doing so helps you achieve things or write things that people want to mimic, they will also mimic your words. Compare to how this community has adopted all manner of jargon due to the influence of EY's weirdly-written but thought-reshaping Sequences! SSC is now spreading Yvain's linguistic habits among us, too, in a similar way: by creating new associations between them and some good ideas.