Today's post, Fallacies of Compression was originally published on 17 February 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
You have only one word, but there are two or more different things-in-reality, so that all the facts about them get dumped into a single undifferentiated mental bucket. It's part of a detective's ordinary work to observe that Carol wore red last night, or that she has black hair; and it's part of a detective's ordinary work to wonder if maybe Carol dyes her hair. But it takes a subtler detective to wonder if there are two Carols, so that the Carol who wore red is not the same as the Carol who had black hair.
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Replace the Symbol with the Substance, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
I think a large part of mindkilling is that in political discussions most people make extreme compressions -- like compressing hundred ideas under one label. Also different people compress different things under the same label, and then they argue which one's usage of the label was the right one.
If one hopes to talk about politics rationally, one must uncompress, uncompress, uncompress... but then they are usually no longer talking politics (as it is usually understood), but economics or sociology or something else.