Eliezer said: “Your brain doesn’t treat words as logical definitions with no empirical consequences, and so neither should you. The mere act of creating a word can cause your mind to allocate a category, and thereby trigger unconscious inferences of similarity.”
What alternative model would you propose? I’m not quite ready yet to stop using words that imperfectly place objects into categories. I’ll keep the fact that categories are imperfect in mind.
I really don’t mean this in a condescending way. I’m just not sure what new belief this line of reasoning is supposed to convey.
I think it was intended as a caution against a common bit of anti-epistemology that maybe you neither have done nor have yet encountered from others.
Namely: constructing a contrived definition for some purpose, and then when people complain about the problems your strange definition is causing for them, the one defends their choices with “it’s just a definition bro, chill”, essentially.
Often this happens when some really deeply technical definition collides with the same word having escaped into common usage. …or as often prompts vitriol in social media: some mischief-maker/malefactor is deliberately manipulating words to try to control other people.
I’ve definitely heard the “you can define a word any way you want” argument in the wild, and prior to Eliezer’s writing, I hadn’t heard the appropriate rejoinder that actually some definitions cause more or less problems for different people.
Eliezer said: “Your brain doesn’t treat words as logical definitions with no empirical consequences, and so neither should you. The mere act of creating a word can cause your mind to allocate a category, and thereby trigger unconscious inferences of similarity.”
What alternative model would you propose? I’m not quite ready yet to stop using words that imperfectly place objects into categories. I’ll keep the fact that categories are imperfect in mind.
I really don’t mean this in a condescending way. I’m just not sure what new belief this line of reasoning is supposed to convey.
I think it was intended as a caution against a common bit of anti-epistemology that maybe you neither have done nor have yet encountered from others.
Namely: constructing a contrived definition for some purpose, and then when people complain about the problems your strange definition is causing for them, the one defends their choices with “it’s just a definition bro, chill”, essentially.
Often this happens when some really deeply technical definition collides with the same word having escaped into common usage. …or as often prompts vitriol in social media: some mischief-maker/malefactor is deliberately manipulating words to try to control other people.
I’ve definitely heard the “you can define a word any way you want” argument in the wild, and prior to Eliezer’s writing, I hadn’t heard the appropriate rejoinder that actually some definitions cause more or less problems for different people.