It’s nice that you’ve figured it out, but I feel that most people here aren’t particularly worried or confused about the question, so the tone of the post seems somewhat baffling. The tools you apply are standard. One is formulating the meaning of a question more accurately than its initial phrasing, in order to know what the question means in terms of something you are more familiar with. Another is noting that formulation depends on context, in particular on the goal of asking the question or the use intended for an answer. Depending on the context, the useful formulation of the same question will differ.
I realize that Less Wrong people are the least likely to be confused about it, but I got the impression it still made the most sense to be posted here. I thought of it not as much as being posted ‘to’ Less Wrong, but ‘from’ it. You’re right it’s more for outside readers.
The tools are pretty standard. If I felt like I came up with really novel ones I would have made them into its own post.
That said, here are a few quick reasons why I thought it would be useful.
If a reader knew of the tools but hadn’t explicitly connected them to this phrase, it seemed like a very quick fix.
It could be useful to link to for people who really do consider these phrases.
It was very short to write and short to read, the the cost is quite low.
My previous post on a very similar topic did much better than I expected.
I bet that not everyone on this site is entirely familiar with these tools or understanding of the phrase.
I realize that the writing may have sounded a bit condescending. I didn’t mean it this way, I just tried writing without as many ‘reluctancy’ words as normal.
It’s nice that you’ve figured it out, but I feel that most people here aren’t particularly worried or confused about the question, so the tone of the post seems somewhat baffling. The tools you apply are standard. One is formulating the meaning of a question more accurately than its initial phrasing, in order to know what the question means in terms of something you are more familiar with. Another is noting that formulation depends on context, in particular on the goal of asking the question or the use intended for an answer. Depending on the context, the useful formulation of the same question will differ.
I realize that Less Wrong people are the least likely to be confused about it, but I got the impression it still made the most sense to be posted here. I thought of it not as much as being posted ‘to’ Less Wrong, but ‘from’ it. You’re right it’s more for outside readers.
The tools are pretty standard. If I felt like I came up with really novel ones I would have made them into its own post.
That said, here are a few quick reasons why I thought it would be useful.
If a reader knew of the tools but hadn’t explicitly connected them to this phrase, it seemed like a very quick fix.
It could be useful to link to for people who really do consider these phrases.
It was very short to write and short to read, the the cost is quite low.
My previous post on a very similar topic did much better than I expected.
I bet that not everyone on this site is entirely familiar with these tools or understanding of the phrase.
I realize that the writing may have sounded a bit condescending. I didn’t mean it this way, I just tried writing without as many ‘reluctancy’ words as normal.