People taking “I know it in my gut” as zero-value, and attempting to live via the explicit only. My sense is that some LessWrong users like Said_Achmiz tend to err in this direction.
I’d be happy to, except that I’m not sure quite what I need to clarify.
I mean, it’s just not true that I consider “tacit” knowledge (which may, or may not be, the same thing as procedural knowledge—but either way…) to be “zero-value”. That isn’t a thing that I believe, nor is it adjacent to some similar thing that I believe, nor is it a recognizable distortion of some different thing that I believe.
For instance, I’m a designer, and I am quite familiar with looking at a design, or design element, and declaring that it is just wrong, or that it looks right this way and not that way; or making something look a certain way because that’s what looks good and right; etc., etc. Could I explicitly explain the precise and specific reason for every detail of every design decision I make? Of course not; it’s absurd even to suggest it. There is such a thing as “good taste”, “design sense”, etc. You know quite well, I’m sure, what I am talking about.
So when someone says that I attempt to live via the explicit only, and take other sorts of knowledge as having zero value—what am I to say to that? It isn’t true, and obviously so. Perhaps Anna could say a bit about what led her to this conclusion about my views. I am happy to comment further; but as it stands, I am at a loss.
If what Anna meant was “Said undervalues ‘gut’ knowledge, relative to explicit knowledge”… well, that is, of course, not an obviously false or absurd claim; but what she wrote is an odd way of saying it. I have reread the relevant section of Anna’s comment several times, and it is difficult to read it as simply a note that certain people (such as, ostensibly, myself) are merely on somewhat the wrong point along a continuum of placing relative value on this vs. that form of knowledge; it is too banal and straightforward a point, to need to be phrased in such a way as Anna phrased it.
But then, this is getting too speculative to be useful. Perhaps Anna can clarify what she meant.
If it helps for your own calibration of how you come across, there was a thread a while back where I expressed indignation at the phrase “Overcoming intuitions” and you emphatically agreed.
I remember being surprised that you agreed, and having to update my model of your beliefs.
In this comment, you explicitly understood and agreed with the material that was teaching explicit knowledge (philosophy), but objected to the material designed to teach intuitions (circling).
Surely you can see how this does not at all imply that I object to intuition, yes? Logically, after all, there are at least three other possibilities:
That I don’t believe that intuitions can be taught; or…
That I don’t believe that this particular approach (circling) is good for teaching intuitions; or…
That I object to circling for reasons unrelated to the (purported) fact that it teaches intuitions.
(There are other, subtler, possibilities; but these three are the obvious ones.)
The conclusion that I have something against intuitions, drawn from the observation that I am skeptical of circling in particular (or any similar thing), seems to me to be really quite unwarranted.
Yes. If you’re wondering, I basically updated more towards #1.
I wouldn’t call the conclusion unwarranted by the way, it’s a perfectly valid interpretation of seeing this sort of stance from you, it was simply uninformed.
This is not an accurate portrayal of my views.
I’d be particularly interested, in this context, if you are up clarifying what your views are here.
I’d be happy to, except that I’m not sure quite what I need to clarify.
I mean, it’s just not true that I consider “tacit” knowledge (which may, or may not be, the same thing as procedural knowledge—but either way…) to be “zero-value”. That isn’t a thing that I believe, nor is it adjacent to some similar thing that I believe, nor is it a recognizable distortion of some different thing that I believe.
For instance, I’m a designer, and I am quite familiar with looking at a design, or design element, and declaring that it is just wrong, or that it looks right this way and not that way; or making something look a certain way because that’s what looks good and right; etc., etc. Could I explicitly explain the precise and specific reason for every detail of every design decision I make? Of course not; it’s absurd even to suggest it. There is such a thing as “good taste”, “design sense”, etc. You know quite well, I’m sure, what I am talking about.
So when someone says that I attempt to live via the explicit only, and take other sorts of knowledge as having zero value—what am I to say to that? It isn’t true, and obviously so. Perhaps Anna could say a bit about what led her to this conclusion about my views. I am happy to comment further; but as it stands, I am at a loss.
For what it’s worth, I think that saying “Person X tends to err in Y direction” does not mean “Person X endorses or believes Y”.
If what Anna meant was “Said undervalues ‘gut’ knowledge, relative to explicit knowledge”… well, that is, of course, not an obviously false or absurd claim; but what she wrote is an odd way of saying it. I have reread the relevant section of Anna’s comment several times, and it is difficult to read it as simply a note that certain people (such as, ostensibly, myself) are merely on somewhat the wrong point along a continuum of placing relative value on this vs. that form of knowledge; it is too banal and straightforward a point, to need to be phrased in such a way as Anna phrased it.
But then, this is getting too speculative to be useful. Perhaps Anna can clarify what she meant.
If it helps for your own calibration of how you come across, there was a thread a while back where I expressed indignation at the phrase “Overcoming intuitions” and you emphatically agreed.
I remember being surprised that you agreed, and having to update my model of your beliefs.
Can you think of an example of something I said that led you to that previous, pre-update model?
I can’t, but here’s an example from this same thread:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/96N8BT9tJvybLbn5z/we-run-the-center-for-applied-rationality-ama#HgQCE8aHctKjYEWHP
In this comment, you explicitly understood and agreed with the material that was teaching explicit knowledge (philosophy), but objected to the material designed to teach intuitions (circling).
Surely you can see how this does not at all imply that I object to intuition, yes? Logically, after all, there are at least three other possibilities:
That I don’t believe that intuitions can be taught; or…
That I don’t believe that this particular approach (circling) is good for teaching intuitions; or…
That I object to circling for reasons unrelated to the (purported) fact that it teaches intuitions.
(There are other, subtler, possibilities; but these three are the obvious ones.)
The conclusion that I have something against intuitions, drawn from the observation that I am skeptical of circling in particular (or any similar thing), seems to me to be really quite unwarranted.
Yes. If you’re wondering, I basically updated more towards #1.
I wouldn’t call the conclusion unwarranted by the way, it’s a perfectly valid interpretation of seeing this sort of stance from you, it was simply uninformed.