Not Said, but i agree with him this paragraph wasn’t good, and want to explain why.
I actually think what Habryka originally wrote contained implicit claims that your rephrasing does not, and those claims are true and important.
it is unfortunate those claim was made implicitly, as it make it harder to notice and discuss it. in my model of the world, there are, indeed, things that Said does not able to see or understand and other people do. and the important disagreement is about the realness of the things.
the virtue in claiming things explicitly and not implicitly is it make it easier to understand the structure of the disagreement, to notice cruxes, to model the world, and each other different maps, and what can change one’s mind.
in my model of the world, people who disagree with Said often understand 90%+ of his claims, while he understand 60%- of theirs, and it is not the full reason of why i believe he wrong here, but it is strong heuristic, with casual path to being right or wrong about things, and maybe third of my reasons.
It possible I’m projecting here implications that are not actually there, or that derived from the history of Said’s interactions in LW. but if i indeed erred that way, it’s too reason to avoid this ambiguity.
Not Said, but i agree with him this paragraph wasn’t good, and want to explain why.
I actually think what Habryka originally wrote contained implicit claims that your rephrasing does not, and those claims are true and important.
it is unfortunate those claim was made implicitly, as it make it harder to notice and discuss it. in my model of the world, there are, indeed, things that Said does not able to see or understand and other people do. and the important disagreement is about the realness of the things.
the virtue in claiming things explicitly and not implicitly is it make it easier to understand the structure of the disagreement, to notice cruxes, to model the world, and each other different maps, and what can change one’s mind.
in my model of the world, people who disagree with Said often understand 90%+ of his claims, while he understand 60%- of theirs, and it is not the full reason of why i believe he wrong here, but it is strong heuristic, with casual path to being right or wrong about things, and maybe third of my reasons.
It possible I’m projecting here implications that are not actually there, or that derived from the history of Said’s interactions in LW. but if i indeed erred that way, it’s too reason to avoid this ambiguity.