I note that I’ve already put something like ten full hours into creating exactly these types of examples, and that fact sort of keeps getting ignored/people largely never engage with them.
Perhaps you are suggesting a post that does that-and-nothing-but-that?
Perhaps you are suggesting a post that does that-and-nothing-but-that?
I think I am suggesting “link to things when you mention them.” Like, if I want to argue with DanielFilan about whether or not a particular garment “is proper” or not, it’s really not obvious what I mean, whereas if I say “hey I don’t think that complies with the US Flag Code”, most of the work is done (and then we figure out whether or not section j actually applies to the garment in question, ultimately concluding that it does not).
Like, elsewhere you write:
The standard is: don’t violate the straightforward list of rationality 101 principles and practices that we have a giant canon of knowledge and agreement upon.
I currently don’t think there exists a ‘straightforward list of rationality 101 principles and practices’ that I could link someone to (in the same way that I can link them to the Flag Code, or to literal Canon Law). Like, where’s the boundary between rationality 101 and rationality 102? (What fraction of rationality 101 do the current ‘default comment guidelines’ contain?)
Given the absence of that, I think you’re imagining much more agreement than exists. Some like the “Double crux” style, but Said disliked it back in 2018 [1][2] and presumably feels the same way now. Does that mean it’s in the canon, like you suggest in this comment, or not?
[Edit: I recall that at some point, you had something that I think was called Sabien’s Rules? I can’t find it with a quick search now, but I think having something like that which you can easily link to and people can either agree with or disagree with will clarify things compared to your current gesturing at a large body of things.]
I note that I’ve already put something like ten full hours into creating exactly these types of examples, and that fact sort of keeps getting ignored/people largely never engage with them.
Perhaps you are suggesting a post that does that-and-nothing-but-that?
I think I am suggesting “link to things when you mention them.” Like, if I want to argue with DanielFilan about whether or not a particular garment “is proper” or not, it’s really not obvious what I mean, whereas if I say “hey I don’t think that complies with the US Flag Code”, most of the work is done (and then we figure out whether or not section j actually applies to the garment in question, ultimately concluding that it does not).
Like, elsewhere you write:
I currently don’t think there exists a ‘straightforward list of rationality 101 principles and practices’ that I could link someone to (in the same way that I can link them to the Flag Code, or to literal Canon Law). Like, where’s the boundary between rationality 101 and rationality 102? (What fraction of rationality 101 do the current ‘default comment guidelines’ contain?)
Given the absence of that, I think you’re imagining much more agreement than exists. Some like the “Double crux” style, but Said disliked it back in 2018 [1] [2] and presumably feels the same way now. Does that mean it’s in the canon, like you suggest in this comment, or not?
[Edit: I recall that at some point, you had something that I think was called Sabien’s Rules? I can’t find it with a quick search now, but I think having something like that which you can easily link to and people can either agree with or disagree with will clarify things compared to your current gesturing at a large body of things.]
Sabien’s Sins is linked in the OP (near the end, in the list of terrible ideas).
I will probably make a master linkpost somewhere in my next four LW essays. Thanks.
Where? Is it the quoted lines?
Huh, not sure how I missed that; thanks for pointing it out.
Indeed, my opinion of “double crux” has not improved since the linked comments were written.