I mean, it’s not the worst thing ever. But if I had to describe it succinctly, especially in the context of ~250 karma points, “applause light” would be it.
If you’re looking for downsides to the blog format, stressing over reputation is a big one. Check out the google hits for “blogging stress”.
I wasn’t really thinking of “downsides for poor Eliezer” :P Although I guess it could lead him to write worse—though I can’t think of any format that wouldn’t allow worrying about what people will think.
I was thinking more along the lines of arguments against the ability of the blog format being the best to produce a philosophical treatise. Lack of larger structure, infrequency of revisions, rarity of outside editing, ability to get away without writing for a “timeless” audience, arguments like that.
Is playing devil’s advocate difficult for other people? I’ve never found out if it’s normally more difficult than ordinary thinking.
Comments making things worse by overpraising problematic ideas. Hyperlinked text leading to poorer understanding on the part of the reader than pure words because it distracts and breaks up the structure. Specifically applicable to LW: some notable philosophical works had much more effort put into them (thinking of an analysis of Wittgenstein in particular here)… hmm, and I’m out of ideas for the moment. Well, respectable ones at least :D
Is playing devil’s advocate difficult for other people?
As always I affirm my appreciation of the devil while deploring advocacy of all kinds! Playing devil’s advocate encourages terrible thinking and using arguments as soldiers. On the other hand being labelled a devil’s advocate simply because you make points that are neglected even if they aren’t for the prestigious side is usually a good sign (epistemologically if not politically).
I also believe that the previous paragraph would be improved by making ‘arguments as soldiers’ a hyperlink. Lack of hyperlinking is perhaps the worst things about books as a medium, even though there is real value in reading through an organised text that goes through the fundamentals of a subject systematically. The sequences blur the line here… they are, after all, part of Eliezer’s efforts to write a book!
Playing devil’s advocate encourages terrible thinking and using arguments as soldiers.
I come to the exact opposite conclusion. It’s certainly possible to be a poor Devil’s Advocate: an easy way is choosing poor, unconvincing, arguments. But the exercise of trying to make the most serious and plausible argument for the other side involves carefully examining the opposing arguments and evidence, and taking them seriously, rather than as enemy soldiers to be shot down. A good Devil’s Advocate learns to judge arguments and weight them based on how useful and effective they are, how convincing they are to the unaligned. While not the same thing as “how true they are”, it is a serious step up from “how much of a security blanket they are to the unconvinced”, and much more likely to lead to “how true is this”, especially in the context of rational unaligned third parties, where truth is actually a strong element of convincing.
If you’re looking for downsides to the blog format, stressing over reputation is a big one. Check out the google hits for “blogging stress”.
I wasn’t really thinking of “downsides for poor Eliezer” :P Although I guess it could lead him to write worse—though I can’t think of any format that wouldn’t allow worrying about what people will think.
I was thinking more along the lines of arguments against the ability of the blog format being the best to produce a philosophical treatise. Lack of larger structure, infrequency of revisions, rarity of outside editing, ability to get away without writing for a “timeless” audience, arguments like that.
Is playing devil’s advocate difficult for other people? I’ve never found out if it’s normally more difficult than ordinary thinking.
Comments making things worse by overpraising problematic ideas. Hyperlinked text leading to poorer understanding on the part of the reader than pure words because it distracts and breaks up the structure. Specifically applicable to LW: some notable philosophical works had much more effort put into them (thinking of an analysis of Wittgenstein in particular here)… hmm, and I’m out of ideas for the moment. Well, respectable ones at least :D
As always I affirm my appreciation of the devil while deploring advocacy of all kinds! Playing devil’s advocate encourages terrible thinking and using arguments as soldiers. On the other hand being labelled a devil’s advocate simply because you make points that are neglected even if they aren’t for the prestigious side is usually a good sign (epistemologically if not politically).
I also believe that the previous paragraph would be improved by making ‘arguments as soldiers’ a hyperlink. Lack of hyperlinking is perhaps the worst things about books as a medium, even though there is real value in reading through an organised text that goes through the fundamentals of a subject systematically. The sequences blur the line here… they are, after all, part of Eliezer’s efforts to write a book!
I come to the exact opposite conclusion. It’s certainly possible to be a poor Devil’s Advocate: an easy way is choosing poor, unconvincing, arguments. But the exercise of trying to make the most serious and plausible argument for the other side involves carefully examining the opposing arguments and evidence, and taking them seriously, rather than as enemy soldiers to be shot down. A good Devil’s Advocate learns to judge arguments and weight them based on how useful and effective they are, how convincing they are to the unaligned. While not the same thing as “how true they are”, it is a serious step up from “how much of a security blanket they are to the unconvinced”, and much more likely to lead to “how true is this”, especially in the context of rational unaligned third parties, where truth is actually a strong element of convincing.