It’s important to distinguish between the goal of communicating with others in ways that feel natural (e.g., without constantly having to back up and fill over inferential gaps), vs. the goal of sharing with others the Good News about rationality.
That’s a useful distinction, and thee are aspects of both. I’m more personally annoyed with the former, finding it difficult to explain these things in a non-boring/confusing way.
I’d be lying to say that I’m not interested in the latter, but I still find that to be a bit on the creepy side… Though reading through the post again its really mostly talking about that, on the next draft I’ll emphasize the other more.
On your other point when I do that I don’t think the mode of thinking is transferred enough. A lot of times I’ll do that and people will agree, but think that it was just me being insightful. I’d rather have them learn how to do it too.
A lot of times I’ll do that and people will agree, but think that it was just me being insightful. I’d rather have them learn how to do it too.
Sure, that makes sense. That said, IME developing a reputation for being insightful makes it a lot more likely that people will learn from me. Also, practicing transparency helps… that is, getting better over time at describing my thinking in ways people can follow.
Totally agreed. I’d just like a bit of help on that last part of describing it/teaching it well, so that it doesn’t sound too trivial to remember, or too abstract to care about.
Well, here too, concreteness helps. Do you have any specific cases in mind where you’ve attempted to describe your clear thinking about a particular issue, but felt that the result sounded too trivial or too abstract?
Right now the only example I have is your post, about which you’ve gotten a fair amount of feedback from various people… has any of that feedback been helpful along this axis? More generally, if you had to rewrite it to make your thinking more transparent to your readers, would you change anything?
I’d be lying to say that I’m not interested in the latter, but I still find that to be a bit on the creepy side… Though reading through the post again its really mostly talking about that, on the next draft I’ll emphasize the other more.
On your other point when I do that I don’t think the mode of thinking is transferred enough. A lot of times I’ll do that and people will agree, but think that it was just me being insightful. I’d rather have them learn how to do it too.
Sure, that makes sense. That said, IME developing a reputation for being insightful makes it a lot more likely that people will learn from me. Also, practicing transparency helps… that is, getting better over time at describing my thinking in ways people can follow.
Totally agreed. I’d just like a bit of help on that last part of describing it/teaching it well, so that it doesn’t sound too trivial to remember, or too abstract to care about.
Gotcha.
Well, here too, concreteness helps. Do you have any specific cases in mind where you’ve attempted to describe your clear thinking about a particular issue, but felt that the result sounded too trivial or too abstract?
Right now the only example I have is your post, about which you’ve gotten a fair amount of feedback from various people… has any of that feedback been helpful along this axis? More generally, if you had to rewrite it to make your thinking more transparent to your readers, would you change anything?