Oh come on. You know what I meant with the first part.
To me the expressed sentiment feels, like talking to someone without a mass background who’s impressed by big numbers and who generally knows no numbers in that category. $60 billion for example is near the NIH budget.
If I want to focus on deaths the number of bacteria that die within myself in a year is likely higher than 60 billion.
This site is all about mitigating cognitive biases as well as related fields, so it IS about change.
It’s interesting that you don’t defend the idea that this website is supposed to be about pushing for change in your reply but a more general one, that this website is about valuing change.
Creating internal alignment through a CFAR technique like internal double crux can lead to personal change but there’s no pushing involved.
It’s interesting that you don’t defend the idea that this website is supposed to be about pushing for change in your reply but a more general one, that this website is about valuing change.
I don’t follow. I did defend that its about change.
There’s a difference between “here’s an argument for veganism, take it or leave it” and “you guys aren’t rationalists because you’re not adopting my favored position.”
To me the expressed sentiment feels, like talking to someone without a mass background who’s impressed by big numbers and who generally knows no numbers in that category. $60 billion for example is near the NIH budget.
If I want to focus on deaths the number of bacteria that die within myself in a year is likely higher than 60 billion.
It’s interesting that you don’t defend the idea that this website is supposed to be about pushing for change in your reply but a more general one, that this website is about valuing change.
Creating internal alignment through a CFAR technique like internal double crux can lead to personal change but there’s no pushing involved.
Rationalists should win. We do care about instrumental rationality. Epistemic rationality is a means to this end. Doesn’t that mean “change”?
I don’t follow. I did defend that its about change.
There’s a difference between “here’s an argument for veganism, take it or leave it” and “you guys aren’t rationalists because you’re not adopting my favored position.”
I never said the second quote. Someone was arguing that this site isn’t about change. I argued it is.
I believe that was a fair paraphrazation of your original post, which did in fact come off as rather accusatory to me.
You didn’t defend that it’s about “pushing to change”.