When a concept is used, it draws attention to its connotations, the way people associate them with it. The role of a concept in an argument is to bring forth relevant inferences. A misleading concept might suggest incorrect or unintended conclusions, as is the case when it doesn’t describe the situation very well or when you are relying on nonstandard connotations not shared by other people.
To taboo a concept is to screen off implicit reliance on its ability to activate connotations in an argument, instead naming them and motivating their relevance explicitly. If the argument is valid, it will go through in this more explicit form as well (if it doesn’t, there might be an actual problem with the argument). The main focus of this procedure are particular arguments, not the concept that was causing trouble. So it is the arguments that you are trying to make that should be clarified, communicated in a way that doesn’t rely on your understanding of the concept, while the use of the concept itself in communication and persuasion should be avoided.
I appear to be doing it wrong. Thank you Vladimir. The wiki on rationalist taboo is pretty short. Is there an article somewhere with good instructions for playing rationalist taboo?
As I recommended before, read the sequence on words and some of Yvain’s posts (Diseased Thinking, Studies on Excuses, Schelling Fences, Worst Argument in the World). My comment works as a summary, if you follow what it’s describing (which is where all those posts might help).
Okay thank you. I’ve read more random sequences than I can count and Worst Argument in the World and I’m systematically working my way through the major sequences right now. I will check these other ones out, too.
Wait, I assume you mean “A Human’s Guide to Words” when you say “sequence of words”?
When a concept is used, it draws attention to its connotations, the way people associate them with it. The role of a concept in an argument is to bring forth relevant inferences. A misleading concept might suggest incorrect or unintended conclusions, as is the case when it doesn’t describe the situation very well or when you are relying on nonstandard connotations not shared by other people.
To taboo a concept is to screen off implicit reliance on its ability to activate connotations in an argument, instead naming them and motivating their relevance explicitly. If the argument is valid, it will go through in this more explicit form as well (if it doesn’t, there might be an actual problem with the argument). The main focus of this procedure are particular arguments, not the concept that was causing trouble. So it is the arguments that you are trying to make that should be clarified, communicated in a way that doesn’t rely on your understanding of the concept, while the use of the concept itself in communication and persuasion should be avoided.
I appear to be doing it wrong. Thank you Vladimir. The wiki on rationalist taboo is pretty short. Is there an article somewhere with good instructions for playing rationalist taboo?
As I recommended before, read the sequence on words and some of Yvain’s posts (Diseased Thinking, Studies on Excuses, Schelling Fences, Worst Argument in the World). My comment works as a summary, if you follow what it’s describing (which is where all those posts might help).
Okay thank you. I’ve read more random sequences than I can count and Worst Argument in the World and I’m systematically working my way through the major sequences right now. I will check these other ones out, too.
Wait, I assume you mean “A Human’s Guide to Words” when you say “sequence of words”?
Ironic place to have this confusion, isn’t it. ;)
(Yes, should be “sequence on words”, sorry, fixed.)