Yeah, I agree that the post isn’t quite sequential. Most of Section II isn’t necessary for any of the translator stuff—it’s just that I thought it was an interesting possible explanation of “alike minds think great” bias. (This somewhat disconnected logical structure was a hangup I had about the post; I was considering publishing it as two separate posts but decided not to.)
But, what I was trying to say about Shor and Constance and their need for a translator is: regardless of whether Shor underestimated Constance and vice versa because of this bias, they weren’t in a position to understand each other’s arguments. A translator’s job is to make them understand each other (convert their thoughts into a language that’s easily understandable by the other). This allows for reconciliation, because instead of Shor seeing his own argument and “black box Constance belief which I should update on even though I don’t understand it”, he sees his own argument and “Constance argument translated into Shor language”, which he now has a much better idea what to do with. (And likewise symmetrically for Constance.)
That message seems in step with the theme of the need to better communicate science, anxieties about basing decisions on black-box AI algorithms, and controversy over how much to take expert opinion on faith.
You know, with Scott’s posts, I often get the impression not that he’s translating a thoughtful model in a language I don’t understand, but that he’s modeling social dynamics that the participants themselves don’t understand.
Take the “right is the new left” post. I really doubt that anyone participating in fashion has anything like that model in mind. Instead, a designer has the demands of a specific segment of society in mind, and tailors their product to suit. They’re not analyzing macro trends to decide how to do their shirts. They have a way of putting out clothes that works for their corner of the industry, in terms of how much it changes year to year, what other shops they look to to.
Even if the macro trends in fashion line up perfectly with Scott’s mode, I don’t think anybody in fashion has the equivalent in their head and is thoughtfully using it to base their decision.
By contrast, I think that Shor and Constance probably both do have models in their head, and that Shor’s mature take on Constance’s model does reflect her thought process.
So I’d distinguish between a translator like Shor and someone like Scott, who’s an analyst but not necessarily a translator.
Yeah, I agree that the post isn’t quite sequential. Most of Section II isn’t necessary for any of the translator stuff—it’s just that I thought it was an interesting possible explanation of “alike minds think great” bias. (This somewhat disconnected logical structure was a hangup I had about the post; I was considering publishing it as two separate posts but decided not to.)
But, what I was trying to say about Shor and Constance and their need for a translator is: regardless of whether Shor underestimated Constance and vice versa because of this bias, they weren’t in a position to understand each other’s arguments. A translator’s job is to make them understand each other (convert their thoughts into a language that’s easily understandable by the other). This allows for reconciliation, because instead of Shor seeing his own argument and “black box Constance belief which I should update on even though I don’t understand it”, he sees his own argument and “Constance argument translated into Shor language”, which he now has a much better idea what to do with. (And likewise symmetrically for Constance.)
That message seems in step with the theme of the need to better communicate science, anxieties about basing decisions on black-box AI algorithms, and controversy over how much to take expert opinion on faith.
You know, with Scott’s posts, I often get the impression not that he’s translating a thoughtful model in a language I don’t understand, but that he’s modeling social dynamics that the participants themselves don’t understand.
Take the “right is the new left” post. I really doubt that anyone participating in fashion has anything like that model in mind. Instead, a designer has the demands of a specific segment of society in mind, and tailors their product to suit. They’re not analyzing macro trends to decide how to do their shirts. They have a way of putting out clothes that works for their corner of the industry, in terms of how much it changes year to year, what other shops they look to to.
Even if the macro trends in fashion line up perfectly with Scott’s mode, I don’t think anybody in fashion has the equivalent in their head and is thoughtfully using it to base their decision.
By contrast, I think that Shor and Constance probably both do have models in their head, and that Shor’s mature take on Constance’s model does reflect her thought process.
So I’d distinguish between a translator like Shor and someone like Scott, who’s an analyst but not necessarily a translator.