Hmm, what you outline here is not obvious to me. It seems fine to me, to see that someone proposes an antithesis and to then respond with “I do not see how this antithesis adds anything to my existing model or how it makes better predictions, and it seems internally inconsistent, so I don’t see any need for synthesis here”. I would even argue that this should happen with 95%+ of antitheses that are presented to you.
I also don’t think that it’s obvious that the right thing is to assume that Zvi already understands the thesis. If I am stuck trying to understand one of Zvi’s points, then it seems better to me to make a comment explaining my confusion/explaining the inconsistency I think I found in the argument, than to stay silent in my confusion. I benefited from reading the exchange between Dagon and Zvi, and would like to see more of it, since I don’t think I get the point Zvi is trying to make, and why it is in conflict with a classical Hansonian signaling-resources model.
There’s no conflict with Hansonian signaling other than emphasis; it’s a thing that happens, it’s important, I don’t think it’s as important as Hanson thinks.
One thought that occurs to me is that this framework is partly an attempt to defend against Hansonian signaling—to keep X being about Y. That often seems super important to me.
Good feedback though that you don’t see the contrast, thank you.
I think I don’t endorse my final paragraph as written – among other things it doesn’t mention value to third-parties reading along.
I also very much don’t think it should be obvious to Dagon that my claims here are true, if he started reading Zvi a few days ago – just that if you’ve been reading Zvi for years it’s clear that he gets the class of trade-based-thinking that Dagon is pointing to here. I may have picked a bad comment to make this sort of reply – as standalone comment Dagon’s most recent remarks seem pretty fine at trying to clarify his position and tease out what exactly Zvi is talking about, and I don’t think my reply is worded fairly.
(In my defense, I said I’d probably not do a good job) [Does that count as a defense? :P)
But here’s an attempt to reword my final paragraph:
It seems like the default course this conversation will take would be exploring all the different ways trade could resolve a given problem, but I’m pretty confident that the interesting disagreements here aren’t about trade, so much as about other factors outside of the trade lens (I think mostly relating to human psychology, although I’m not sure)
So while one could continue having the long, extensive conversation of doublechecking that Zvi does in fact understand all the reasons that trade is a good and versatile lens, my comment was geared towards skipping past all that to get to the substantial, interesting disagreement at the end.
Hmm, what you outline here is not obvious to me. It seems fine to me, to see that someone proposes an antithesis and to then respond with “I do not see how this antithesis adds anything to my existing model or how it makes better predictions, and it seems internally inconsistent, so I don’t see any need for synthesis here”. I would even argue that this should happen with 95%+ of antitheses that are presented to you.
I also don’t think that it’s obvious that the right thing is to assume that Zvi already understands the thesis. If I am stuck trying to understand one of Zvi’s points, then it seems better to me to make a comment explaining my confusion/explaining the inconsistency I think I found in the argument, than to stay silent in my confusion. I benefited from reading the exchange between Dagon and Zvi, and would like to see more of it, since I don’t think I get the point Zvi is trying to make, and why it is in conflict with a classical Hansonian signaling-resources model.
There’s no conflict with Hansonian signaling other than emphasis; it’s a thing that happens, it’s important, I don’t think it’s as important as Hanson thinks.
One thought that occurs to me is that this framework is partly an attempt to defend against Hansonian signaling—to keep X being about Y. That often seems super important to me.
Good feedback though that you don’t see the contrast, thank you.
I think I don’t endorse my final paragraph as written – among other things it doesn’t mention value to third-parties reading along.
I also very much don’t think it should be obvious to Dagon that my claims here are true, if he started reading Zvi a few days ago – just that if you’ve been reading Zvi for years it’s clear that he gets the class of trade-based-thinking that Dagon is pointing to here. I may have picked a bad comment to make this sort of reply – as standalone comment Dagon’s most recent remarks seem pretty fine at trying to clarify his position and tease out what exactly Zvi is talking about, and I don’t think my reply is worded fairly.
(In my defense, I said I’d probably not do a good job) [Does that count as a defense? :P)
But here’s an attempt to reword my final paragraph:
It seems like the default course this conversation will take would be exploring all the different ways trade could resolve a given problem, but I’m pretty confident that the interesting disagreements here aren’t about trade, so much as about other factors outside of the trade lens (I think mostly relating to human psychology, although I’m not sure)
So while one could continue having the long, extensive conversation of doublechecking that Zvi does in fact understand all the reasons that trade is a good and versatile lens, my comment was geared towards skipping past all that to get to the substantial, interesting disagreement at the end.
Dagon and Zvi?
Lol, yes. That’s a weird typo.