you are likely to agree with the majority of these statements
If you hadn’t amplified the oddness of the beliefs on the list, this would be true. The trouble is, the way you amplified oddness is mostly by changing the substance of what was communicated, not just the style. Like by using over-general words so that people will hear one connotation when you might have been trying to say another. And so, why should we agree with statements that say the wrong thing?
Starting out with an incorrect guess about the reader is really bad for the rest of the post. You should start with your message instead, maybe even use personal experience—“I’ve had conversations where I brought up beliefs spread on LW, and people thought I was a crackpot.”
But I also disagree with the thesis that the solution is to try to “hide the crazy.” Bayesian Bob doesn’t break things down into small enough parts and tries to use too many “impressive” statements that are actually harmful to communication. So a first action might be to stop digging himself deeper, but ultimately I think Bob should try to get better at explaining.
I think Bob should try to get better at explaining.
Got any tips for Bob and the rest of us?
The only stratagem that occurs to me after reading Zed’s dialogue is that Bob should have spent more time motivating his solutions. I notice that Rian is the one asking all the questions, while Bob is the one offering short answers. Perhaps if Bob had been asking Rian why someone would believe in the opinions of experts and allowed him to offer possible solutions, and then guided Rian’s own questioning in the right direction with more questions, the exchange would have gone differently.
I’m a bad explainer in this sort of situation, too, but perhaps something like:
Rian: That doesn’t make sense. It’s still just an opinion. Evidence comes from experiments.
Bob: Hmm… perhaps we think about evidence in slightly different ways. So is evidence only something that comes from an experiment? Do you form your opinions using only evidence, or are there other ingredients, too?
Once I’ve got a positive position staked out from Rian, I can much more easily show him the reasons that I think they’re wrong. I’m no longer at risk of appearing a credulous crackpot, but instead appear to be the level-headed skeptical one.
ETA: One more attempt at summarizing my idea: don’t offer your solutions until the problems are understood.
If you hadn’t amplified the oddness of the beliefs on the list, this would be true. The trouble is, the way you amplified oddness is mostly by changing the substance of what was communicated, not just the style. Like by using over-general words so that people will hear one connotation when you might have been trying to say another. And so, why should we agree with statements that say the wrong thing?
Starting out with an incorrect guess about the reader is really bad for the rest of the post. You should start with your message instead, maybe even use personal experience—“I’ve had conversations where I brought up beliefs spread on LW, and people thought I was a crackpot.”
But I also disagree with the thesis that the solution is to try to “hide the crazy.” Bayesian Bob doesn’t break things down into small enough parts and tries to use too many “impressive” statements that are actually harmful to communication. So a first action might be to stop digging himself deeper, but ultimately I think Bob should try to get better at explaining.
Got any tips for Bob and the rest of us?
The only stratagem that occurs to me after reading Zed’s dialogue is that Bob should have spent more time motivating his solutions. I notice that Rian is the one asking all the questions, while Bob is the one offering short answers. Perhaps if Bob had been asking Rian why someone would believe in the opinions of experts and allowed him to offer possible solutions, and then guided Rian’s own questioning in the right direction with more questions, the exchange would have gone differently.
I’m a bad explainer in this sort of situation, too, but perhaps something like:
Once I’ve got a positive position staked out from Rian, I can much more easily show him the reasons that I think they’re wrong. I’m no longer at risk of appearing a credulous crackpot, but instead appear to be the level-headed skeptical one.
ETA: One more attempt at summarizing my idea: don’t offer your solutions until the problems are understood.