It seems like you have several separate things in mind: readability, information density, arguments masquerading as true causes of beliefs, trustworthiness of “experienced rationalists,” and the value of the “main point” vs disclaimers and qualification. Do you have an example post in mind, and specific suggestions for an improved version? I’m not sure if I’m about to respond to you, or just ramble. I understand that it’s hard to call someone out without being mean, but these meta discussions seem to go nowhere without specific examples. (That said, the rest of my comment is not any better in this regard. Also, feel free to use any of my posts or comments for target practice.)
I agree that LW falls short on readability. Most people, LW posters included, are not good writers to begin with. Conciseness is one absent virtue among many. On the other hand, extremely information-dense texts can also be unreadable. Also, conversational, forceful, and polemical styles—which are easier and more entertaining to read than academic styles heavy with caveats—accompany lower epistemic standards. It’s possible to be highly readable, informative, and rigorously correct, but it’s hard. Littering your claims with “I think”s and “probably”s is a poor solution. Even if your main worry is coming off as too authoritative, such ugly filler qualifying language can be replaced with specific qualifications, possibly in a preface or footnote.
Your “murder is wrong” example is a poorly-constructed sentence, sure, for reasons beyond the above. But the details and qualifications are the real content of that statement. I don’t think that’s because “murder is wrong” is an uncharacteristically content-free claim. For any basic principle or sweeping generalization, there will be cases where it obviously works, cases where it obviously doesn’t, and the real information is in where you draw the line. (And that statement applies to itself. I may need to elaborate in a separate post.)
I already see over-reliance on simple/abstract/principled arguments and beliefs as a weakness of LW discourse. This is a shame, because people here should have a huge advantage in terms of consequentialist reasoning and the ability to recognize and discuss tradeoffs without knee-jerk responses.
Regarding your other points, I agree that people often present arguments which do not include the true causes of their beliefs, and that this is bad. I also (relatedly) have enough confidence in very few people here such that a mere statement of their beliefs would be informative.
You’re right, there’s multiple related points to be made here. So, let me try to clarify the issue a bit.
If I write a post with specific examples, people will get too hung up on the examples and the main point is lost. if I don’t post examples, people will comment that I am not specific enough. If I state very clearly and succinctly what I mean, there’s the risk that I come across as arrogant. If I quantify everything with disclaimers, the post becomes less readable and people won’t know what I think. If I don’t anticipate every possible counter-argument, people will assume I haven’t thought of those arguments. If I do anticipate and counter every counter-argument, the post becomes less readable again.
It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. It really is hard, as you say. I originally included in the text that I was thinking about the meta-ethics sequence specifically: I feel that by attempting to include every possible concern, every possible argument and counter-argument, the sequence became way too long and unreadable. At no point does Yudkowsky clearly and succinctly state what his position is. As a result, I think the point of the sequence was lost on people.
Yet there’s a reason for this. Eliezer isn’t stupid: I think he wrote the sequence that way precisely because he feared that if he did state clearly what he meant right of the bat, people would instantly reject it based on trivial arguments. However, I think that the solution is for the reader-base to appreciate frankness and terseness more, and demand argumentation and qualification less. Not to demand that people like Yudkowsky write perfect posts that cannot possibly be misinterpreted and cover everything without being too long.
It seems like you have several separate things in mind: readability, information density, arguments masquerading as true causes of beliefs, trustworthiness of “experienced rationalists,” and the value of the “main point” vs disclaimers and qualification. Do you have an example post in mind, and specific suggestions for an improved version? I’m not sure if I’m about to respond to you, or just ramble. I understand that it’s hard to call someone out without being mean, but these meta discussions seem to go nowhere without specific examples. (That said, the rest of my comment is not any better in this regard. Also, feel free to use any of my posts or comments for target practice.)
I agree that LW falls short on readability. Most people, LW posters included, are not good writers to begin with. Conciseness is one absent virtue among many. On the other hand, extremely information-dense texts can also be unreadable. Also, conversational, forceful, and polemical styles—which are easier and more entertaining to read than academic styles heavy with caveats—accompany lower epistemic standards. It’s possible to be highly readable, informative, and rigorously correct, but it’s hard. Littering your claims with “I think”s and “probably”s is a poor solution. Even if your main worry is coming off as too authoritative, such ugly filler qualifying language can be replaced with specific qualifications, possibly in a preface or footnote.
Your “murder is wrong” example is a poorly-constructed sentence, sure, for reasons beyond the above. But the details and qualifications are the real content of that statement. I don’t think that’s because “murder is wrong” is an uncharacteristically content-free claim. For any basic principle or sweeping generalization, there will be cases where it obviously works, cases where it obviously doesn’t, and the real information is in where you draw the line. (And that statement applies to itself. I may need to elaborate in a separate post.)
I already see over-reliance on simple/abstract/principled arguments and beliefs as a weakness of LW discourse. This is a shame, because people here should have a huge advantage in terms of consequentialist reasoning and the ability to recognize and discuss tradeoffs without knee-jerk responses.
Regarding your other points, I agree that people often present arguments which do not include the true causes of their beliefs, and that this is bad. I also (relatedly) have enough confidence in very few people here such that a mere statement of their beliefs would be informative.
You’re right, there’s multiple related points to be made here. So, let me try to clarify the issue a bit.
If I write a post with specific examples, people will get too hung up on the examples and the main point is lost.
if I don’t post examples, people will comment that I am not specific enough.
If I state very clearly and succinctly what I mean, there’s the risk that I come across as arrogant.
If I quantify everything with disclaimers, the post becomes less readable and people won’t know what I think.
If I don’t anticipate every possible counter-argument, people will assume I haven’t thought of those arguments.
If I do anticipate and counter every counter-argument, the post becomes less readable again.
It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. It really is hard, as you say. I originally included in the text that I was thinking about the meta-ethics sequence specifically: I feel that by attempting to include every possible concern, every possible argument and counter-argument, the sequence became way too long and unreadable. At no point does Yudkowsky clearly and succinctly state what his position is. As a result, I think the point of the sequence was lost on people.
Yet there’s a reason for this. Eliezer isn’t stupid: I think he wrote the sequence that way precisely because he feared that if he did state clearly what he meant right of the bat, people would instantly reject it based on trivial arguments. However, I think that the solution is for the reader-base to appreciate frankness and terseness more, and demand argumentation and qualification less. Not to demand that people like Yudkowsky write perfect posts that cannot possibly be misinterpreted and cover everything without being too long.