I’m a new reader, and I thought you might like to know that this is the post that made me feel like it might be okay to get involved in the LW community. My initial instinct when I started looking around here was trepidation—it reminded me of some people I know who are very smart, intellectual, and rational, who love to debate and analyze … and to argue with people who might not want to, and who are hopeless at understanding people less rational than themselves, don’t acknowledge their own emotions, and don’t see how irrational it is to think and behave that way. Before joining the conversation, I needed to hear that this place was not for those people—not an intellectual wankfest but something actually practical, even when it comes to the less reasoned parts of ourselves. So, thanks for that.
Now to salvage the relevance of this comment.
As a practical suggestion for ourselves and each other, it might be interesting to experiment with non-argumentative ways of conveying a point of view: tell an illustrative story, express your idea in the form of an epigram, or even quote a poem or a piece of music or a photograph.
I would have worded this more strongly, myself. In my experience, people who are themselves inclined towards reasoned debate, even civilly, drastically overestimate how much other people are also inclined towards debate and argument. They are of course generalizing from one example, but in this particular case they’re also doing intense harm to their social relationships and to the point they’re trying to communicate. In their minds, they’re engaging in a way which displays and encourages intelligent thought, but to people who dislike a heavily oppositional mode of conversation, they come off as belligerent prats.
The point here is that those who enjoy an adversarial style of heated conversation might find their communication more effective and more readily listened to by a dissimilar audience if they choose to present their ideas in a way that seems to them to be more indirect—perhaps not quite to the level of writing a sonnet about it, but by speaking in general terms, avoiding language which invokes an accusatory tone whether or not personal accusation is intended, and so on. In short, intellectuals that no one will listen to have a lot to learn from poorly-educated but widely-admired poets.
Also, at the risk of exposing my unintellectual taste, my “O Isis Und Osiris” is the bassline of Jet’s “Are You Gonna Be My Girl.” I briefly worked in QA at EA (many of you know the reputation of that job and also that company, and those who don’t can infer it from the tone of this parenthesis). I was testing the original Rock Band, and when I was having a rough morning and didn’t want to be there, I’d play through that bassline a couple of times and I’d be doing all right.
I actually hadn’t thought of it in quite this way, but you’re right.
I find that I gravitate towards spending time with people who can debate and like it, because constructing arguments is my best skill (math is just a more formal version of that.) People who don’t like debate—I can be nice to them, but I feel like I have to tie my hands behind my back to talk to them. Especially if they want to talk about an “issue” and hear my opinion on it, but they don’t really realize that for me to give my opinion would involve demolishing their argument, and they’d have their feelings hurt if I did that...
I think I’ve learned tact about politics, at least, but usually my “tact” just means “avoiding the subject.” So there’s probably a skill I need to learn here.
I actually hadn’t thought of it in quite this way, but you’re right.
Man, that’s just about the ideal response to a comment, isn’t it?
I feel like I have to tie my hands behind my back to talk to them
I don’t think he’d have used the same words, I think the friend I had in mind would agree with this. He often seems very frustrated and annoyed when it comes up, and I don’t blame him—the social circle in which I interact with him is composed almost entirely of people who prefer a very different conversation style, and the rules of that style are presumably unintuitive to him. The result is that, well, he gets yelled at sometimes for acting in a way which to him is normal.
I’m sympathetic to the situation, but at the same time, he’s behaving in a way which is unacceptable in that context, and I don’t sympathize with doing that. He’s not dumb by any means. It’s hard for me to believe that he’s incapable of learning the patterns which conflict with his instincts (e.g. “if you have a clarifying question about what someone else is saying, wait until they pause to ask it”), and I wonder if his value judgments about the different social modes disincline him to do so.
On the other hand, it’s easy for me to say he could just go learn them, because they’re normal and intuitive for me. You don’t see me out there learning to interact with people in his style, and I don’t especially care to do so. On the other other hand, a) I also don’t hang out with them every week, and b) my style doesn’t cause anger and hurt feelings when used in the wrong context.
they don’t really realize that for me to give my opinion would involve demolishing their argument, and they’d have their feelings hurt if I did that
Do you believe that it’s not possible to give your differing opinion, even including rebuttal of their argument, in a manner which does not result in hurt feelings? When I observe people who are being, for the context, excessively argumentative, my impression is not that the content of what they’re saying is wrong, but they’re choosing a form to deliver it in which also conveys disrespect, arrogance, and belligerence to their current audience (which it wouldn’t have to an audience of people more like them—hence the frustration).
usually my “tact” just means “avoiding the subject.”
Honestly, in politics I think this often is the right choice, simply because it is by definition a subject that people have personal investment in. (I know there’s a sequence about this, and I haven’t read it yet, so I won’t bother expounding further than that.) However, for less heated topics, it may only take a change in word choice to deliver the same content in a way that doesn’t incite rage.
So there’s probably a skill I need to learn here.
If I’m reading you correctly, it’s the above—the art of disagreeing without conveying disrespect. This is one of the subjects of the book idea that’s been floating around in my head for a while, which is generally a translation guide for people with very different modes of communication.
This is one of the subjects of the book idea that’s been floating around in my head for a while, which is generally a translation guide for people with very different modes of communication.
The world needs this. Let us know when you have it, or if any of us can help! ;-)
Thanks—I will. It’s about third-tier on my priorities right now (first tier is homework and guitar, second is a game idea), but I suspect that this community will be a good resource when I’m working on it more actively.
What I mean by that is that it gets at something really important that I don’t like. The problem is that I get more pleasure from debates than almost anything else. I search for people who don’t react in the intensely negative way you describe, and I find it hard to empathise with those that do. I don’t do this because I think one method is ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’ I just don’t enjoy trying to conform to others expectations and prefer to find others who can behave in the same way. I think for most people deep down, community is more important than ideology (or indeed achieving anything), but a community where you cannot be yourself is one in which you always feel uncomfortable, whether this is intellectually confrontational or indirect. Does anyone know of any other environments like Less Wrong where an intellectually direct way of communicating wont get you flamed to death?
Thanks, I think? You’re not explicit about why it makes you feel bad, and I’m curious. (Rather, while you address it in the next sentence, I’m not sure I understand what kind of “feeling bad” you mean.)
I think for most people deep down, community is more important than ideology (or indeed achieving anything)
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here.
but a community where you cannot be yourself is one in which you always feel uncomfortable
This is why it bothers me to see it happen. I’m an empathetic sort, and seeing my friend try to fit in like a square peg in a round pegboard makes me cringe. (Well, that, and I’m one of the people who finds the behavior obnoxious when applied to the wrong context.)
an intellectually direct way of communicating
I think this is an interesting way to phrase it, although I can’t put my finger on why. What would you call the opposite? I’m on the lookout for terms to use for these which don’t imply value on either side, since the only criteria for value I see are utility and effectiveness, which are context-dependent.
I think this section of your post is part of what makes me feel bad about your comment. The reason I said I like it, is because I think it’s important that people can talk about these things and the fact that your comments affect me in that way highlights that they are important to me.
I would have worded this more strongly, myself. In my experience, people who are
themselves inclined towards reasoned debate, even civilly, drastically overestimate
how much other people are also inclined towards debate and argument.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but personally I don’t think I drastically overestimate others’ interest in debate, I’m painfully aware of how much hostility there is to making direct statements about even slightly controversial issues. When I talk that way with others, I’m not doing it to fit in, I’m doing it because I want to and because I feel driven to. I feel frustrated at having a different personality from the majority and don’t view others lifestyles as inherently more legitimate than my own. In particular, I have a desire to understand why society and my community works as it does. I feel there is a great deal of unspoken social dynamics and traditions which act as a mask to unjustified status hierarchies and passive aggressive conflict. I love the directness of reasoned argument because I feel that it is basically fair. It can quickly sear away self delusions and unjustified assumptions, getting to a lasting truth. A truth that while unpalatable is, at its best, independent of who has said it and how it has been said. Avoiding the undesirable (for me at least) political maneuvering that seems to dominate so much of society.
For me, I’m looking for a community which is honest and fearless with itself and others. I’m less interested in productivity or instrumental rationality than simply being able to discuss issues in a direct way so that I can get a better understanding of them for my own satisfaction. Without this opportunity, I feel I am engaging in a social dance that never satisfies my desire to find what is true and what is important.
In terms of a neutral opposite something like:
Psychologically accommodating
might be good. It emphasises the fact that the communication is designed to be easy to absorb without implying manipulation. Both sound like they would be useful and both subtly imply their weaknesses (i.e. insult and compromise).
Hmm—I don’t think that either honesty or fearlessness requires directness.
a social dance that never satisfies my desire to find what is true
You can learn a lot from the social dance if you know how to read it, including some things it’s very hard to communicate any other way.
My point here is not to refute your perspective, just to observe that your goals (honesty, truth, and so forth) do not necessarily require directness. Human language is an imperfect tool for conveying the contents of human minds. Only ever using it directly limits us to expressing the symbols it has words for. Taking advantage of implication and social convention lets us derive more information from our limited symbol set.
The difference is like counting in unary vs. counting in decimal. Instead of only having the presence or absence of symbols to communicate value, you get the benefit of place values. With a frustratingly subtle change in expression (moving a digit to the left), you get the power to say much more, and more succinctly.
Obviously it’s not as useful when discussing topics that we do have words for, but for difficult-to-nail-down things like emotion and desire, I find it invaluable.
Psychologically accommodating
I like that. I might not call it catchy, but it’s definitely a clear descriptor, and I think it’s accurate.
Oh and I should add, I like your forest
Thanks! I don’t put as much active work into it as perhaps it deserves.
Although it sounds like you’ve very much landed on your feet here, may I point out the LW FAQ?
...not an intellectual wankfest but something actually practical, even when it comes to the less reasoned parts of ourselves. So, thanks for that.
Oceans of ink have been spilt on this topic here. We’re trying very hard to be practical, but a lot of us also really enjoy more airy topics for their own sake.
...people who are themselves inclined towards reasoned debate, even civilly, drastically overestimate how much other people are also inclined towards debate and argument… [and might be] more readily listened to by a dissimilar audience if they choose to present their ideas in a way that seems to them to be more indirect...
Yes. This is why I love projects like HP:MoR. Of course it IS very didactic, but still manages to convey a lot of important ideas without bogging down in syllogisms or raising people’s hackles.
Also, at the risk of exposing my unintellectual taste, my “O Isis Und Osiris” is the bassline of Jet’s “Are You Gonna Be My Girl.”
Although I mentioned Beethoven as mine in another comment, the same goes for about ten folk songs. :)
Thanks! Yeah, I’ve done a little bit of exploratory looking around, but not so much as to have found that yet; I’ll take a look. (I did, however, find the welcome thread, and not post in it. Yet. cough)
We’re trying very hard to be practical, but a lot of us also really enjoy more airy topics for their own sake.
Good to know. I may not appreciate every thread, but I needn’t flee from the whole community. That is acceptable. ;)
HP:MoR
Okay, I do at least try to Google unknown terms, but I’m guessing you were not referring to a printer.
However, the bit you quoted is also the reason that I like Nonviolent Communication, which I forgot to mention at the time. It’s essentially a codified template for how to talk about emotions and needs, and find practical solutions, in a conflict situation, without making the conflict worse. As someone who is fairly balanced between the logical and emotional sides of her brain, I find it handy, but it seems like for someone who was very logic-dominant it would be invaluable. Of course, it’s written in a very emotional, touchy-feely style (typical psyche again), which makes it very unappealing to the people who (incoming opinion) need it most. This inspired me to start brainstorming a book designed for more logically-minded and less emotionally-conscious people on how to communicate with those who are the other way around. I may at some point try to pick the brains of folks here about that.
the same goes for about ten folk songs
That too. I’m very early in the process of learning the guitar, and spent much of this afternoon belting out Jim Croce’s Workin’ at the Car Wash Blues. It went a long way towards getting me out of a frustrated “oh-god-this-is-hard-and-there-is-so-much-more-to-learn” funk.
This inspired me to start brainstorming a book designed for more logically-minded and less emotionally-conscious people on how to communicate with those who are the other way around. I may at some point try to pick the brains of folks here about that.
I look forward to that! You may want to know that a lot of those communication methodology issues have been talked about (though certainly not exhaustively) in the “Craft and Community” sequence.
It went a long way towards getting me out of a frustrated “oh-god-this-is-hard-and-there-is-so-much-more-to-learn” funk.
Well done! I’m still in that funk with my mando, alas.
I think this is an area where linking to HP:MoR with the text of the link being the term looked for helps Google properly categorize it. Of course, Google mostly ignores forum threads, so the link above probably won’t help much.
No worries. I’ve had fair warning about the frequency of specialized communication in here; I was mostly just amused by that particular one’s unsearchability (as opposed to, say, “akrasia,” which I just asked Wikipedia about the first time I encountered it).
in the “Craft and Community” sequence
Thanks; I’m eyeing the sequence list in another tab but hadn’t gotten that far yet. I’m a huge communication and language nerd (albeit one wholly without technical qualifications), so that and the word definition stuff jump out at me, aside from the core. However, the fact that it’s nearly 1:30am also jumps out at me. (Speaking of akrasia.) (I did just go through the gentle intro to Bayesian Theory, although after getting the initial problem correct, I admit I skimmed some of the explanation. I don’t have a good intuition for what the right answers are, but I have a good intuition for when not to trust my intuition about what they are, and then I can work the math out at my leisure.)
I’m still in that funk with my mando
Good luck! Two things it has helped me to remember when working on the guitar come from my mental file of good-advice-I-heard-somewhere, both paraphrased:
1) “Getting better at things is a skill which, like any other skill, improves with practice.” (I got this from a documentary whose name I don’t recall, about a fellow trying for the world record in Missile Command. It encourages me because my last big learning project went well, so maybe I’m getting better at getting better at things!)
2) “You’re going to lose your first hundred games; may as well get them over with.” (From a Go player. Generalizable to: “When you’re new to something, you’re going to suck at it. Do it loud, do it proud, and most importantly do it often, and soon the necessary period of sucking at it will be over.”)
That can’t be any worse than my taste in music. This is one of my favorite CDs to listen to. ;)
Sounds like an even weirder version of Moore’s paradox. “I like this music, which I consider to be bad music.”
I know how you feel though… my particular albatross is that I’m a subdued teetotaller geek whose favourite songs invariably consist of whiskey, philandering and pub brawls, whack-fall-the-derry-o.
I enjoy a band that I believe to be of fairly mediocre quality. I’ve noticed that I can only enjoy them when I’m not paying close attention; as background music while I’m doing something else, they’re one of my favorite bands, but when I deliberately put them on to listen to, they’re painfully bad.
I’m a new reader, and I thought you might like to know that this is the post that made me feel like it might be okay to get involved in the LW community. My initial instinct when I started looking around here was trepidation—it reminded me of some people I know who are very smart, intellectual, and rational, who love to debate and analyze … and to argue with people who might not want to, and who are hopeless at understanding people less rational than themselves, don’t acknowledge their own emotions, and don’t see how irrational it is to think and behave that way. Before joining the conversation, I needed to hear that this place was not for those people—not an intellectual wankfest but something actually practical, even when it comes to the less reasoned parts of ourselves. So, thanks for that.
Now to salvage the relevance of this comment.
I would have worded this more strongly, myself. In my experience, people who are themselves inclined towards reasoned debate, even civilly, drastically overestimate how much other people are also inclined towards debate and argument. They are of course generalizing from one example, but in this particular case they’re also doing intense harm to their social relationships and to the point they’re trying to communicate. In their minds, they’re engaging in a way which displays and encourages intelligent thought, but to people who dislike a heavily oppositional mode of conversation, they come off as belligerent prats.
The point here is that those who enjoy an adversarial style of heated conversation might find their communication more effective and more readily listened to by a dissimilar audience if they choose to present their ideas in a way that seems to them to be more indirect—perhaps not quite to the level of writing a sonnet about it, but by speaking in general terms, avoiding language which invokes an accusatory tone whether or not personal accusation is intended, and so on. In short, intellectuals that no one will listen to have a lot to learn from poorly-educated but widely-admired poets.
Also, at the risk of exposing my unintellectual taste, my “O Isis Und Osiris” is the bassline of Jet’s “Are You Gonna Be My Girl.” I briefly worked in QA at EA (many of you know the reputation of that job and also that company, and those who don’t can infer it from the tone of this parenthesis). I was testing the original Rock Band, and when I was having a rough morning and didn’t want to be there, I’d play through that bassline a couple of times and I’d be doing all right.
I actually hadn’t thought of it in quite this way, but you’re right.
I find that I gravitate towards spending time with people who can debate and like it, because constructing arguments is my best skill (math is just a more formal version of that.) People who don’t like debate—I can be nice to them, but I feel like I have to tie my hands behind my back to talk to them. Especially if they want to talk about an “issue” and hear my opinion on it, but they don’t really realize that for me to give my opinion would involve demolishing their argument, and they’d have their feelings hurt if I did that...
I think I’ve learned tact about politics, at least, but usually my “tact” just means “avoiding the subject.” So there’s probably a skill I need to learn here.
Man, that’s just about the ideal response to a comment, isn’t it?
I don’t think he’d have used the same words, I think the friend I had in mind would agree with this. He often seems very frustrated and annoyed when it comes up, and I don’t blame him—the social circle in which I interact with him is composed almost entirely of people who prefer a very different conversation style, and the rules of that style are presumably unintuitive to him. The result is that, well, he gets yelled at sometimes for acting in a way which to him is normal.
I’m sympathetic to the situation, but at the same time, he’s behaving in a way which is unacceptable in that context, and I don’t sympathize with doing that. He’s not dumb by any means. It’s hard for me to believe that he’s incapable of learning the patterns which conflict with his instincts (e.g. “if you have a clarifying question about what someone else is saying, wait until they pause to ask it”), and I wonder if his value judgments about the different social modes disincline him to do so.
On the other hand, it’s easy for me to say he could just go learn them, because they’re normal and intuitive for me. You don’t see me out there learning to interact with people in his style, and I don’t especially care to do so. On the other other hand, a) I also don’t hang out with them every week, and b) my style doesn’t cause anger and hurt feelings when used in the wrong context.
Do you believe that it’s not possible to give your differing opinion, even including rebuttal of their argument, in a manner which does not result in hurt feelings? When I observe people who are being, for the context, excessively argumentative, my impression is not that the content of what they’re saying is wrong, but they’re choosing a form to deliver it in which also conveys disrespect, arrogance, and belligerence to their current audience (which it wouldn’t have to an audience of people more like them—hence the frustration).
Honestly, in politics I think this often is the right choice, simply because it is by definition a subject that people have personal investment in. (I know there’s a sequence about this, and I haven’t read it yet, so I won’t bother expounding further than that.) However, for less heated topics, it may only take a change in word choice to deliver the same content in a way that doesn’t incite rage.
If I’m reading you correctly, it’s the above—the art of disagreeing without conveying disrespect. This is one of the subjects of the book idea that’s been floating around in my head for a while, which is generally a translation guide for people with very different modes of communication.
The world needs this. Let us know when you have it, or if any of us can help! ;-)
Thanks—I will. It’s about third-tier on my priorities right now (first tier is homework and guitar, second is a game idea), but I suspect that this community will be a good resource when I’m working on it more actively.
I like your post because it makes me feel bad.
What I mean by that is that it gets at something really important that I don’t like. The problem is that I get more pleasure from debates than almost anything else. I search for people who don’t react in the intensely negative way you describe, and I find it hard to empathise with those that do. I don’t do this because I think one method is ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’ I just don’t enjoy trying to conform to others expectations and prefer to find others who can behave in the same way. I think for most people deep down, community is more important than ideology (or indeed achieving anything), but a community where you cannot be yourself is one in which you always feel uncomfortable, whether this is intellectually confrontational or indirect. Does anyone know of any other environments like Less Wrong where an intellectually direct way of communicating wont get you flamed to death?
Thanks, I think? You’re not explicit about why it makes you feel bad, and I’m curious. (Rather, while you address it in the next sentence, I’m not sure I understand what kind of “feeling bad” you mean.)
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here.
This is why it bothers me to see it happen. I’m an empathetic sort, and seeing my friend try to fit in like a square peg in a round pegboard makes me cringe. (Well, that, and I’m one of the people who finds the behavior obnoxious when applied to the wrong context.)
I think this is an interesting way to phrase it, although I can’t put my finger on why. What would you call the opposite? I’m on the lookout for terms to use for these which don’t imply value on either side, since the only criteria for value I see are utility and effectiveness, which are context-dependent.
I think this section of your post is part of what makes me feel bad about your comment. The reason I said I like it, is because I think it’s important that people can talk about these things and the fact that your comments affect me in that way highlights that they are important to me.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but personally I don’t think I drastically overestimate others’ interest in debate, I’m painfully aware of how much hostility there is to making direct statements about even slightly controversial issues. When I talk that way with others, I’m not doing it to fit in, I’m doing it because I want to and because I feel driven to. I feel frustrated at having a different personality from the majority and don’t view others lifestyles as inherently more legitimate than my own. In particular, I have a desire to understand why society and my community works as it does. I feel there is a great deal of unspoken social dynamics and traditions which act as a mask to unjustified status hierarchies and passive aggressive conflict. I love the directness of reasoned argument because I feel that it is basically fair. It can quickly sear away self delusions and unjustified assumptions, getting to a lasting truth. A truth that while unpalatable is, at its best, independent of who has said it and how it has been said. Avoiding the undesirable (for me at least) political maneuvering that seems to dominate so much of society.
For me, I’m looking for a community which is honest and fearless with itself and others. I’m less interested in productivity or instrumental rationality than simply being able to discuss issues in a direct way so that I can get a better understanding of them for my own satisfaction. Without this opportunity, I feel I am engaging in a social dance that never satisfies my desire to find what is true and what is important.
In terms of a neutral opposite something like:
Psychologically accommodating
might be good. It emphasises the fact that the communication is designed to be easy to absorb without implying manipulation. Both sound like they would be useful and both subtly imply their weaknesses (i.e. insult and compromise).
Oh and I should add, I like your forest : )
Ah, I think I understand now. Thank you.
Hmm—I don’t think that either honesty or fearlessness requires directness.
You can learn a lot from the social dance if you know how to read it, including some things it’s very hard to communicate any other way.
My point here is not to refute your perspective, just to observe that your goals (honesty, truth, and so forth) do not necessarily require directness. Human language is an imperfect tool for conveying the contents of human minds. Only ever using it directly limits us to expressing the symbols it has words for. Taking advantage of implication and social convention lets us derive more information from our limited symbol set.
The difference is like counting in unary vs. counting in decimal. Instead of only having the presence or absence of symbols to communicate value, you get the benefit of place values. With a frustratingly subtle change in expression (moving a digit to the left), you get the power to say much more, and more succinctly.
Obviously it’s not as useful when discussing topics that we do have words for, but for difficult-to-nail-down things like emotion and desire, I find it invaluable.
I like that. I might not call it catchy, but it’s definitely a clear descriptor, and I think it’s accurate.
Thanks! I don’t put as much active work into it as perhaps it deserves.
Welcome!
Although it sounds like you’ve very much landed on your feet here, may I point out the LW FAQ?
Oceans of ink have been spilt on this topic here. We’re trying very hard to be practical, but a lot of us also really enjoy more airy topics for their own sake.
Yes. This is why I love projects like HP:MoR. Of course it IS very didactic, but still manages to convey a lot of important ideas without bogging down in syllogisms or raising people’s hackles.
Although I mentioned Beethoven as mine in another comment, the same goes for about ten folk songs. :)
Thanks! Yeah, I’ve done a little bit of exploratory looking around, but not so much as to have found that yet; I’ll take a look. (I did, however, find the welcome thread, and not post in it. Yet. cough)
Good to know. I may not appreciate every thread, but I needn’t flee from the whole community. That is acceptable. ;)
Okay, I do at least try to Google unknown terms, but I’m guessing you were not referring to a printer.
However, the bit you quoted is also the reason that I like Nonviolent Communication, which I forgot to mention at the time. It’s essentially a codified template for how to talk about emotions and needs, and find practical solutions, in a conflict situation, without making the conflict worse. As someone who is fairly balanced between the logical and emotional sides of her brain, I find it handy, but it seems like for someone who was very logic-dominant it would be invaluable. Of course, it’s written in a very emotional, touchy-feely style (typical psyche again), which makes it very unappealing to the people who (incoming opinion) need it most. This inspired me to start brainstorming a book designed for more logically-minded and less emotionally-conscious people on how to communicate with those who are the other way around. I may at some point try to pick the brains of folks here about that.
That too. I’m very early in the process of learning the guitar, and spent much of this afternoon belting out Jim Croce’s Workin’ at the Car Wash Blues. It went a long way towards getting me out of a frustrated “oh-god-this-is-hard-and-there-is-so-much-more-to-learn” funk.
Sorry! HP:MoR = Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, a fanfic by Eliezer Yudkowsky.
I look forward to that! You may want to know that a lot of those communication methodology issues have been talked about (though certainly not exhaustively) in the “Craft and Community” sequence.
Well done! I’m still in that funk with my mando, alas.
I think this is an area where linking to HP:MoR with the text of the link being the term looked for helps Google properly categorize it. Of course, Google mostly ignores forum threads, so the link above probably won’t help much.
No worries. I’ve had fair warning about the frequency of specialized communication in here; I was mostly just amused by that particular one’s unsearchability (as opposed to, say, “akrasia,” which I just asked Wikipedia about the first time I encountered it).
Thanks; I’m eyeing the sequence list in another tab but hadn’t gotten that far yet. I’m a huge communication and language nerd (albeit one wholly without technical qualifications), so that and the word definition stuff jump out at me, aside from the core. However, the fact that it’s nearly 1:30am also jumps out at me. (Speaking of akrasia.) (I did just go through the gentle intro to Bayesian Theory, although after getting the initial problem correct, I admit I skimmed some of the explanation. I don’t have a good intuition for what the right answers are, but I have a good intuition for when not to trust my intuition about what they are, and then I can work the math out at my leisure.)
Good luck! Two things it has helped me to remember when working on the guitar come from my mental file of good-advice-I-heard-somewhere, both paraphrased:
1) “Getting better at things is a skill which, like any other skill, improves with practice.” (I got this from a documentary whose name I don’t recall, about a fellow trying for the world record in Missile Command. It encourages me because my last big learning project went well, so maybe I’m getting better at getting better at things!)
2) “You’re going to lose your first hundred games; may as well get them over with.” (From a Go player. Generalizable to: “When you’re new to something, you’re going to suck at it. Do it loud, do it proud, and most importantly do it often, and soon the necessary period of sucking at it will be over.”)
That can’t be any worse than my taste in music. This is one of my favorite CDs to listen to. ;)
(And I still can’t sing this song from the beginning to the end without tearing up.)
Sounds like an even weirder version of Moore’s paradox. “I like this music, which I consider to be bad music.”
I know how you feel though… my particular albatross is that I’m a subdued teetotaller geek whose favourite songs invariably consist of whiskey, philandering and pub brawls, whack-fall-the-derry-o.
Well, I don’t think it’s bad music, just low status music. ;)
I enjoy a band that I believe to be of fairly mediocre quality. I’ve noticed that I can only enjoy them when I’m not paying close attention; as background music while I’m doing something else, they’re one of my favorite bands, but when I deliberately put them on to listen to, they’re painfully bad.