I think my responses have all had at most two distinct arguments, so I’m not sure in what sense I’m “bringing up multiple sub-points per post that leave [you] no way to respond in a time-efficient way without being called ’minimal’”. In the case that I am, that is also what the ‘not worth getting into’ emoji is for.
(other than this one, which has three)
This obviously leaves room for people to have disagreeing interpretations of what LessWrong ought to do, as you and I currently do.
Room for disagreement does not imply any disagreement is valid.
What’s the issue with my Twitter post? It just says I see your comment as representative of many LWers, and the same thing I said in my previous reply, that aggregating people’s belief-states into mutual knowledge is actually part of “thinking” rather than “fighting”.
It says
LW crab-buckets anyone from elevating an already majority-held object-level belief into mutual knowledge.
But this is not what I’m doing, nor what I’ve argued for anywhere, and as I’ve said before,
nor is my argument even “mutual knowledge is bad”.
For example, I really like the LessWrong surveys! I take those every year!
I just think your post is harmful and uninformative.
> nor is my argument even “mutual knowledge is bad”.
For example, I really like the LessWrong surveys! I take those every year!
What’s the minimally modified version of posting this “Statement of Support for IABIED” you’d feel good about? Presumably the upper bound for your desired level of modification would be if we included a yearly survey question about whether people agree with the quoted central claim from the book?
I would feel better if your post was more of the following form: “I am curious about the actual level of agreement with IABI, here is a list of directly quoted claims made in the book (which I put in the comments below). React with agree/disagree about each claim. If your answer is instead “mu”, then you can argue about it or something idk. Please also feel free to comment claims the book makes which you are interested in getting a survey of LessWrong opinions on yourself”.
I think I would actually strong-upvote this post if it existed, provided the moderation seemed appropriate, and the seeded claims concrete and not phrased leadingly.
Edit: Bonus points for encouraging people to use the probability reacts rather than agree/disagree reacts.
Thanks. The reactions to such a post would constitute a stronger common knowledge signal of community agreement with the book (to the degree that such agreement is in fact present in the community).
I wonder if it would be better to make the agree-voting anonymous (like LW post voting) or with people’s names attached to their votes (like react-voting).
I’m sure this is going too far for you, but I also personally wish LW could go even further toward turning a sufficient amount of mutual support expressed in that form (if it turns out to exist) into a frontpage that actually looks like what most humans expect a supportive front page around a big event to look like (moreso than having a banner mentioning it and discussion mentioning it).
I think my responses have all had at most two distinct arguments, so I’m not sure in what sense I’m “bringing up multiple sub-points per post that leave [you] no way to respond in a time-efficient way without being called ’minimal’”. In the case that I am, that is also what the ‘not worth getting into’ emoji is for.
(other than this one, which has three)
Room for disagreement does not imply any disagreement is valid.
It says
But this is not what I’m doing, nor what I’ve argued for anywhere, and as I’ve said before,
For example, I really like the LessWrong surveys! I take those every year!
I just think your post is harmful and uninformative.
What’s the minimally modified version of posting this “Statement of Support for IABIED” you’d feel good about? Presumably the upper bound for your desired level of modification would be if we included a yearly survey question about whether people agree with the quoted central claim from the book?
I would feel better if your post was more of the following form: “I am curious about the actual level of agreement with IABI, here is a list of directly quoted claims made in the book (which I put in the comments below). React with agree/disagree about each claim. If your answer is instead “mu”, then you can argue about it or something idk. Please also feel free to comment claims the book makes which you are interested in getting a survey of LessWrong opinions on yourself”.
I think I would actually strong-upvote this post if it existed, provided the moderation seemed appropriate, and the seeded claims concrete and not phrased leadingly.
Edit: Bonus points for encouraging people to use the probability reacts rather than agree/disagree reacts.
Thanks. The reactions to such a post would constitute a stronger common knowledge signal of community agreement with the book (to the degree that such agreement is in fact present in the community).
I wonder if it would be better to make the agree-voting anonymous (like LW post voting) or with people’s names attached to their votes (like react-voting).
I’m sure this is going too far for you, but I also personally wish LW could go even further toward turning a sufficient amount of mutual support expressed in that form (if it turns out to exist) into a frontpage that actually looks like what most humans expect a supportive front page around a big event to look like (moreso than having a banner mentioning it and discussion mentioning it).
Again, the separate tweet about LW crab-bucketing in my Twitter thread wasn’t meant as a response to to you in this LW thread.
I agree that “room for disagreement does not imply any disagreement is valid”, and am not seeing anything left to respond to on that point.