As used in this comment, “outdated” and “woo” both seem to me like anticoncepts at first glance—can you say more about what you mean by them here? What specifically in this post constitutes an “appeal to woo,” and what specifically about that is objectionable? Might be best to taboo the term for the explanation.
Epistemic status: hastily written on mobile, not perfectly expressed
Woo things, like divination, are stereotypically rejected by rationalists and skeptics. This post is fascinating because it offers rational arguments in favor of practices decried as irrational. It’s further fascinating that some past practitioners had awareness of both the surface poor justification and deeper seemingly good justification. It makes one update that maybe one doesn’t understand as much as they think and that maybe the actions of others are more optimized than they first appear.
The actions of others being more optimized than one thinks is a generally good frame. There is an obvious objection that no, really, a lot of actions are un optimized serves as a curiosity stopper on considering which non conscious or non agentic process might have optimized what you’re seeing.
[deleted]
As used in this comment, “outdated” and “woo” both seem to me like anticoncepts at first glance—can you say more about what you mean by them here? What specifically in this post constitutes an “appeal to woo,” and what specifically about that is objectionable? Might be best to taboo the term for the explanation.
Epistemic status: hastily written on mobile, not perfectly expressed
Woo things, like divination, are stereotypically rejected by rationalists and skeptics. This post is fascinating because it offers rational arguments in favor of practices decried as irrational. It’s further fascinating that some past practitioners had awareness of both the surface poor justification and deeper seemingly good justification. It makes one update that maybe one doesn’t understand as much as they think and that maybe the actions of others are more optimized than they first appear.
The actions of others being more optimized than one thinks is a generally good frame. There is an obvious objection that no, really, a lot of actions are un optimized serves as a curiosity stopper on considering which non conscious or non agentic process might have optimized what you’re seeing.
The question is, does mixing up a deck of flash cards randomly help with memorizing them?
EDIT: I was actually serious, it’s an empirical question.
I would imagine so, because it means you learn the cards as opposed to the sequence of cards. (“In French, chateau always follows voiture.”)