The point implied by the original comment in this chain is absolutely critical.
There are two tracks here:
1) If the point is critical, implying it is perhaps not sufficient, and the thing should be spelled out. Short comments often imply many distinct generators.
In particular, the generator that I think is most obvious is “there’s a genre mismatch between ‘the ordinary means by which people navigate their lives’ and ‘time-travel stories’, as the first is nonfictional and the second is fictional; don’t generalize from fictional evidence!”, but the position that I saw as a more serious objection from Benquo’s point of view was “while there are powerful models here, there’s also insight porn that feels powerful but isn’t; it is not clear that the dimension you highlight separates the two as opposed to leading you towards insight porn.”
2) Whether or not the point is correct. As it happens, I think the second concern (that this doesn’t reliably distinguish insight porn from true insight) is interesting and important, and that the first concern (that time travel stories are completely distinct from ordinary lives) is mistaken.
A brief comment on why it’s mistaken: Robinson Crusoe is a fictional example, yes, but it’s a fictional member of a real class, and in explanatory pieces you should expect the author to use examples the audience will know, and those will generally be fictional examples because of both higher audience recognition and fictional examples can more crisply separate out the real thing. The ordinary means by which people navigate their lives includes losing some foundations of support, venturing into the unknown, and making tools out of their constituent parts; there is a meaningful way in which any programmer who opens up a new text window is doing something cognitively similar to Robinson Crusoe.
[A frame people can adopt, which is sometimes useful, is that they’re an amnesiac time traveler from 3018; what thing can they do now, even though they don’t remember what it is? See Archimedes Chronophone: the point here is a subtle one that’s not “remember something from the future” because you’ve forgotten it, it’s “what happens if I take seriously the possibility that there are major opportunities that are accessible to someone now just because they know something, and what modes of thought might lead to discovering that thing?”.]
[This is just responding to points that are easy to respond to contained in the parent; my overall sense is “it might take a post to point at what’s going on here, and so I’m going to try to write that post instead of handle it here.”]
This is as good a time as any for me to mention that this term “generators”, which you’ve used a few times now, is not familiar to me in this context. I think I can sort of guess the general meaning from context, but I’m really not sure. Where is it from? Is it idiosyncratic to you, or…?
Anyhow, as to your #1, both objections you describe are important. Yes, don’t generalize from fictional evidence, and also avoid insight porn.
Robinson Crusoe is a fictional example, yes, but it’s a fictional member of a real class …
What class? People who’ve gotten shipwrecked? Or people who’ve gotten shipwrecked and managed to sustain themselves via their resourcefulness, etc.? Or something else?
If an author chooses to use a fictional example, then the specific real class of which the fictional example is a member should be identified explicitly, and as many examples as possible of real members of that class should be provided.
… and in explanatory pieces you should expect the author to use examples the audience will know, and those will generally be fictional examples because of both higher audience recognition and fictional examples can more crisply separate out the real thing.
I do not at all agree that this is a reasonable expectation. In fact, I think that reliance on fictional examples is a deep and pervasive problem in “rationalist” writing (and thought), and one which has done much to corrupt the epistemics of the rationalist community/movement. I can hardly think of terms too strong in which to object to this practice. I think it would be a very good idea to excise it, root and stem. (Perhaps, one day, we may trust ourselves with the use of fictional examples once more; but not now, and not for some time.)
The ordinary means by which people navigate their lives includes losing some foundations of support, venturing into the unknown, and making tools out of their constituent parts; there is a meaningful way in which any programmer who opens up a new text window is doing something cognitively similar to Robinson Crusoe.
I’m sorry, but I think that this is an absurd analogy. This is “in some sense…” type reasoning taken much, much too far.
(As for the bit about the chronophone, well… I don’t think it’s critical to your points, so I won’t take up more space and time with my views on it. But if you think it’s a critical point, then I’ll respond to that, as I certainly do have opinions on it.)
There are two tracks here:
1) If the point is critical, implying it is perhaps not sufficient, and the thing should be spelled out. Short comments often imply many distinct generators.
In particular, the generator that I think is most obvious is “there’s a genre mismatch between ‘the ordinary means by which people navigate their lives’ and ‘time-travel stories’, as the first is nonfictional and the second is fictional; don’t generalize from fictional evidence!”, but the position that I saw as a more serious objection from Benquo’s point of view was “while there are powerful models here, there’s also insight porn that feels powerful but isn’t; it is not clear that the dimension you highlight separates the two as opposed to leading you towards insight porn.”
2) Whether or not the point is correct. As it happens, I think the second concern (that this doesn’t reliably distinguish insight porn from true insight) is interesting and important, and that the first concern (that time travel stories are completely distinct from ordinary lives) is mistaken.
A brief comment on why it’s mistaken: Robinson Crusoe is a fictional example, yes, but it’s a fictional member of a real class, and in explanatory pieces you should expect the author to use examples the audience will know, and those will generally be fictional examples because of both higher audience recognition and fictional examples can more crisply separate out the real thing. The ordinary means by which people navigate their lives includes losing some foundations of support, venturing into the unknown, and making tools out of their constituent parts; there is a meaningful way in which any programmer who opens up a new text window is doing something cognitively similar to Robinson Crusoe.
[A frame people can adopt, which is sometimes useful, is that they’re an amnesiac time traveler from 3018; what thing can they do now, even though they don’t remember what it is? See Archimedes Chronophone: the point here is a subtle one that’s not “remember something from the future” because you’ve forgotten it, it’s “what happens if I take seriously the possibility that there are major opportunities that are accessible to someone now just because they know something, and what modes of thought might lead to discovering that thing?”.]
[This is just responding to points that are easy to respond to contained in the parent; my overall sense is “it might take a post to point at what’s going on here, and so I’m going to try to write that post instead of handle it here.”]
This is as good a time as any for me to mention that this term “generators”, which you’ve used a few times now, is not familiar to me in this context. I think I can sort of guess the general meaning from context, but I’m really not sure. Where is it from? Is it idiosyncratic to you, or…?
Anyhow, as to your #1, both objections you describe are important. Yes, don’t generalize from fictional evidence, and also avoid insight porn.
What class? People who’ve gotten shipwrecked? Or people who’ve gotten shipwrecked and managed to sustain themselves via their resourcefulness, etc.? Or something else?
If an author chooses to use a fictional example, then the specific real class of which the fictional example is a member should be identified explicitly, and as many examples as possible of real members of that class should be provided.
I do not at all agree that this is a reasonable expectation. In fact, I think that reliance on fictional examples is a deep and pervasive problem in “rationalist” writing (and thought), and one which has done much to corrupt the epistemics of the rationalist community/movement. I can hardly think of terms too strong in which to object to this practice. I think it would be a very good idea to excise it, root and stem. (Perhaps, one day, we may trust ourselves with the use of fictional examples once more; but not now, and not for some time.)
I’m sorry, but I think that this is an absurd analogy. This is “in some sense…” type reasoning taken much, much too far.
(As for the bit about the chronophone, well… I don’t think it’s critical to your points, so I won’t take up more space and time with my views on it. But if you think it’s a critical point, then I’ll respond to that, as I certainly do have opinions on it.)