Big ups for admitting your mistake! You’re the writer of Otium, right? I love your blog, especially its more opinion-slanted stuff (like the aesthetics-is-morality post).
You know, I’ve been reading a book called Crucial Conversations over the past few weeks, and it discusses the concept of “making space” so that difficult conversations can be had.
I wonder if the same principle can be applied to epistemic conversations, to make it really feel like you’re just thinking out loud and trying to piece things together? In my experience, when people start throwing facts and figures together, it’s easy for listeners to slip into a state of “This Is The Truth” and not “This Is Complex Thinking”. Helping to keep readers in the second state when they read rationalist speculation, I think, would be a very valuable skill to build.
Big ups for admitting your mistake! You’re the writer of Otium, right? I love your blog, especially its more opinion-slanted stuff (like the aesthetics-is-morality post).
You know, I’ve been reading a book called Crucial Conversations over the past few weeks, and it discusses the concept of “making space” so that difficult conversations can be had.
I wonder if the same principle can be applied to epistemic conversations, to make it really feel like you’re just thinking out loud and trying to piece things together? In my experience, when people start throwing facts and figures together, it’s easy for listeners to slip into a state of “This Is The Truth” and not “This Is Complex Thinking”. Helping to keep readers in the second state when they read rationalist speculation, I think, would be a very valuable skill to build.