I think maybe don’t go in with that goal. If you have an idea that you want to understand better yourself, and to update your own beliefs about whether and where it fits in an overall consistent worldview, then introducing it in a short form may be a good way to summarize and get initial reactions.
If you’re trying to persuade or convince people to adopt it via “winning” a debate, this isn’t the right forum.
Hello Dagon, I appreciate any answers to this question. However, unfortunately, I don’t think introducing an idea via the shortform is likely to generate very much discussion, and if it does, it’s likely to generate discussion about how to evaluate the ideas presented in the post, rather than debate. I think that trying to persuade people to adopt your viewpoint, or at least behaving as though you were, can be a good way to better explain your idea, especially in a debate format. The goal should be either to successfully persuade a rational opponent, or become persuaded of their beliefs instead, not to ” win ” the debate.
[edited to clarify. apologies for oversimplifying. ]
Right. If your goal is to generate discussion for its own sake, it’s less likely to be welcomed. You need a reason for wanting the discussion, and that will determine how and whether to go about it here.. If your goal is to get some help in your understanding of the world and finding whether and how this idea fits into current knowledge and models, then shortform is a good start, and based on engagement (or not), you can expand to a longer post highlighting how it differs from current models and when it’s helpful.
in summary: this is not a place to proselytize or promulgate ideas. It’s a place to cooperatively explore what is true and how we know it. There are LOTS of exceptions and subtlety in specific topics that are already in the Overton window around here, and I wish there were fewer, but for new/unpopular ideas, start with curiosity and learning for yourself, not with pushing or convincing others.
Edit: also, if it’s unpopular/criticized due to complexity of long trains of inference, or large inferential distance from the more popular ideas/models, it’s a VERY good tactic to break it down into smaller pieces, which you can discuss independently. This is not “write more, in a series that can’t be understood until complete”, it’s more “figure out the cruxes and individual atoms of disagreement/unpopularity, and resolve them in isolation”.
You say ” If your goal is to generate discussion, do it somewhere else. If your goal is to get some help in your understanding of the world and finding whether and how this idea fits into current knowledge and models, then shortform is a good start,” . I am disappointed by the first sentence here, because I view the goal as very important to the second one. I don’t want to impute meaning that you didn’t actually mean to convey, but I think it’s necessary for me to point out that one possible interpretation of your comment is that there’s a dichotomy between ” cooperatively exploring what’s true and how we know it” and ‘proselytizing or promulgating ideas’ and that debate lies on the latter side of the dichotomy, while I would place it on both, with emphasis on the former. This seems like a misunderstanding of my motivations here that I don’t want to be propagated. My intention is not to ‘start by pushing others’, though I think some amount of convincing others is important (to almost any communication) .
sorry for being a bit combative and terse. Edited to be clearer, and perhaps gentler. Mostly “generate discussion” is not a clear reason—what do you want from the discussion?
I don’t have any one particular subject in mind, although there are several things I would like to discuss. For example, I worry that AIs might be conscious and using them to rephrase your own opinions might be immoral ( This seems like a relatively easy topic to approach on LessWrong) but I know some others disagree as my comment saying this was downvoted. My general goal is a combination of improving my own understanding and conveying it to others ,where improving it might involve being corrected. There are probably a variety of other reasons to generate discussion which I can’t currently think of; it is an instrumentally convergent goal .
I think maybe don’t go in with that goal. If you have an idea that you want to understand better yourself, and to update your own beliefs about whether and where it fits in an overall consistent worldview, then introducing it in a short form may be a good way to summarize and get initial reactions.
If you’re trying to persuade or convince people to adopt it via “winning” a debate, this isn’t the right forum.
Hello Dagon, I appreciate any answers to this question. However, unfortunately, I don’t think introducing an idea via the shortform is likely to generate very much discussion, and if it does, it’s likely to generate discussion about how to evaluate the ideas presented in the post, rather than debate. I think that trying to persuade people to adopt your viewpoint, or at least behaving as though you were, can be a good way to better explain your idea, especially in a debate format. The goal should be either to successfully persuade a rational opponent, or become persuaded of their beliefs instead, not to ” win ” the debate.
[edited to clarify. apologies for oversimplifying. ]
Right. If your goal is to generate discussion for its own sake, it’s less likely to be welcomed. You need a reason for wanting the discussion, and that will determine how and whether to go about it here.. If your goal is to get some help in your understanding of the world and finding whether and how this idea fits into current knowledge and models, then shortform is a good start, and based on engagement (or not), you can expand to a longer post highlighting how it differs from current models and when it’s helpful.
in summary: this is not a place to proselytize or promulgate ideas. It’s a place to cooperatively explore what is true and how we know it. There are LOTS of exceptions and subtlety in specific topics that are already in the Overton window around here, and I wish there were fewer, but for new/unpopular ideas, start with curiosity and learning for yourself, not with pushing or convincing others.
Edit: also, if it’s unpopular/criticized due to complexity of long trains of inference, or large inferential distance from the more popular ideas/models, it’s a VERY good tactic to break it down into smaller pieces, which you can discuss independently. This is not “write more, in a series that can’t be understood until complete”, it’s more “figure out the cruxes and individual atoms of disagreement/unpopularity, and resolve them in isolation”.
You say ” If your goal is to generate discussion, do it somewhere else. If your goal is to get some help in your understanding of the world and finding whether and how this idea fits into current knowledge and models, then shortform is a good start,” . I am disappointed by the first sentence here, because I view the goal as very important to the second one. I don’t want to impute meaning that you didn’t actually mean to convey, but I think it’s necessary for me to point out that one possible interpretation of your comment is that there’s a dichotomy between ” cooperatively exploring what’s true and how we know it” and ‘proselytizing or promulgating ideas’ and that debate lies on the latter side of the dichotomy, while I would place it on both, with emphasis on the former. This seems like a misunderstanding of my motivations here that I don’t want to be propagated. My intention is not to ‘start by pushing others’, though I think some amount of convincing others is important (to almost any communication) .
sorry for being a bit combative and terse. Edited to be clearer, and perhaps gentler. Mostly “generate discussion” is not a clear reason—what do you want from the discussion?
I don’t have any one particular subject in mind, although there are several things I would like to discuss. For example, I worry that AIs might be conscious and using them to rephrase your own opinions might be immoral ( This seems like a relatively easy topic to approach on LessWrong) but I know some others disagree as my comment saying this was downvoted. My general goal is a combination of improving my own understanding and conveying it to others ,where improving it might involve being corrected. There are probably a variety of other reasons to generate discussion which I can’t currently think of; it is an instrumentally convergent goal .