Wait, now I am curious! Please tell me more about your model that Less Wrong is for learning about each other’s models, not for having an argument. That was actually not my understanding! Where did you learn that? Can you say more about why you think arguments are bad and model-sharing is good? (Maybe focus on the the former if you think the latter is too obvious to need elaboration.)
This is sociologically fascinating. I strong-upvoted your comment and will strong-upvote any more explanation you can give me.
According to me (and potentially nobody else), I view LessWrong as a place where we do argument in the truth-building/philosophical/debate sense, and not in the shouting match sense. I think there is a way where we can do argument that works, but the above was not working for me.
[I felt like the above was getting into “shouting match” territory more than “squishing our different models of the situation together and attempting to do our best to get to Aumann’s Agreement Theorem in real life. (note this is mostly because I noticed myself getting defensive in my own head—your comments may have worked perfectly well on the same words posted by someone else).]
According to me, this is good. The reason that comes to mind is “we want LessWrong to be a place of repeated idea exchange, and therefore people getting alienated is bad because then they might stop posting—model-sharing leads to much less alienation than bad-tempered argument”, although this may not be cruxy.
(epistemic status—typed quickly. Am interested if you disagree with my central point. My examples almost certainly have non-cruxy holes in them)
Wait, now I am curious! Please tell me more about your model that Less Wrong is for learning about each other’s models, not for having an argument. That was actually not my understanding! Where did you learn that? Can you say more about why you think arguments are bad and model-sharing is good? (Maybe focus on the the former if you think the latter is too obvious to need elaboration.)
This is sociologically fascinating. I strong-upvoted your comment and will strong-upvote any more explanation you can give me.
According to me (and potentially nobody else), I view LessWrong as a place where we do argument in the truth-building/philosophical/debate sense, and not in the shouting match sense. I think there is a way where we can do argument that works, but the above was not working for me.
[I felt like the above was getting into “shouting match” territory more than “squishing our different models of the situation together and attempting to do our best to get to Aumann’s Agreement Theorem in real life.
(note this is mostly because I noticed myself getting defensive in my own head—your comments may have worked perfectly well on the same words posted by someone else).]
According to me, this is good. The reason that comes to mind is “we want LessWrong to be a place of repeated idea exchange, and therefore people getting alienated is bad because then they might stop posting—model-sharing leads to much less alienation than bad-tempered argument”, although this may not be cruxy.
(epistemic status—typed quickly. Am interested if you disagree with my central point. My examples almost certainly have non-cruxy holes in them)