I downvoted the article not because I think it is bad, per se—even though you’re other-optimizing—but because I want to see less of this genre of writing on LW in general.
While I agree with the first, I don’t see how the second follows. Would an adjustment in delivery to be more like “These are methods for solving problem X that worked for me, in case you hadn’t considered attempting something similar in solving X for yourself.” be more acceptable?
Unless you’re against the personal-self-help-story sort of writing in its entirety for other reasons?
I guess I’m just asking for an elaboration on why you wouldn’t want to see this sort of writing.
“These are methods for solving problem X that worked for me, in case you hadn’t considered attempting something similar in solving X for yourself.”
No, it’s not the delivery that I take issue with. It’s the unintended consequences. See this.
If LW must tackle self-help, I want to see meta-analyses of published science. I want sample sizes bigger than one. If a writer feels compelled to write down “what worked for them”, then in the name of Bayes, at least set up an ad-hoc internet survey first. Gather some data about how people actually are, not how you are. Because you don’t even know how you are.
That’s the center of the other-optimizing problem.
I agree that the 3rd part of the article was a self-help style, something that only works for those who happen to self-optimize in the same way the author does. This is likely a small percent of the readers, but apparently large enough to provide glowing testimonials for published books.
However, the first two parts are simply a relevant personal experience to share, potentially interesting and maybe even useful for some readers and so worthy of a post, especially if it was (less moralizingly) named along the lines of “How I learned to stop worrying and enjoy being wrong, YMMV”.
I’d also like to see some tangible benefits reported at the end of the article (otherwise, what’s the point of trying to be rational?), but that’s just me, not going to try to other-optimize.
I reread that post and now, I understand. I think I’ve been making this mistake a lot recently. I think ‘other optimizing’ is not a very descriptive name, though.
I downvoted the article not because I think it is bad, per se—even though you’re other-optimizing—but because I want to see less of this genre of writing on LW in general.
Can you elaborate (or link to an elaboration) of what you would like to reduce specifically and why?
While I agree with the first, I don’t see how the second follows. Would an adjustment in delivery to be more like “These are methods for solving problem X that worked for me, in case you hadn’t considered attempting something similar in solving X for yourself.” be more acceptable?
Unless you’re against the personal-self-help-story sort of writing in its entirety for other reasons?
I guess I’m just asking for an elaboration on why you wouldn’t want to see this sort of writing.
ETA: Or… exactly what jsalvatier just said.
No, it’s not the delivery that I take issue with. It’s the unintended consequences. See this.
If LW must tackle self-help, I want to see meta-analyses of published science. I want sample sizes bigger than one. If a writer feels compelled to write down “what worked for them”, then in the name of Bayes, at least set up an ad-hoc internet survey first. Gather some data about how people actually are, not how you are. Because you don’t even know how you are.
That’s the center of the other-optimizing problem.
I agree that the 3rd part of the article was a self-help style, something that only works for those who happen to self-optimize in the same way the author does. This is likely a small percent of the readers, but apparently large enough to provide glowing testimonials for published books.
However, the first two parts are simply a relevant personal experience to share, potentially interesting and maybe even useful for some readers and so worthy of a post, especially if it was (less moralizingly) named along the lines of “How I learned to stop worrying and enjoy being wrong, YMMV”.
I’d also like to see some tangible benefits reported at the end of the article (otherwise, what’s the point of trying to be rational?), but that’s just me, not going to try to other-optimize.
I reread that post and now, I understand. I think I’ve been making this mistake a lot recently. I think ‘other optimizing’ is not a very descriptive name, though.
If they did follow paper-machine would have been making an error. The grammatical structure is “not because (), but because()”.