Depending on the situation, I think you’ll get a lot more than five words. If you don’t, it may be best to not engage. My reading is that twitter and similar short forms have made polarization much worse. By simplifying the topic that far, you tend to attack straw men if you’re addressing those who disagree; and your arguments are liable to be so incomplete that they’ll become straw men tempting the other side to attack.
That being said, I think it’s useful to have ready to hand compact-as-possible arguments. I wish I had the right set; it’s something we should keep working on. But it’s important that those arguments address the audience’s reasons for skepticism in an empathetic way.
I really liked Eliezar’s tweet:
10 obvious reasons that the danger from AGI is way more serious than nuclear weapons:
1) Nuclear weapons are not smarter than humanity.
2) Nuclear weapons are not self-replicating.
3) Nuclear weapons are not self-improving.
… the rest are good too...
Until I noticed the “obvious”! He’s slipped in a subtle accusation that everyone who disagrees is a moron, into an otherwise pretty brilliant argument.
I think he’s not realizing that, unlike him, other people don’t respond to an insinuation that they’re a moron by re-engaging and doubling down on being rational. And I doubt even he does that every time.
We can’t insist that the whole world become rationalists. That’s not going to happen. And demanding things of strangers is obnoxious.
Until I noticed the “obvious”! He’s slipped in a subtle accusation that everyone who disagrees is a moron, into an otherwise pretty brilliant argument.
I mean, did he say this explicitly, even if in a less direct way? I don’t remember it. And honestly if just saying “here are obvious reasons why a certain argument is wrong” means implying everyone who agrees with the argument is a moron… I’m not sure what else can be done. He’s not making it particularly personal, but if you’re at the stage where any refutation of the argument will only make you more defensive, then you’re already really set in it.
Including that obvious is indicative of his attitude in general. He has a right to be frustrated, but it shows and it’s pissing people off. My friends outside the rationalist community tend to find his attitude insufferable. This is why I’m saying we need to get either people or skills in this arena.
If we only get about five words what do we want them to be?
Depending on the situation, I think you’ll get a lot more than five words. If you don’t, it may be best to not engage. My reading is that twitter and similar short forms have made polarization much worse. By simplifying the topic that far, you tend to attack straw men if you’re addressing those who disagree; and your arguments are liable to be so incomplete that they’ll become straw men tempting the other side to attack.
That being said, I think it’s useful to have ready to hand compact-as-possible arguments. I wish I had the right set; it’s something we should keep working on. But it’s important that those arguments address the audience’s reasons for skepticism in an empathetic way.
I really liked Eliezar’s tweet:
… the rest are good too...
Until I noticed the “obvious”! He’s slipped in a subtle accusation that everyone who disagrees is a moron, into an otherwise pretty brilliant argument.
I think he’s not realizing that, unlike him, other people don’t respond to an insinuation that they’re a moron by re-engaging and doubling down on being rational. And I doubt even he does that every time.
We can’t insist that the whole world become rationalists. That’s not going to happen. And demanding things of strangers is obnoxious.
I mean, did he say this explicitly, even if in a less direct way? I don’t remember it. And honestly if just saying “here are obvious reasons why a certain argument is wrong” means implying everyone who agrees with the argument is a moron… I’m not sure what else can be done. He’s not making it particularly personal, but if you’re at the stage where any refutation of the argument will only make you more defensive, then you’re already really set in it.
Including that obvious is indicative of his attitude in general. He has a right to be frustrated, but it shows and it’s pissing people off. My friends outside the rationalist community tend to find his attitude insufferable. This is why I’m saying we need to get either people or skills in this arena.