My concern is not about what a sensible political debate between Bayesians looks like, but about what political debate on a public Internet forum that anyone can join looks like.
I gather you think that has a high positive expected value here. (Is that right? It’s also possible that you think we have some obligation to engage in it, perhaps out of some sense of internal consistency or signaling considerations or something else, regardless of its expected value. But you seem to mostly be talking about likely consequences here.)
I think it has a low to moderate negative expected value.
That said, I might of course be wrong. Do you have any evidence for your evaluation that might be new to me?
I don’t think this forum is greatly appealing to the sort of people who usually bugger up political debate on the internet.
And frankly, my primary goal is to find some group where I can have a political debate that doesn’t make me want to rip my hair out in frustration. My secondary goal is understanding why this taboo exists, because I’m curious now. Not immensely valuable goals, but unless there’s a negative that would counteract the positive, still ones worth pursuing.
I don’t think this forum is greatly appealing to the sort of people who usually bugger up political debate on the internet.
In general, I agree with you. It’s one of the reasons I like this forum. I expect it to become more appealing to them if political debate becomes a staple here. I consider that sufficient negative, though I understand that you either don’t share the expectation or don’t agree with my valuation of it.
I’m curious, though: why is having a political debate such a high-priority goal for you?
I like political debate. Always have, really. Getting one that isn’t built on cheap shots, anecdote-as-data, and other such cheese is very difficult, and I’ve usually found it to be greatly rewarding when it does happen. I want to investigate my political beliefs with actual data, and that’s amazingly hard to do normally. On top of that, I expect it’ll be great fun to watch “Bayesians cannot disagree” run into that particular brick wall, instead of the universal stuff like “There’s no evidence that God exists”.
It’s not the highest priority around, just happens to be one that I’d like to see, and one that seemed worth a few comments.
My concern is not about what a sensible political debate between Bayesians looks like, but about what political debate on a public Internet forum that anyone can join looks like.
I gather you think that has a high positive expected value here. (Is that right? It’s also possible that you think we have some obligation to engage in it, perhaps out of some sense of internal consistency or signaling considerations or something else, regardless of its expected value. But you seem to mostly be talking about likely consequences here.)
I think it has a low to moderate negative expected value.
That said, I might of course be wrong. Do you have any evidence for your evaluation that might be new to me?
I don’t think this forum is greatly appealing to the sort of people who usually bugger up political debate on the internet.
And frankly, my primary goal is to find some group where I can have a political debate that doesn’t make me want to rip my hair out in frustration. My secondary goal is understanding why this taboo exists, because I’m curious now. Not immensely valuable goals, but unless there’s a negative that would counteract the positive, still ones worth pursuing.
In general, I agree with you. It’s one of the reasons I like this forum. I expect it to become more appealing to them if political debate becomes a staple here. I consider that sufficient negative, though I understand that you either don’t share the expectation or don’t agree with my valuation of it.
I’m curious, though: why is having a political debate such a high-priority goal for you?
I like political debate. Always have, really. Getting one that isn’t built on cheap shots, anecdote-as-data, and other such cheese is very difficult, and I’ve usually found it to be greatly rewarding when it does happen. I want to investigate my political beliefs with actual data, and that’s amazingly hard to do normally. On top of that, I expect it’ll be great fun to watch “Bayesians cannot disagree” run into that particular brick wall, instead of the universal stuff like “There’s no evidence that God exists”.
It’s not the highest priority around, just happens to be one that I’d like to see, and one that seemed worth a few comments.
Ah, OK. Sure, agreed that it’s worth a few comments. I interpreted “primary goal” to imply a higher priority than you seem to have meant it.
Oh, sorry. The primary goal of making the comment, not the primary goal of my life.