As I’ve gotten older, I’ve become more and more fine with just leaving an internet argument. The *other guy is winning* feeling is 95% gone.
Now, that doesn’t mean I won’t make a comment or two, but if the other person wants to get into a back and forth that seems like it’s going to be draining I’m completely fine with just not participating anymore.
All this to say is that maybe it’ll get easier for some?
(FWIW, I’m ~40 and I’ve been arguing on the internet since I was 12-ish)
Isn’t that just the price of an electric car right now? Won’t they be vastly cheaper in the future?
I’ve never went on a trip, but I always find descriptions of the experience puzzling. The various things that people describe seem like things I “do” myself when I put my mind to it.
This confuses me as either people are bad at describing what the experience is like or I’m different from people who write about their experiences on LSD.
edit: To be clear, people generally note that it’s difficult to put into language what the experience is like, so when I say people are bad at describing the experience, I don’t believe this to be an accountable failure on the explainers part.
I can see this being true, but I’m not entirely convinced.
I have no background in philosophy. I don’t read philosophy other than occasionally dipping into LW.
Of course, there exists the possibility that occasional dipping into LW has been enough, or that the necessary mental rigor has just seeped into the general populace over the intervening few hundred years.
Also, I’m not sure “anyone in 1710” is the right comparison. More like “people thinking about philosophy in 1710″.
Of course, that is likely what you meant, but I think the less precise wording you used makes your argument a lot more convincing so I think it’s important to point out the distinction.
To be clear, I’m not arguing that actually I am a ninja of philsophy. I’m just saying that your point doesn’t necessarily make me less confused.
The error here is mixing up what falls inside vs. outside of quotation marks. “I’m conceiving of a not-conceivable object” is a formal contradiction, but “I’m conceiving of the concept ‘a not-conceivable object’” isn’t, and human brains and natural language make it easy to mix up levels like those.
I immediately saw this mistake *while reading the text of the mistake.*
So, now I’m confused. Am I master ninja of a philosopher? Are you misrepresenting the level of people’s confusion about this? Have I been arguing on the internet for 3 decades and thus I’m just hypersensitive to language/text based mistakes? Are we both wrong that this is a mistake?
I’m curious if being a programmer is helpful to understanding category theory in the same way as having “a few mathematical structures under your belt” is.
So what’s the real explanation?
It seems most likely to me that there is no one real explanation, but rather a combination of a bunch of things.
Yes, that is true. However, the thought I intended to convey when I started writing my comment was that it’s possible that many people have ideas that they just don’t write or talk about that much because of confidence or just not caring enough or whatever.
In other words, you might be asking “why don’t people want to share their ideas?” rather than “why don’t people have ideas?”.
My first thought was...how do you know people aren’t having ideas? Very few of my ideas are something I’ve thought enough about to write down or talk about in public, and many (most?) people do not have a great desire to write down or discuss their not-fully-fleshed-out ideas for public consumption anyway.
This comment is an idea of sorts, and I just happened to read it whilst at the right confluence of mood, energy, thoughtfulness, etc for me to put in the effort of making it. Another possible contributing explanation for the dearth of idea-having people?
Not that I’ve noticed.
This doesn’t jive with my personal experience. I definitely crave nutrients and am satisfied by them even without tasting them.
This is interesting to me. I have no similar experience.
The “correct” part is what everyone is concerned about, though.
You make Ezra’s point so much better than he did. (If that is indeed a good summary of what Ezra was trying to say).
Of course, that’s much easier to do while not in the midst of a back-and-forth.
I’m not commenting to agree or disagree really, just saying something your post made me remember thinking about before...
I’m not convinced that the typical religious person has actually thought through the implications of the supposed end result of their religion. Even when confronted with the fact that wireheading or whatever is the end result, other tribal biases come into play.
Something about the text formatting, paragraph density, and paragraph size uniformity makes this difficult to read.
As has been mentioned a couple times already...I don’t know how I’m supposed to use the site.
I go there and then I’m just like “now what?”.
It looks like there’s different places I can go to read different subsets of all available posts. How do I know I’m not missing any posts?
When I go to lesserwrong.com, there’s a huge section at the top of stuff I’ve already read and it’s always there. I have to scroll below the fold to see new content.
So the first section I see when I scroll down is called “Featured Posts”. What makes these posts featured?
Next section is “Recent Frontpage Posts”. What’s a “Frontpage” post? Am I missing some sort of non-frontpage posts by just reading this section?
Under the “Frontpage” posts heading there’s a couple of links that look like they’re supposed to filter the posts. Maybe I should be reading the “see all posts” link. Does that mean all “frontpage” posts and leaves out non-frontpage posts? I dunno.
What, specifically, is the problem you’re having that requires patience? It’s not using any notably weird/esoteric/advanced technology...
I’m a little confused about how to use my current LW account over there.
If I click “forgot my password” I never get an email, even though I have an email address tied to my LW account.
ETA: nothing in my span folder when I search for “lesser”
Over the years I’ve gone through periods of time where I can devote the effort/time to thoroughly reading LW and periods of time where I can basically just skim it.
Because of this I’m in a good position to judge the reliability of karma in surfacing content for its readability.
My judgement is that karma strongly correlates with readability.
I’m very impressed you’re still using this sort of system 5 years later!