Some of us think that (on facts) people disagree too easily, and so we try to disagree reluctantly if at all with others (we respect). Brian Weatherson found one way to torture such reluctant disagreers: write
What kind of "bar" do we run here at Winds of Change?
In the "comments guidelines":http://www.windsofchange.ne... and associated thread, Joe Katzman mentions "backchannel discussion". But what if there's no backchannel availab...
A person's belief system contains some beliefs which are vague or clouded. These beliefs serve as a ground for opinions (or choosing not to voice certain opinions). Were the person defend these opinions in occasion of disagreement, IMO he has to clarify these beliefs and their origins in order to defend his position. If clouded beliefs are not clarified it seems impossible to continue the argument and debate concludes: "person couldn't give evidence for his opinions".
In my experince, clouded beliefs (which I have had plenty and by all odds still have) can result from intuision, a hunch or an emotional reflex. Defending an opinion grounded on vague intuition is hard 'cause you have to clarify& think through the belief yourself while avoiding a swarm of rationalizations coming to your mind.
I think Tyler wants to be likable and tries to avoid disagreements (this might be why he writes about culture a lot rather than rolling in the economic argument mud and saying things like, for example, FDR and the New Deal were wrongheaded, as Alex and Bryan did gleefully). Robin's ideas are odd and unpopular, so Tyler cannot "drink the Kool-Aid" too deeply, and certainly does not wish to signal that he has. He stays vague because he doesn't really want to get in a disagreement with Robin. And that's my amateur psych bull-session for the day.
I am drafting a further post on where Robin and I agree and disagree. But I think it boils down to frameworks, as I outlined in the post that some of you found vague. It's harder to specify a broad framework in very exact terms, in that sense it is more vague than a clearly articulable difference in beliefs about specific facts. But different opinions can in fact result from differences in (possibly vague) frameworks. I don't see any a priori reason to discriminate against explanations of this kind. "Clouds" are possibly a vaguer scientific notion than "this duck sitting at some particular GPS coordinates," but that doesn't mean "clouds" cannot be a relevant causal force or perhaps a more relevant causal force than that particular duck.
I agree with Biomed Tim's observation that it is difficult for a presenter to know how they will be perceived, and it is therefore difficult for the presenter to know which strategy is appropriate for a given audience. I don't think that most people choose their strategy rationally or even consciously. Rather, most people discover what works best for them on a trial and error basis.
"David Bernstein over at the law department should be invited in to adjudicate this fued and allow everyone to move on to theoretical musings that don't threaten friendships. This Tyler on Hanson on Tyler mud wrestling match undermines the blog's purpose with its expert bias, confirmation bias, bias blind spot, and various other biases and attribution errors endemic to a hotly contested, personal, off-the cuff fued."
I disagree with pretty much everything in this paragraph. And I find it hard to believe any friendship is being threatened by the Tyler/Hanson discussion here. Feud?
Guy, Tyler and I aren't feuding, our tone is not hot, and our friendship is not threatened.
Paul, Weatherson's argument (which Tyler and I discussed years ago) has a real but limited effect - you should still be somewhat reluctant to disagree, even if not as reluctant as you would be had no one thought it disagreement was not problematic.
David Bernstein over at the law department should be invited in to adjudicate this fued and allow everyone to move on to theoretical musings that don't threaten friendships. This Tyler on Hanson on Tyler mud wrestling match undermines the blog's purpose with its expert bias, confirmation bias, bias blind spot, and various other biases and attribution errors endemic to a hotly contested, personal, off-the cuff fued.
"...they are likely to lose interest and be unable to conclude whether you are being clever and precise, or stupid and nit-picky."
Norman, where's the line between clever/precise, and stupid/nit-picky? Is it subjective or objective? I don't think the cost of "precision strategy" is actually all that apparent to an argument presenter. Without knowing that cost, how does one decide the appropriate course of action? (signaling cleverness vs. truth-seeking)
Cowen feud aside, what do you have to say about the Weatherson paper? I'm pre-inclined to believe it, and, not surprisingly, I find the argument pretty appealing. But...?
Vitriol, veritas, and working email addresses
What kind of "bar" do we run here at Winds of Change?
In the "comments guidelines":http://www.windsofchange.ne... and associated thread, Joe Katzman mentions "backchannel discussion". But what if there's no backchannel availab...
A person's belief system contains some beliefs which are vague or clouded. These beliefs serve as a ground for opinions (or choosing not to voice certain opinions). Were the person defend these opinions in occasion of disagreement, IMO he has to clarify these beliefs and their origins in order to defend his position. If clouded beliefs are not clarified it seems impossible to continue the argument and debate concludes: "person couldn't give evidence for his opinions".
In my experince, clouded beliefs (which I have had plenty and by all odds still have) can result from intuision, a hunch or an emotional reflex. Defending an opinion grounded on vague intuition is hard 'cause you have to clarify& think through the belief yourself while avoiding a swarm of rationalizations coming to your mind.
I think Tyler wants to be likable and tries to avoid disagreements (this might be why he writes about culture a lot rather than rolling in the economic argument mud and saying things like, for example, FDR and the New Deal were wrongheaded, as Alex and Bryan did gleefully). Robin's ideas are odd and unpopular, so Tyler cannot "drink the Kool-Aid" too deeply, and certainly does not wish to signal that he has. He stays vague because he doesn't really want to get in a disagreement with Robin. And that's my amateur psych bull-session for the day.
Tyler, it's old advice, but I'd look for a difference of anticipated experience and work back from there.
Two smart people disagree on something. This could be a great opportunity to create a prediction market.
I am drafting a further post on where Robin and I agree and disagree. But I think it boils down to frameworks, as I outlined in the post that some of you found vague. It's harder to specify a broad framework in very exact terms, in that sense it is more vague than a clearly articulable difference in beliefs about specific facts. But different opinions can in fact result from differences in (possibly vague) frameworks. I don't see any a priori reason to discriminate against explanations of this kind. "Clouds" are possibly a vaguer scientific notion than "this duck sitting at some particular GPS coordinates," but that doesn't mean "clouds" cannot be a relevant causal force or perhaps a more relevant causal force than that particular duck.
I agree with Biomed Tim's observation that it is difficult for a presenter to know how they will be perceived, and it is therefore difficult for the presenter to know which strategy is appropriate for a given audience. I don't think that most people choose their strategy rationally or even consciously. Rather, most people discover what works best for them on a trial and error basis.
"David Bernstein over at the law department should be invited in to adjudicate this fued and allow everyone to move on to theoretical musings that don't threaten friendships. This Tyler on Hanson on Tyler mud wrestling match undermines the blog's purpose with its expert bias, confirmation bias, bias blind spot, and various other biases and attribution errors endemic to a hotly contested, personal, off-the cuff fued."
I disagree with pretty much everything in this paragraph. And I find it hard to believe any friendship is being threatened by the Tyler/Hanson discussion here. Feud?
Guy, I didn't think so. It seemed like an easy joke any of us could reach for at any time.
Sorry about mispelling your name, Eliezer
Guy, Tyler and I aren't feuding, our tone is not hot, and our friendship is not threatened.
Paul, Weatherson's argument (which Tyler and I discussed years ago) has a real but limited effect - you should still be somewhat reluctant to disagree, even if not as reluctant as you would be had no one thought it disagreement was not problematic.
Eliezer, of course, puppies. That settles that.
David Bernstein over at the law department should be invited in to adjudicate this fued and allow everyone to move on to theoretical musings that don't threaten friendships. This Tyler on Hanson on Tyler mud wrestling match undermines the blog's purpose with its expert bias, confirmation bias, bias blind spot, and various other biases and attribution errors endemic to a hotly contested, personal, off-the cuff fued.
(But Elizier's post was very funny.)
Eliezer,
You've just raised infuriating to an art form.
Robin, I think you're wrong about Tyler being vague. Because of puppies.
"...they are likely to lose interest and be unable to conclude whether you are being clever and precise, or stupid and nit-picky."
Norman, where's the line between clever/precise, and stupid/nit-picky? Is it subjective or objective? I don't think the cost of "precision strategy" is actually all that apparent to an argument presenter. Without knowing that cost, how does one decide the appropriate course of action? (signaling cleverness vs. truth-seeking)
Cowen feud aside, what do you have to say about the Weatherson paper? I'm pre-inclined to believe it, and, not surprisingly, I find the argument pretty appealing. But...?