Difference between revisions of "User:Chriswaterguy"
From Lesswrongwiki
(Created page with "I: * Coach people in clearing anger, bitterness & other negative emotions * Have worked in sustainability knowledge-sharing * Know about wikis. I help run [http://appropedia....") |
(add more) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | I: | + | Me in brief. I: |
* Coach people in clearing anger, bitterness & other negative emotions | * Coach people in clearing anger, bitterness & other negative emotions | ||
* Have worked in sustainability knowledge-sharing | * Have worked in sustainability knowledge-sharing | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* [http://lesswrong.com/lw/1yz/levels_of_communication/ Levels of communication] | * [http://lesswrong.com/lw/1yz/levels_of_communication/ Levels of communication] | ||
* Related: [http://lesswrong.com/lw/7jp/rational_communication/] | * Related: [http://lesswrong.com/lw/7jp/rational_communication/] | ||
| + | |||
| + | What's happening in your reasoning brain: | ||
| + | * [[Arguments as soldiers]] (in brief) | ||
| + | * [http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ Politics is the Mind-Killer] – "Politics is an important domain to which we should individually apply our rationality—but it's a terrible domain in which to learn rationality, or discuss rationality, unless all the discussants are already rational." & "it doesn't matter whether (you think) the [specific political party] really is at fault. It's just better for the spiritual growth of the community to discuss the issue without invoking [http://lesswrong.com/lw/gt/a_fable_of_science_and_politics color politics]." | ||
| + | * [http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/ Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided] – "Two primary drivers of policy-one-sidedness are the [http://lesswrong.com/lw/lg/the_affect_heuristic/ affect heuristic] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_fallacy just-world fallacy]." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Being understood: | ||
| + | * [http://lesswrong.com/lw/gm9/philosophical_landmines/ Philosophical Landmines] – "If something you say makes people go off on a spiral of bad philosophy, don't get annoyed with them, just fix what you say. This is just being a communications consequentialist." | ||
| + | ** Responding to a landmine explosion: It may be best to "abort the conversation." Alternatively, [http://lesswrong.com/lw/gm9/philosophical_landmines/8fc8 a commenter suggests], "stop taking sides and talk about the plus and minuses of each side." | ||
| + | * Inferential distance: | ||
| + | ** [[Inferential distance|in brief]] | ||
| + | ** [http://lesswrong.com/lw/kh/explainers_shoot_high_aim_low/ Explainers Shoot High. Aim Low!] – "we tend to enormously underestimate the effort required to properly explain things." | ||
| + | ** [http://lesswrong.com/lw/kg/expecting_short_inferential_distances/ Expecting Short Inferential Distances] (explaining in evolutionary terms why this is such a problem today) | ||
| + | * Off-LW: [http://measureofdoubt.com/2012/06/11/be-a-communications-consequentialist/ Be a Communications Consequentialist], Jesse Galef. | ||
Relevant biases and fallacies: | Relevant biases and fallacies: | ||
Revision as of 14:01, 1 December 2014
Me in brief. I:
- Coach people in clearing anger, bitterness & other negative emotions
- Have worked in sustainability knowledge-sharing
- Know about wikis. I help run Appropedia, the sustainability wiki
A communication sequence?
I'd like a communication sequence. Here are some initial links and ideas.
- Levels of communication
- Related: [1]
What's happening in your reasoning brain:
- Arguments as soldiers (in brief)
- Politics is the Mind-Killer – "Politics is an important domain to which we should individually apply our rationality—but it's a terrible domain in which to learn rationality, or discuss rationality, unless all the discussants are already rational." & "it doesn't matter whether (you think) the [specific political party] really is at fault. It's just better for the spiritual growth of the community to discuss the issue without invoking color politics."
- Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided – "Two primary drivers of policy-one-sidedness are the affect heuristic and the just-world fallacy."
Being understood:
- Philosophical Landmines – "If something you say makes people go off on a spiral of bad philosophy, don't get annoyed with them, just fix what you say. This is just being a communications consequentialist."
- Responding to a landmine explosion: It may be best to "abort the conversation." Alternatively, a commenter suggests, "stop taking sides and talk about the plus and minuses of each side."
- Inferential distance:
- in brief
- Explainers Shoot High. Aim Low! – "we tend to enormously underestimate the effort required to properly explain things."
- Expecting Short Inferential Distances (explaining in evolutionary terms why this is such a problem today)
- Off-LW: Be a Communications Consequentialist, Jesse Galef.
Relevant biases and fallacies:
Emotion and making sense:
- Politics is the Mind-Killer
- Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided (discusses arguments as soldiers)
- Philosophical Landmines
Disagreeing:
- In brief:
- Off-LW: wikipedia: Ideological Turing Test. First described(?) at http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html by Bryan Caplan. (As Mill states, "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.") Also see: Noahpinion: Against the Ideological Turing Test. Related: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Argument
- Better Disagreement
- Dangers of steelmanning / principle of charity
- The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? (e.g. "Martin Luther King was a criminal!")
Related articles, off-LW:
- Mary Beard's dealing with trolls
- [ Dan Dennett’s Guide to Better Arguments]
Dealing with negative emotions
(Againstness, noticing)
