Difference between revisions of "User:Chriswaterguy"
From Lesswrongwiki
(add more) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | Me in brief | + | Me in brief: |
− | * | + | * I coach people in clearing anger, bitterness & other negative emotions. I'm keen to be evidence-based about this, but in this field, evidence is often fuzzy, and experience is an important guide. |
− | * | + | * I've worked in sustainability knowledge-sharing. |
− | * | + | * I know about wikis, and help run [http://appropedia.org/ Appropedia], the sustainability wiki. |
== A communication sequence? == | == A communication sequence? == |
Revision as of 13:36, 2 December 2014
Me in brief:
- I coach people in clearing anger, bitterness & other negative emotions. I'm keen to be evidence-based about this, but in this field, evidence is often fuzzy, and experience is an important guide.
- I've worked in sustainability knowledge-sharing.
- I know about wikis, and 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)