On Apr 18, 2018, at 8:47 PM, Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum <petrogradp...@gmail.com
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:55:43PM -0700, Elliot Temple wrote:
>> ppl have such TERRIBLE answers to PF questions. just having some not-ridiculously-bad answers could put you in the top 0.001% ez.
> I just re-read http://fallibleideas.com/paths-forward
. This is a rambling post in which I give my honest answers to the PF questions, off the top of my head.
> The main PF question I can think of off the top of my head is....
> Q: How will you find out if you're wrong about this?
> A: The truth is, for most of my ideas, I would never find out, unless I discover it myself.
that's what i consider a terrible answer. i don't think that's a reasonable or adequate approach to error correction.
> I don't expose most of my ideas to criticism and have no immediate plans to. I should maybe pick an idea of mine and expose it to criticism once a month or something. Seems kinda scary though. What if it's something I like and people tell me it's bad and I don't resolve the conflict well?
then ask them how to resolve the conflict. if they don't tell you, then ask for their patience and tolerance while you figure it out yourself (maybe, eventually, it's hard, shrug). if they can't or won't help you resolve the conflict now, *and* they refuse to be patient/tolerant/whatever about you not being able to solve all your problems immediately, then *that is them being dumb assholes*, so you have nothing to feel bad about.
> Maybe it would be safer to start with less significant ideas.
yes but then, since it's less important, there's less upside from learning a new idea. if you remember it's a test of your important fear of criticism ideas, then it could be great. if you're happy with small bits of progress, again it could be great. but i can see lots of ppl being like "well, ok, i learned something but that wasn't worth the trouble" b/c they intentionally picked something of lesser importance and forgot the context (or hard trouble like applying the context, not just knowing it exists but it actually making a difference to them).
> Here are some other questions from http://fallibleideas.com/paths-forward
along with my answers:
>>> So, how do you know if you’re really open to discussion, or not?
> I'm open to discussion to the extent that I am willing to engage with criticisms from anyone. I'll discuss with anyone who joins FI list.
i think that's a reasonable general policy, which covers the general case of someone in the public being able to say something to you.
i bet you'd also be open to discussions in some other contexts, as convenient, which is good and important, but not primary to having paths forward.
>>> What are reasonable limits [to discussion]?
> I don't know. I have been spending at least 10 hours per week (maybe more, I don't count it) on discussion lately. Seems to be working OK. If someone wants me to discuss something I'm not comfortable discussing, I will try suggesting we postpone the discussion. And if there's a disagreement about the postponement, I'll try to discuss THAT, and so on, for at least a few levels.
>>> What is evading discussion?
> Evading discussion is when you refuse to discuss some topic for an unbounded amount of time. Some ways this can happen are via leaving the discussion forum altogether, by never replying to a question, or by ignoring proposals to discuss a particular topic. These can all happen if you don't have a system in place that would eventually lead to you answering all the criticism you've received. I don't have such a system.
evading often involves people acting like something wasn't said or never happened, or refusing to acknowledge or think about something, or coming up with careless excuses and bullshit to confuse the issue.
>>> How do you handle discussions?
> I try to reply carefully to all the recent posts from people I consider good thinkers. I still have a big (50+) backlog of replies to me by good thinkers that I haven't replied to. I have an even bigger backlog of good posts that weren't addressed to me, which I nonetheless should reply to. Maybe I should answer one post from my backlog per week at random, or go through it more methodically.
i think working on the backlog on a regular basis would be good even if the pace is pretty slow.
>>> How do you handle disagreements?
> I usually try discussion first, but I tend to be biased for my own ideas.
knowing that is a good step. then you can get interested in procedures for combatting bias.
> I only use my creativity to argue for my side. A recent example of my bias was my recent post in the "self-driving cars" thread (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fallible-ideas/Xz3ybsxSlNU/dbAPdqHjCQAJ
). In this message I didn't try to understand where anon was coming from, I just attacked his ideas. This means I have less of a chance of getting to the truth of the matter.
how did you determine that happened? whatever the answer, isn't that a bias-correcting, error-correcting mechanism?
> If I can't resolve a disagreement by discussion, I will stop replying on the thread, and stop participating in the forum for weeks or months.
> It would be better for me if I didn't leave, and instead tried the avoiding coercion approach to handling disagreements first. I should only leave if that fails.
it'd be way better to ask to set something aside than to leave. (silently setting it aside is a thing you might be able to do, but might get complaints/criticism about. it has downsides. if you could say something that'd be better. if you took responsibility for bringing it up again yourself later – or at least not speaking to the same topic while ignoring the previous discussion of that topic – that'd be even better.)
>>> Are you blocking any ways for mistakes to be found or corrected?
> Yes. I block tons of ways for my mistakes to be found/corrected, mainly by not engaging with messages from people who've tried to point out ideas of mine they think are mistaken.
aspiring to something better would be a good start on that.
>>> How do we filter through all the bad and irrelevant ideas?
> PF gives some ways to filter ideas, but that's not my problem. My problem is replying to all the relevant ideas in my inbox.
PF has an answer to that:
time is limited. no problem. create a policy for what to prioritize. expose policy to criticism (e.g. it ought to have some kinda escalation procedure possible). follow policy.
pursue topics A, B, C because important and D, E, F because you want to for whatever reason. update policy when you finish a topic. reconsider policy if you haven't updated it for a month. grant max 15 minutes per month of reconsidering priorities time, per person, to people who want to suggest you escalate some other issue (use a larger number for ppl you respect, like me, if you want to). reconsider time granting policy if it takes up too much time (i bet it won't).
if you are uncomfortable with a priority change proposal, respond by saying you're not comfortable with that and you hope that in the future, when you've improved, you will be able to deal with it better. ask if they can give you a short, clear reason that's unreasonable and you should not proceed in that way (basically they'd need to see some reason you're stuck and not going to make progress – and if they claim to have that, also ask if they can figure out a way to explain it so you'd want to hear it).
>>> Answers shouldn’t be judged by who wrote them or when. What are good ways to judge them?
> An partial list of good attributes for an answer: the answer should be relevant, true (with all the details accurate), clearly explained, and public.