Minor (yet longwinded!) comment: FWIW, I think that:
Rohinâs comment seems useful
Stephenâs and your rebuttal also seem useful
Stephenâs and your rebuttal does seem relevant to what Rohin said even with his caveat included, rather than replying to a strawman
But the phrasing of your latest comment[1] feels to me overconfident, or somewhat like itâs aiming at rhetorical effect rather than just sharing data and inferences, or somewhat soldier-mindset-y
In particular, personally I dislike the use of â110%â, âmaximallyâ, and maybe âemphaticallyâ.
My intended vibe here isnât âhow dare youâ or âthis is a huge dealâ.
Iâm not at all annoyed at you for writing that way, I (think I) can understand why you did (I think youâre genuinely confident in your view and feel you already explained it, and want to indicate that?), and I think your tone in this comment is significant less important than your post itself.
But I do want to convey that I think debates and epistemics on the Forum will typically be better if people avoid adding such flourishes/âabsolutes/âemphatic-ness in situations like this (e.g., where the writing shouldnât be optimized for engagingness or persuasion but rather collaborative truth-seeking, and where the disagreed-with position isnât just totally crazy/âirrelevant). And I guess what Iâd prefer pushing toward is a mindset of curiosity about whatâs causing the disagreement and openness to oneâs own view also shifting.
(I should flag that I didnât read the post very carefully, havenât read all the comments, and havenât formed a stable/âconfident view on this topic. Also Iâm currently sleep-deprived and expect my reasoning isnât super clear unfortunately.)
I also think the comment is overconfident in substance, but thatâs something that happens often in productive debates, and I think that cost is worth paying and hard to totally avoid if we want productive debates to happen.)
Minor (yet longwinded!) comment: FWIW, I think that:
Rohinâs comment seems useful
Stephenâs and your rebuttal also seem useful
Stephenâs and your rebuttal does seem relevant to what Rohin said even with his caveat included, rather than replying to a strawman
But the phrasing of your latest comment[1] feels to me overconfident, or somewhat like itâs aiming at rhetorical effect rather than just sharing data and inferences, or somewhat soldier-mindset-y
In particular, personally I dislike the use of â110%â, âmaximallyâ, and maybe âemphaticallyâ.
My intended vibe here isnât âhow dare youâ or âthis is a huge dealâ.
Iâm not at all annoyed at you for writing that way, I (think I) can understand why you did (I think youâre genuinely confident in your view and feel you already explained it, and want to indicate that?), and I think your tone in this comment is significant less important than your post itself.
But I do want to convey that I think debates and epistemics on the Forum will typically be better if people avoid adding such flourishes/âabsolutes/âemphatic-ness in situations like this (e.g., where the writing shouldnât be optimized for engagingness or persuasion but rather collaborative truth-seeking, and where the disagreed-with position isnât just totally crazy/âirrelevant). And I guess what Iâd prefer pushing toward is a mindset of curiosity about whatâs causing the disagreement and openness to oneâs own view also shifting.
(I should flag that I didnât read the post very carefully, havenât read all the comments, and havenât formed a stable/âconfident view on this topic. Also Iâm currently sleep-deprived and expect my reasoning isnât super clear unfortunately.)
I also think the comment is overconfident in substance, but thatâs something that happens often in productive debates, and I think that cost is worth paying and hard to totally avoid if we want productive debates to happen.)