and that there are large inferential gaps in our conversation in both directions.
We could try to close the gaps writing to one another here, but then both of us would end up sometimes taking a defensive stance which could hinder discussion progress. My suggestion is that we do one of these
1) We talk via skype or hangouts to understand each other’s mind.
2) We wait organically for the inferential gaps to be filled and for both of us to grow as rationalists, and assume that we will converge more towards the future.
3) The third alternative—something I didn’t think about, but you think might be a good idea.
I think we are falling prey to the transparency fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_transparency
, the double transparency fallacy,
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ki/double_illusion_of_transparency/
and that there are large inferential gaps in our conversation in both directions.
We could try to close the gaps writing to one another here, but then both of us would end up sometimes taking a defensive stance which could hinder discussion progress. My suggestion is that we do one of these
1) We talk via skype or hangouts to understand each other’s mind. 2) We wait organically for the inferential gaps to be filled and for both of us to grow as rationalists, and assume that we will converge more towards the future. 3) The third alternative—something I didn’t think about, but you think might be a good idea.