One benefit of reasoning transparency I’ve personally appreciated is that it helps the other party get a better sense of how much to update based on claims made.
I also think clear indication of the key cruxes of the stated argument and the level of supporting evidence can help hold us accountable in the claims we make and contribute to reducing miscommunication—how strong of a statement can be justified by the evidence I have? Am I aiming to explain, or persuade? How might my statements be misinterpreted as stronger or weaker than they are? (One example that comes to mind is the Bay of Pigs invasion which involved a miscommunication between JFK and the Joint Chiefs of Staff around understanding what “fair chance” meant).
It’s not clear to me on a quick read that the questions you’ve listed are worse off under reasoning transparency, or that actions like “clearly indicating key cruxes/level of support you have for the claims that hold your argument together” would lead to more missing facets/important connections/a meaningful big picture.
For example, if I made a claim about whether “capitalism is the right framework for EA/society in general”, would you find it less productive to know if I had done Nobel prize-winning research on this topic, if I’d run a single-country survey of 100 people, or if I was speaking just from non-expert personal experience?
If I made a claim about “What gives life meaning”, would you find it less productive if I laid out the various assumptions that I am making, or the most important considerations behind my key takeaways?
One benefit of reasoning transparency I’ve personally appreciated is that it helps the other party get a better sense of how much to update based on claims made.
I also think clear indication of the key cruxes of the stated argument and the level of supporting evidence can help hold us accountable in the claims we make and contribute to reducing miscommunication—how strong of a statement can be justified by the evidence I have? Am I aiming to explain, or persuade? How might my statements be misinterpreted as stronger or weaker than they are? (One example that comes to mind is the Bay of Pigs invasion which involved a miscommunication between JFK and the Joint Chiefs of Staff around understanding what “fair chance” meant).
It’s not clear to me on a quick read that the questions you’ve listed are worse off under reasoning transparency, or that actions like “clearly indicating key cruxes/level of support you have for the claims that hold your argument together” would lead to more missing facets/important connections/a meaningful big picture.
For example, if I made a claim about whether “capitalism is the right framework for EA/society in general”, would you find it less productive to know if I had done Nobel prize-winning research on this topic, if I’d run a single-country survey of 100 people, or if I was speaking just from non-expert personal experience?
If I made a claim about “What gives life meaning”, would you find it less productive if I laid out the various assumptions that I am making, or the most important considerations behind my key takeaways?
(Commenting in personal capacity etc)