I had a discussion with Louise Perry, and feel kind mid about it; I think I'm v unexperienced having this "style" of conversation, which feels like high-level frames making generalist claims about the other, or something? 1/
(
Conversation
I'm used to my longform verbal disagreements being with rationalists, where it's quite precise. I went in prepared for something like this - I had a long notepad full of studies, plus the data from the massive study I'd recently done, but somehow ended up using none of it?
Replying to
One example of the norm I'm not accustomed to seems to be the use of questions as prompts? I'm used to pretty carefully clarifying questions and answering them seriously, whereas here it felt more like they were intended to be generalist idea-starters.
1
38
Not slammin anybody here, my guess is just there's some form of conversational norm that this interview took that I am not accustomed to witnessing or participating in. It was interesting! But also I'm a bit unsatisfied with my performance in it.
6
42
Replying to
Your rationalist frame pushed this from moralizing about particular sides to identifying trade offs. My takeaway is that Perry is right re: norms but the default approaches are akin to illegalizing poverty
1