Meta discussion impairs legibility. Meta makes it hard to work out what's being said, and to check the truth of claims. For meta isn't about the object claims. It e.g. moves focus to people, their motives, and their effects on other people — whose motives, etc. in turn mix in.
i don't think this is plausible. one can rationally decide not to trust the opposing case, but one cannot rationally decide not to understand the opposing case or not to represent it accurately
-
-
aumann is about conveying private information through estimates, but the information of who has misunderstood or misrepresented what is all out in the open
-
But we should see the same type of convergence of posteriors for both object-level and second order facts, and the amount of information needed should be the same whether it is public or private. So the point remains; convergence on errors requires vastly more data that he has.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.