Julia GalefVerified account

None of these can explain your repeated attempts at “Mozi”/“Mohist” ;)

We should worry less about individual errors. This is one problem I see in the rationality community: too much ego wrapped up in being error-free. Errors are much easier for others to catch in reasonable argumentation than for us to catch in the privacy of our armchair.

I don't think anyone in the rationality community thinks it's possible to be error-free. But I do think most of the world isn't worried *enough* about errors, especially when they're criticizing something publicly, or expressing outrage / scorn / etc.

Let me back up & first express admiration for the work you are doing. My point isn't that we shouldn't worry about errors, but that we should trust the group to do some of the work. The group can see more options for interpretation and can imagine more counterexamples than we can

What seems to derail conversations most is: 1. one or both parties are unreasonable 2. Too much inferential distance for the time available. I've rarely seen lack of individual imagination derail a conversation when participants are reasonable.

this is something I think about a lot and one of the most valuable insights I've had from trying to write accurate, interesting content at a fast pace - the habits you need to be consistently right are incredibly demanding! if you are ever sloppy, you will be wrong.

these days I recommend to people who want to practice their rationality that they write up a detailed argument for something they're sure of, read it over and make sure they're convinced everything in there is right, and then look up how much of it is technically wrong.

Definitely don't harshly judge or condemn someone when they get something wrong. Otherwise ppl will refuse to admit and accept their errors, or they may even react negatively or even belligerently to constructive critique.

Constructive discourse is *work*.