Quick modeling: resolving disagreements.

post by ProofOfLogic · 2017-01-23T18:18:02.111Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 3 comments

This is a link post for https://nthlook.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/quick-modeling-resolving-disagreements/

Contents

3 comments

3 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by [deleted] · 2017-01-23T21:00:16.491Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This looks interesting. Have yet to do lots of thinking on it. Some general questions I have for Double Crux and other techniques of this category. It'd be great if you could help clear up some uncertainty on my end:

  • When we say "model", are using it to say "related causal factors that influence a thing"? That seems to be the case for the Drake Equation, which you referred to.

  • I really like the list of things to keep in mind during discussions that are at the end. Good general discussion rules.

  • I don't think I came away from this with a clear idea of what "quick modeling" is. If I understand you, quick modeling is about, to a first approximation, understanding if you and the other person anticipate different things. So you're being specific about your views. Then, you try to understand what mental things happened or what the chain of reasoning is that led them to that belief. This is where the tree structure comes in. The rest of this about understanding the relative weights / dependencies of their beliefs. Is that accurate?

Replies from: ProofOfLogic
↑ comment by ProofOfLogic · 2017-01-24T09:08:46.762Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I didn't write the article, but I think "quick modeling" is referring to the previous post on that blog: simple rationality. It's an idiosyncratic view, though; I think the "quick modeling" idea works just as well if you think of it as referring to Fermi-estimate style fast modeling instead (which isn't that different in any case). The point is really just to have any model of the other person's belief at all (for a broad notion of "model"), and then try to refine that. This is more flexible than the double crux algorithm.

From my experience with CFAR, I suspect CFAR staff would call the strategy described here a form of double crux anyway. The double crux algorithm is an ideal to shoot for, but the broader spirit of double crux is more like what this article is recommending I think.

Replies from: None
↑ comment by [deleted] · 2017-01-24T15:08:04.498Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Hm, okay. I was unsure where it differed with double crux exactly; thanks for the additional info.