I'm excited to read and follow this sequence! Eliezer's Be Specific post is one of my favorites. And I just find myself thinking about specificity all the time. Yesterday I was at a poker meetup and my friend was giving a presentation. I was trying to take notes and come up with useful feedback. The big thing that kept coming up was, you guessed it - be specific! Same with if I'm ever giving someone feedback on writing or something.

My initial thoughts are that the two big difficulties with specificity are:

1) Often times if can be weirdly difficult to come up with examples. Me personally, there are many times where I want to communicate some good examples, and I feel like it should be reasonably easy to come up with some, but my brain just draws blanks and doesn't cooperate. And I feel like I see this in others as well.

2) Illusion of transparency. We think our non-specific statement was good enough, and don't realize that the other person is really wanting some specific examples. I feel like this usually doesn't happen at the conscious level. We don't actually think: "Hm, did I explain that well enough? Should I stop and try to get more specific? Nah, I don't think so, I think it was fine. Let's move on then." We just... sort of... keep... going.

Another thought:

3) I'm a huge fan of providing some sort of visual along with text. Picture, video, animation, whatever. I think a big reason for this is because the visual helps with specificity.

Hey Liron,

I haven't even started reading this fully yet but I got so excited reading the first couple sentences of parts 1-3 that I had to leave a comment (I've saved it to Pocket for in depth weekend reading).

This is exactly the type of content I have been looking for. I feel like often when I am talking with people outside of the LessWrong community I have "man with the hammer everything looks like a nail" syndrome. In other words, I use logical arguments that are lacking in persuasive power.

Looking forward to adding this to my mental models, thanks so much for sharing this information.

The internet and the world is so awesome!

As far as I know, being specific is like half (most? (technically all?)) of the core of rational thinking and living. Looking forward to more out of this, based on what's posted so far!

Is this sequence going to become a sequence in the lesswrong content library at some point? I kind of like having things in the library page so I can go back and read the whole thing later but I noticed it's not there yet.

The ladder of abstraction goes up as well as down.

We spend a lot of time trying to descend it, being more specific (especially if we’re Paul Graham), but at times its better to be more abstract! Canonical example: Newton. The apple falling from the tree, and the Earth orbiting the sun, are specific examples, but the genius is identifying that the same forces are manipulating them on vastly different scales. (It’s also vital not to get stuck believing that the apple is flat, but that’s not important right now).

Dan Dennett has the idea of “greedy reductionism”. Dennett claims, more or less, that people have souls but the souls are made of tiny robots, ie. “neurons” and “souls” are both legitimate concepts. “Souls are JUST tiny robots and don’t really exist” he calls greedy reductionism: proverbially, not seeing the forest for the trees.

Trying to argue better, as in “ladder of inference” or double crux, is very likely to involve moving up and down the ladder of abstraction, between general concepts and specific observations.