Conversations Going Critical – Everything Studies
Sometimes arguments and statements invites responses longer than themselves, often by making more things part of the conversation. So if we want to be thorough when arguing we risk starting a chain…
A while ago I took part a bit in discussions at Slate Star Codex . Considering what I wrote here , it made sense. Expressing myself must mean interacting with what I would hope to have as an audience. Once blogging-as-a-solipsistic-thought-dump loses its appeal – which it does – a readership, however small, may be just the necessary oomph one needs to keep going. In retrospect, posting wasn’t a great idea. Not that it’s bad and that I shouldn’t do it, but interacting online is fraught with dangers. At least it is to me. I want to keep it to a minimum, or at least
Explore this link on the map →related reading
- What Conversation Can Do for Us | The New Yorkernewyorker.com
- Good conversations have lots of doorknobsexperimental-history.com
- Fucking Goddamn Basics of Rationalist Discourse — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Keep Your Identity Smallpaulgraham.com
- Good conversations have lots of doorknobsexperimentalhistory.substack.com
- How to Disagreepaulgraham.com
- what happened to conversations? - by julian rageyoungandangry.substack.com
- Socratic Grilling | Slate Star Codexslatestarcodex.com
- When Should we Argue? | Practical Ethicsblog.uehiro.ox.ac.uk
- Fake thinking and real thinking - Joe Carlsmithjoecarlsmith.com
- Keep Your Identity Smallpaulgraham.com
- How to always have interesting conversations — LessWronglesswrong.com