The Nonlinear Library LW - A Socratic dialogue with my student by lsusr
Dec 6, 2023
09:51
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A Socratic dialogue with my student, published by lsusr on December 6, 2023 on LessWrong.
This is a dialogue between me and Noam, my student. It is reproduced, in edited form, with his permission. When commenting, please consider that he is a teenager. Many of these ideas are new to him.
How do you get a student? You steal them. His previous teacher was a Marxist. I demolished his previous teacher in debate so thoroughly that he abandoned her teachings and now listens to me instead.
I think this dialogue demonstrates good pedogogical techniques.
I let Noam be the judge of what is reasonable, what makes sense, and what constitutes "proof". I competed in my first debate tournament before Noam was born. This handicap reduces the disparity a little.
I ask a series of questions, instead of just saying "x is true". This makes password-guessing impossible. He's playing chess, not Jeopardy!
I avoid telling Noam what I believe, unless he asks explicitly. This is more fun for Noam, because nobody likes getting unsolicited preaching. It's more persuasive too, because the conclusions feel like they're his conclusions.
I back off immediately when Noam changes the subject.
Noam: I know you are against forgiveness of student loan debts. Can you tell me why? I am doing this for a speech and debate tournament.
Lsusr: Didn't you used to believe the pro relief arguments? Surely it is not difficult to repeat the arguments that once persuaded you.
Noam: I don't know if I have enough research to debate someone like you right now.
Lsusr: You're not trying to convince me. You're trying to convince them. Play to their biases, their irrationalities, their tribalism and their ignorance.
Noam: I also have to appease the judges.
Lsusr: That's what I said.
Noam: I'm struggling to find one good argument for student loan forgiveness.
Lsusr: But didn't you used to endorse it? Surely you can repeat the bad arguments that once convinced you.
Noam: Those were moral arguments without any economic understanding.
Lsusr: That's fine. Your audience is probably economically illiterate.
Noam: Somehow I think we won once as the side in affirmative for forgiving all student loan debts.
Lsusr: Well done.
Noam: Thank you.
Lsusr: Have you ever heard of "effective altruism". You might like some of the stuff they put out. It tends to be both morally coherent and economically literate (unlike the major Democratic Republican, socialist, etc. political platforms).
Noam: No, but I will look into it.
Lsusr: You might not agree with it. But I predict its intellectual robustness would be refreshing to you.
Noam: Wouldn't that imply it would be moral for me to kill myself and then donate all my organs to people who need them? Unless I could save more lives without killing myself, I guess. Maybe a better argument would be to kill myself, have someone sell all my body parts, and then use the money to buy malaria nets to give to people living in Africa.
Lsusr: You can save more lives without killing yourself. Also, I can't think of a single EA who has committed suicide for the cause.
Noam: Probably because there is something that we find intuitively wrong about killing ourselves.
Lsusr: Don't get distracted by the kidney thing. Here's the basic idea:
It takes $10,000,000 for the US government to save an Amerian life.
It takes $5,000 to save a life in Africa via public health measures.
That's why I donated $20 to public health measures in Africa last month. It does as much good as $40,000 spent by the US federal government.
Noam: Yeah, that's true. Save a life from what in America?
Lsusr: The basic idea is you should crunch the numbers.
Noam: I think this works for money, but I don't know if it can be fully applied to everything.
Lsusr: Why not? Concrete example.
Noam: Well, it depends on if you think humans should have protect...
This is a dialogue between me and Noam, my student. It is reproduced, in edited form, with his permission. When commenting, please consider that he is a teenager. Many of these ideas are new to him.
How do you get a student? You steal them. His previous teacher was a Marxist. I demolished his previous teacher in debate so thoroughly that he abandoned her teachings and now listens to me instead.
I think this dialogue demonstrates good pedogogical techniques.
I let Noam be the judge of what is reasonable, what makes sense, and what constitutes "proof". I competed in my first debate tournament before Noam was born. This handicap reduces the disparity a little.
I ask a series of questions, instead of just saying "x is true". This makes password-guessing impossible. He's playing chess, not Jeopardy!
I avoid telling Noam what I believe, unless he asks explicitly. This is more fun for Noam, because nobody likes getting unsolicited preaching. It's more persuasive too, because the conclusions feel like they're his conclusions.
I back off immediately when Noam changes the subject.
Noam: I know you are against forgiveness of student loan debts. Can you tell me why? I am doing this for a speech and debate tournament.
Lsusr: Didn't you used to believe the pro relief arguments? Surely it is not difficult to repeat the arguments that once persuaded you.
Noam: I don't know if I have enough research to debate someone like you right now.
Lsusr: You're not trying to convince me. You're trying to convince them. Play to their biases, their irrationalities, their tribalism and their ignorance.
Noam: I also have to appease the judges.
Lsusr: That's what I said.
Noam: I'm struggling to find one good argument for student loan forgiveness.
Lsusr: But didn't you used to endorse it? Surely you can repeat the bad arguments that once convinced you.
Noam: Those were moral arguments without any economic understanding.
Lsusr: That's fine. Your audience is probably economically illiterate.
Noam: Somehow I think we won once as the side in affirmative for forgiving all student loan debts.
Lsusr: Well done.
Noam: Thank you.
Lsusr: Have you ever heard of "effective altruism". You might like some of the stuff they put out. It tends to be both morally coherent and economically literate (unlike the major Democratic Republican, socialist, etc. political platforms).
Noam: No, but I will look into it.
Lsusr: You might not agree with it. But I predict its intellectual robustness would be refreshing to you.
Noam: Wouldn't that imply it would be moral for me to kill myself and then donate all my organs to people who need them? Unless I could save more lives without killing myself, I guess. Maybe a better argument would be to kill myself, have someone sell all my body parts, and then use the money to buy malaria nets to give to people living in Africa.
Lsusr: You can save more lives without killing yourself. Also, I can't think of a single EA who has committed suicide for the cause.
Noam: Probably because there is something that we find intuitively wrong about killing ourselves.
Lsusr: Don't get distracted by the kidney thing. Here's the basic idea:
It takes $10,000,000 for the US government to save an Amerian life.
It takes $5,000 to save a life in Africa via public health measures.
That's why I donated $20 to public health measures in Africa last month. It does as much good as $40,000 spent by the US federal government.
Noam: Yeah, that's true. Save a life from what in America?
Lsusr: The basic idea is you should crunch the numbers.
Noam: I think this works for money, but I don't know if it can be fully applied to everything.
Lsusr: Why not? Concrete example.
Noam: Well, it depends on if you think humans should have protect...