Context changes

This is a blog post acting as an FI post.

For this specific post, I want to check my formatting skills.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [FI] Context changes (was: choice and reality)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:24 PM, anonymous FI
<anonymousfallibleideas@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4 Aug 2015, at 6:14, Rami Rustom rombomb@gmail.com [fallible-ideas]
> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 2:25 PM, anonymous FI
>> <anonymousfallibleideas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 Aug 2015, at 5:08, Rami Rustom <rombomb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> are there better or worse ideas (within a specific context aimed at a
>>>>> problem)?

after having studied the stuff below, i have a few things to say about this:

1. there's the issue of whether we're talking about questions that can
have only one correct answer, or questions that can have more than 1.

2. there's the issue of whether there is a person making a choice, or not.


>>>> ideas that actually solve the problem they claim to solve, are better
>>>> than, ideas that don't (let's say where all the ideas claim to solve
>>>> the same problem). but i don't think that's what you're asking about.
>>>> (i say other stuff below)

here i was parochially thinking only of questions that can have only 1
correct answer.


>>> the commas and first parentheses are wrong.
>>>
>>> if you don't know how to use those, don't use them. why use something you
>>> don't know how to use?
>>>
>>> write simpler sentences that need less punctuation. aim for only periods.
>>
>>
>> here's a retry:
>>
>> ideas that actually solve the problem they claim to solve are better
>> than ideas that don't - let's say where all the ideas claim to solve
>> the same problem. but i don't think that's what you're asking about. i
>> say other stuff below.
>
>
> why would you use a dash when specifically trying to simplify and "aim for
> only periods"? (i guess apostrophes are allowed too).

i guess i didn't catch that mistake because i was more focussed on the
other stuff.


>>> NOTE: no questions asked by Rami so far.
>>
>>
>> so one question i could have asked is of the form: *here's my
>> interpretation of your question, X, did I understand correctly?*
>>
>> and: *what's interesting about this?*
>
>
> neither of those are questions about the topic with content about the topic.

atm i don't know what questions i could have asked like that.


i've changed my reference list. i changed "Ask Questions" to "Ask
Questions (content too, not just meta)".


//TRIM//

> so here i'll explain the general issue even though you didn't give useful
> information about your confusion. this is inefficient for me to guess what
> to say to you without your guidance:
>
>
> it's like you're doing a win/win arbitration. except one side is tacos and
> one is enchiladas. and the delegations from the enchilada side are like
> "well we have no objection to eating tacos today. we like tacos too". so
> there's nothing to arbitrate...

i think this is a question where there's more than 1 correct answer.
and i think there isn't a person making a choice.


> this contrasts with, say, a homeschool kid deciding to go to university or
> not. the pro-uni delegation is like "not going to uni is a bad idea. you'll
> never get a job. we object." and the anti-uni side is like "uhh learn to FI
> bro" and so there is a conflict to arbitrate.

i think this is a question where there's only 1 possible correct
answer. and i think there is a person making a choice.


//TRIM//
>> like, is it unclear which problems P1 or P2 that I'm
>> referring to in each case that i use the word problem? i think no
>> because the first paragraph is talking about the first problem P1, and
>> it ends explaining that we've moved on to a new problem P2. and the
>> second paragraph is only talking about P2. so it's not like i switch
>> back and forth and it's hard to track which problem i'm referring to.
>> i also used qualifiers like 'new' and 'old' to refer to the problems
>> which i think helps clarify which one i mean.
>>
>> how should i be thinking about this?
>
>
> why would you define stuff then not use it?

i thought that showing P1 and P2 as i did, it helped show that P2 was
an evolution of P1, because of the shared "P" and because the first
one has a "1" and the next one has a "2".


> i think it's notable and interesting that your first reaction to criticism,
> your intuition, is to go in the wrong direction and make things worse. like
> the Athenians in BoI who, when thievery doesn't bring prosperity, think they
> need even more.

i want to reply to this after seeing your reply to my answer to your
question just above.

-- Rami

PS. I just went through my whole post and I notice that I didn't ask
any questions. does anybody see a problem with this for this specific
email? if so, why?