Taboo Your Words (2008)
lesswrong.com
Taboo Your Words (2008)
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)
#2I find this interesting. I particularly enjoy the idea of proscribed words in Taboo leaking information that helps describe the taboo word. It reminds me of a pentester checking robots.txt to see what parts of a website the admin doesn't want crawlers to see.
However, I disagree with the "tree falls in the forest" example. The thought experiment was formed in a time when the only way to measure acoustic vibrations was with the human ear. I don't think it's any great leap to extend the conceit of the experiment to cover all forms of measuring acoustic vibrations.
Albert may claim:
A tree falling in a deserted forest matches [membership test:
this event generates pressure waves in a material medium].
How can we be sure those pressure waves are generated if we
don't have any wave detectors in the forest?
Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)
#3I find this interesting. I particularly enjoy the idea of proscribed words in Taboo leaking information that helps describe the taboo word. It reminds me of a pentester checking robots.txt to see what parts of a website the admin doesn't want crawlers to see. However, I disagree with the "tree falls in the forest" example. The thought experiment was formed in a time when the only way to measure acoustic vibrations wa…
I think it changes a lot of peoples thoughts about the question. It moves it from a "let's play with the concept of sound" to a basic question of induction and physics. At that point, why not ask how can we be sure the tree actually fell at all?
If you chase that rabbit hole, it probably devolves into arguing about what "know" and "is" and "sure" "actually mean".
Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)
#4[deleted]
Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)
#5I find this interesting. I particularly enjoy the idea of proscribed words in Taboo leaking information that helps describe the taboo word. It reminds me of a pentester checking robots.txt to see what parts of a website the admin doesn't want crawlers to see. However, I disagree with the "tree falls in the forest" example. The thought experiment was formed in a time when the only way to measure acoustic vibrations wa…
The theory "A tree falling in a deserted forest does not generate pressure waves in the air" is a theory that makes falsifiable predictions.
I do not think anyone seriously believes it. If they did, you'd soon be able to convince them that the theory is false.
If you ever encounter someone proposing that theory, they're liable to be anticipating-as-if a tree falling in a deserted forest DOES generate pressure waves, and know perfectly well what the result of any of your proposed expirements will be. They'll do fast footwork to make up excuses as to why your suggested expirements are invalid or miss the point.
Taboo'ing is especially helpful when you find yourself arguing over definitions, and want to get at the heart of the difference in actual models of the world, rather than just the difference in labels. If there is any actual disagreement on expectations.
Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)
#6Very similar to if-by-whiskey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey
If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.
But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)
#7I find this interesting. I particularly enjoy the idea of proscribed words in Taboo leaking information that helps describe the taboo word. It reminds me of a pentester checking robots.txt to see what parts of a website the admin doesn't want crawlers to see. However, I disagree with the "tree falls in the forest" example. The thought experiment was formed in a time when the only way to measure acoustic vibrations wa…
The theory "A tree falling in a deserted forest does not generate pressure waves in the air" is a theory that makes falsifiable predictions. I do not think anyone seriously believes it. If they did, you'd soon be able to convince them that the theory is false. If you ever encounter someone proposing that theory, they're liable to be anticipating-as-if a tree falling in a deserted forest DOES generate pressure waves,…
>The theory "A tree falling in a deserted forest does not generate pressure waves in the air" is a theory that makes falsifiable predictions
I do not believe that the theory "A completely unobserved and unrecorded tree does not generate pressure waves in the air when it falls" is falsifiable. How would you falsify it?
I do agree that no-one seriously believes it.
Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)
#8In the Theory Of Constraints "Thinking Tools" (a method to try and apply logic to group/systems dynamics/conflicts/constraints) they call this a "clarity reservation". I got caught up in a big discussion board argument about "gun control" before realizing everyone was arguing passionately about wildly different mental models that "gun control" represented. I could have said, "I have a clarity reservation on gun control" and spun the discussion out into several more simultaneous conversations.
It also got me thinking that most terms like this could be mapped on a 2x2 grid of "content" versus "signal". "Content" is the meaningfulness of the definition, and "signal" is the emotional impact of the word, or its ability to elicit certain emotional responses in the audience. "Gun control" could be seen as a high-signal low-content term, and that's the quadrant that you probably most want to avoid (or taboo).
This happens a lot in software engineering, too, probably more in the low-signal low-content quadrant (since most overloaded terms in software engineering are rather boring in the grand scheme). We regularly have confusion at work about words like "profile" (performance? user info? data type?) and "dev" (our test server? our git branch? our team?). This can also be hard when introducing layers of abstraction in a codebase - I feel like more than once I've struggled with running out of synonyms when trying to name certain classes.
Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)
#9I find this interesting. I particularly enjoy the idea of proscribed words in Taboo leaking information that helps describe the taboo word. It reminds me of a pentester checking robots.txt to see what parts of a website the admin doesn't want crawlers to see. However, I disagree with the "tree falls in the forest" example. The thought experiment was formed in a time when the only way to measure acoustic vibrations wa…
I think it changes a lot of peoples thoughts about the question. It moves it from a "let's play with the concept of sound" to a basic question of induction and physics. At that point, why not ask how can we be sure the tree actually fell at all? If you chase that rabbit hole, it probably devolves into arguing about what "know" and "is" and "sure" "actually mean".
I disagree. I don't think the original plays with the concept of sound, I think it plays with the concept of an objective reality. I don't think the thought experiment is substantially different in effect if it's changed to "does a tree fall in the forest if no-one is there to see it" or "does a tree have rough bark in the forest if no-one is there to feel it".
Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)
#10I find this interesting. I particularly enjoy the idea of proscribed words in Taboo leaking information that helps describe the taboo word. It reminds me of a pentester checking robots.txt to see what parts of a website the admin doesn't want crawlers to see. However, I disagree with the "tree falls in the forest" example. The thought experiment was formed in a time when the only way to measure acoustic vibrations wa…
Whether or not it was a reasonable debate at one point, I've still seen it personally between people who were quite aware that vibrations and auditory sensations were different things that could each be measured.