Search Ideas
The red ‘Criticized’ label shows how many pending criticisms an idea has. For example ‘Criticized (5)’ means the idea has five pending criticisms.
But if there are lots of comments, including non-criticisms and addressed criticisms, it’s hard to identify pending criticisms.
There should be an easy way to filter comments of a given idea down to only pending criticisms.
The feature wasn’t quite polished. For example, arrow navigation through the dropdown menu was missing. And there were some bugs. But it’s polished now and the bugs should be fixed as of 4ced719.
It leaves room for something, but it’s not clear what.
Well, he did say “partly”, so that leaves room for personal responsibility.
I think this is partly to do with the fact that Veritula has no clear way of indicating when a resolution has been reached or a problem has been solved.
Should take personal responsibility and not blame the tool.
If your goal, like mine, is to live a life that is 100% guided by reason, which basically means (#2844) to never adopt ideas that have pending criticisms, you could use Veritula to identify ideas of yours that have pending criticisms so you can either reject those ideas or address the criticisms.
To that end, I suggest you submit a single idea you are confident is correct, and then try your hardest to criticize it. Depending on the idea, I may join you.
It’s a good goal to perfect an idea to the point you’ve mastered it, addressed all objections, understand the objections better than your opponents, etc.
If this sounds up your alley, I recommend starting with something easy. Zelalem tried writing a summary of fallibilism which, after 13 revisions, still contains mistakes.
This would work well for some open threads, but not others (like anything I have left unaddressed on Veritula).
Idea: Keep a document tracking open threads, updating it every night. Every morning, feed it to Gemini Flash and have it coach me on what I could work towards resolving today.
Closing threads is a common problem in my life. I should look for ways to increase my propensity to resolve/finish things I start.
Methods I look for need to allow for the fact that not everything needs to be resolved, i.e. that having some open threads is inevitable, and that some of those threads are acceptable to leave open indefinitely.
Closing threads is a common problem in my life. I should look for ways to increase my propensity to resolve/finish things I start.
The solution needs to allow for the fact that not everything needs to be resolved, that having some open threads is inevitable, and that some of those threads are acceptable to leave open indefinitely.
As I think about this, I notice that—once I solve a given problem with a new idea—I have no habit to consciously acknowledge that a problem has been solved, much less to write down that it has been solved. The ex-problem fades from my mind as I set my mind on a new problem.
I could try to make it a habit to explicitly acknowledge when I do find solutions to problems. If the solution is found on Veritula, it would be natural to acknowledge it here too.
I like the idea of explicitly acknowledging progress in this way, because it might help me become more prideful in the Objectivist sense.
I think this is partly to do with the fact that Veritula has no clear way of indicating when a resolution has been reached or a problem has been solved.
It does. For example, you could post an idea saying ‘I have decided to do X.’ Like in your discussion on where to move.
You can also indicate resolution of top-level criticisms by archiving them when they have pending counter-criticisms. The meta discussion is an example of top-level ideas reaching resolutions in this way.
Would you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for how you want to use Veritula?
This seems like a good idea.
Would you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for how you want to use Veritula?
I noticed that you’ve started a bunch of discussions but I don’t believe you’ve reached a resolution on any of them.
Would you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for using Veritula?
This is ambiguous. To be clear, are you asking if I would like to make an explicit personal methodology for using the site, as part of my effort described in #2899? Or are you inviting me to formulate an explicit methodology for users of Veritula in general? (I realise these aren’t mutually exclusive.)
This is ambiguous.
That’s a criticism, so this idea should be marked as a criticism.
Similarity is fine if it is less narrow, but ‘thread’ doesn’t seem any less narrow than ‘discussion’ to me. A ‘thread’ usually means a reply chain.
Why is similarity a bad thing in and of itself? It can be reminiscent of discussions as long as it’s less narrow.
I can’t decide if this communicates a grouping of ideas. Seems borderline.
“Go check out the Karl Popper context on Veritula” would only make sense if you are already a Veritula user who is accustomed to using this terminology.
I have an inexplicit criticism of this relating to “school subject”.
This actually seems anti-discussion. Sounds like a grouping of ideas that are only related by conceptual proximity, rather than building on each other.