The rhythm of disagreement

Abstract

The author discusses his own experiences with disagreement, focusing on his stance towards experts in various fields. The author explores the notion of a “rhythm of disagreement”, a system for how one should assess the validity of another person’s opinion, especially when that person is an expert. This rhythm of disagreement is not a fixed rule, but rather a dynamic process that is informed by experience. The author argues that it is important to be less ready to disagree with a supermajority than a mere majority, and that one should be less ready to disagree outside than inside one’s expertise. The author emphasizes the importance of focusing on the arguments themselves, rather than the tribal status of the person making them. He uses several case studies to illustrate his points, including his disagreements with Judea Pearl, Daniel Dennett, and Sebastian Thrun, as well as his interactions with Nick Bostrom. – AI-generated abstract.