The line between good and bad is thin. This technique can be and often is misused for manipulation. The white-hat use of this technique is to make the other person stop and think.
Of course, my rewrite was a hyperbole;)
But you are right about value subjectivity. “I feel” are an amazing technique to deescalate conflicts and built rapport. You cannot disagree with my feelings! That’s quite powerful.
I agree with you these are useful in dialogues whether in person or in comments section.
I don’t believe they (usually) have a place in books or blogposts. Those are not situations requiring conflict deescalation. The “I think” is filler because it is implied. Of course the author writes what he thinks.
You are taking this to the extreme. The goal is to make text succinct, to get rid of fillers. It doesn’t mean that you can’t make likelihood statements when warranted, just don’t start every sentence with agnostic “maybe”, or “I think”.
I think you might be taking this to the extreme. I guess that the goal might be to make text succinct, or maybe to get rid of fillers. I would probably say that it doesn’t mean that you can’t make likelihood statements when warranted, but it might be better to not to start every sentence with agnostic “maybe”, or “I think”.
My understanding of Pascal Mugging is following:
Robber approaches you promising you lots of utility in exchange of giving him $1. The probability he is not lying is extremely low, yet the utility is extremely high, so you give him $1.
The above reasoning has one trivial flaw. How do you know that there isn't a person testing your virtues, which would actually give you lots of utility if you refused to give this person $1? What makes you think that receiving lots of utility when you succumb to the robber is more probable than receiving lots of utility if you stand up to the robber?
Agreed. Hitler was total amateur. Commies killed much more people and actually managed to terrorize people for almost a century.
The following two points are contradicting each other:
In theory at least, Georgism is correct that a land tax will not cause rents to rise.Land will become cheaper to buy, and there will be more pressure to use it in an economically viable way.
I believe the 2nd is correct, whereas the first one isn't. The extra pressure will result in real rents rising. If the land is under-utilised today (e.g., empty, or a garden where nice big house could stand) the maximum possible rent is not being charged. Possible reason might be that the current land-lord can't make the required capital investments (building the house) needed to extract the market rent, yet he might not want to sell (speculation on future prices).
This will result in following two effects:
The thing here is, that ancient people discovered that notes which have frequencies in a ratio of small integers sound good together. Eg. 2:3.
For a long time, people were creating scales trying to have as many nice ratios as possible. This has problems. I’ll let you think about those yourself.
Then some guy figured out that human ear is not perfect and we can’t really tell whether we hear 2:3 or 2:2.9966. And came up with idea of doing those 12th rootes of 2.
Now, try to do 2^(7/12). Try also 2^(4/12). You see ?
It’s more than that, there is no uncertainty about probabilities in the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game) and yet, there can be a conflict.
You might want to fight even if it’s more expensive than compromising, because you are playing a repeated game. You don’t want to send a signal that you are a kind of person who compromises with an aggressor.
Few quick examples:
Why is it “out of curiosity” and not “out of the curiosity”?
Why “see in context” and not “see in the context”? (See the button below this form)
Why “hide previous comment” and not “hide the previous comment”? (See the button above this form)
I am not a native speaker. Funnily, I don't do the kind of mistakes you mention, there are other much more counterintuitive aspects of the language for me: