+1 for something straightforward involving your name, e.g. Schubert Analysis.
Other names like the ones generated by Claude feel tacky, and don't leave any lasting impression. I think it will be hard to come up with something that doesn't feel like a corporate buzzword.
Is there one of these features that's more distinctive than the others? You could focus on that. For example, I think it's more common for someone to aim to be detailed in their analysis than it is for them to so dispassionate and use the scout mindset so much.
For what it's worth, I really like the phrase epistemic discipline. You could argue a broader version of the phrase than you intended captures these virtues – the discipline of being detached from the arguments, detail-oriented, and not accepting imprecise metaphors.
My quick brainstorm: dispassionate analysis, decoupled truthseeking, impartial reasoning.
Thanks, Peter, that's helpful. I'm glad you like "epistemic discipline".
I've actually conceived of epistemic discipline as a fairly broad concept (encompassing, e.g. what questions to study or research), whereas I'm here talking about a more narrow concept (how to interpret others). But it's useful to hear your intuitions; it should influence how I communicate about this.
Deep common sense? I know you have reservations about the term common-sense, and I get it. I think the "deep" may solve the problem, in that it separates your method from merely adhering to commonly-held views (what could be seen as shallow common sense). It also riffs with Greene's concept of "deep pragmatism", which I like a lot.
From my perspective, this "method" and not accepting non-literal arguments can be explained by the differences between neurotypical language patterns vs neurodivergent language patterns. Of course there is no strict dichotomy, but a valid generalization might be that neurotypical language avoids literal specification in many contexts where neurodivergent language allows for it.
To use a crude example: Suppose you proofread someone's paper and say to them "I love your paper. I did notice 100 mistakes in it and have detailed them here. But other than that it's great". In some contexts, the recipient will receive the meaning "Your work is terrible and too far from an acceptable standard. I hate it." If you want the recipient to receive the literal meaning, you have to paraphrase it and include extra padding and context, and perhaps the right body language. In some contexts it's simply not possible to for the original message to be received other than by going much further than paraphrasing.
From the perspective of neurotypical norms, language doesn't work literally most of the time and when you are saying something literal and expecting it to be received literally, you're the one using language incorrectly. Of course, this is a majority-privileged take, and you can find people who accept neurodivergent norms or interpret both flexibly as needed. It's also worth noting that many neurotypicals technically CAN interpret something literally, they just don't want to, and pretending to be unable to happens to be a valid neurotypical way to signal that.
If you want a primer on this signaling without awareness of the neurodiversity aspect, the concept you can look up is "status games". Status games and how it features in language explains why you could plausibly loose an adjudicated debate in which all your arguments are logically correct and detached compared to the opponent's emotive and irrational arguments. Without awareness of the game, you think that being detached is a good thing, because you value it, but most people don't.
As a neurodivergent person myself, I wouldn't say that taking things literal is a "critical method", rather that I'm using neurodivergent language OR I'm not using neurotypical language norms.
+1 for something straightforward involving your name, e.g. Schubert Analysis.
Other names like the ones generated by Claude feel tacky, and don't leave any lasting impression. I think it will be hard to come up with something that doesn't feel like a corporate buzzword.
Is there one of these features that's more distinctive than the others? You could focus on that. For example, I think it's more common for someone to aim to be detailed in their analysis than it is for them to so dispassionate and use the scout mindset so much.
For what it's worth, I really like the phrase epistemic discipline. You could argue a broader version of the phrase than you intended captures these virtues – the discipline of being detached from the arguments, detail-oriented, and not accepting imprecise metaphors.
My quick brainstorm: dispassionate analysis, decoupled truthseeking, impartial reasoning.
Thanks, Peter, that's helpful. I'm glad you like "epistemic discipline".
I've actually conceived of epistemic discipline as a fairly broad concept (encompassing, e.g. what questions to study or research), whereas I'm here talking about a more narrow concept (how to interpret others). But it's useful to hear your intuitions; it should influence how I communicate about this.
If you are interested in argument-checking as an extension of fact-checking, there is more information on this page: https://lancar.org/research-projects/argument-checking/#:~:text=This%20project%20aims%20to%20contribute,developing%20procedures%20for%20assessing%20argumentation.
Nice, thanks! I hadn't seen.
Deep common sense? I know you have reservations about the term common-sense, and I get it. I think the "deep" may solve the problem, in that it separates your method from merely adhering to commonly-held views (what could be seen as shallow common sense). It also riffs with Greene's concept of "deep pragmatism", which I like a lot.
From my perspective, this "method" and not accepting non-literal arguments can be explained by the differences between neurotypical language patterns vs neurodivergent language patterns. Of course there is no strict dichotomy, but a valid generalization might be that neurotypical language avoids literal specification in many contexts where neurodivergent language allows for it.
To use a crude example: Suppose you proofread someone's paper and say to them "I love your paper. I did notice 100 mistakes in it and have detailed them here. But other than that it's great". In some contexts, the recipient will receive the meaning "Your work is terrible and too far from an acceptable standard. I hate it." If you want the recipient to receive the literal meaning, you have to paraphrase it and include extra padding and context, and perhaps the right body language. In some contexts it's simply not possible to for the original message to be received other than by going much further than paraphrasing.
From the perspective of neurotypical norms, language doesn't work literally most of the time and when you are saying something literal and expecting it to be received literally, you're the one using language incorrectly. Of course, this is a majority-privileged take, and you can find people who accept neurodivergent norms or interpret both flexibly as needed. It's also worth noting that many neurotypicals technically CAN interpret something literally, they just don't want to, and pretending to be unable to happens to be a valid neurotypical way to signal that.
If you want a primer on this signaling without awareness of the neurodiversity aspect, the concept you can look up is "status games". Status games and how it features in language explains why you could plausibly loose an adjudicated debate in which all your arguments are logically correct and detached compared to the opponent's emotive and irrational arguments. Without awareness of the game, you think that being detached is a good thing, because you value it, but most people don't.
As a neurodivergent person myself, I wouldn't say that taking things literal is a "critical method", rather that I'm using neurodivergent language OR I'm not using neurotypical language norms.