Nevertheless, it's natural. People expect short inferential distances[1]. In plain speak, we tend to intuitively assume that a piece of knowledge is either co

Nevertheless, it's natural. People expect short inferential distances[1]. In plain speak, we tend to intuitively assume that a piece of knowledge is either common knowledge, or easily explainable from common knowledge. Like: "there's a tiger behind the bushes!". Not everyone knows that, since the tiger is difficult to spot. Everyone however knows what a tiger looks like, and what danger or source of food it represents. So, anyone who doesn't understand that sentence is an idiot. Conversely, if someone who tells you that stars are Balls of Gas Burning Billions Miles away[2] is plain crazy… unless it's your which doctor, of course. That one knows ways you don't. Except that the last two paragraphs are now bullshit. A few centuries ago (very recently, by evolutionary standards), our world became more complicated, and our instincts haven't quite caught up yet. Laziness? Lack of empathy? Yeah, sure. But the effort required to expect the inferential distances we actually have to deal with is very real. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if that last paragraph fell short for anyone who isn't familiar with the LessWrong Sequences[3]. Sorry. [1]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Inferential_distance http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Inferential_distance [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZDk1cbKp7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZDk1cbKp7s [3]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences