I notice a distinct lack of examples of successful large-scale discourse. It feels like this is one of many areas where we pulled a sort of legerdemain where we envision the thing we wish were true as the natural state of the world or the state of the past, and then bemoan its sabotage or decline.
I currently cannot think of a single instance of good public discourse ever. This causes me to think it isn’t sad that clever arguers are destroying good discourse; it is interesting that they are an obstacle to good discourse ever arising in the first place.
I’m happy to be wrong though. If we were to attack this problem by maximizing or duplicating the bright spots, what would they be?
Yeah, this is closer to the way I look at the situation.
But one of the lenses into this area is the “Is Science Slowing Down?” perspective, where it seems like in the early 20th century was a brief period where something about science was more productive, at least per unit of effort.
This doesn’t feel like something I’d consider a natural-state, more like a bright spot to duplicate, and I don’t know how much I expect it to be possible to scale.
This feels related to a few different things that Benquo has written about, which I’ve been mulling over.
A general sense that privacy is negative, all-else-being equal (some related thoughts in Blackmailers are privateers in the war on hypocrisy)
On a very different note, concern about vulnerability to untrusted, clever arguers.
I notice a distinct lack of examples of successful large-scale discourse. It feels like this is one of many areas where we pulled a sort of legerdemain where we envision the thing we wish were true as the natural state of the world or the state of the past, and then bemoan its sabotage or decline.
I currently cannot think of a single instance of good public discourse ever. This causes me to think it isn’t sad that clever arguers are destroying good discourse; it is interesting that they are an obstacle to good discourse ever arising in the first place.
I’m happy to be wrong though. If we were to attack this problem by maximizing or duplicating the bright spots, what would they be?
Yeah, this is closer to the way I look at the situation.
But one of the lenses into this area is the “Is Science Slowing Down?” perspective, where it seems like in the early 20th century was a brief period where something about science was more productive, at least per unit of effort.
This doesn’t feel like something I’d consider a natural-state, more like a bright spot to duplicate, and I don’t know how much I expect it to be possible to scale.