Debates about discussing politics on LW feel to me like this:
“It is a bad idea to drive drunk.”
“How can you say that? There is a huge variation among people with regards to (1) driving skill, and (2) alcohol metabolism. We are the best drivers ever, and we are smart enough to stop driving when we notice that our abilities are impaired.”
“Uhm, it sounds a bit like Dunning–Kruger in action, but… a little experiment shouldn’t hurt… I guess.”
“FULL SPEED AHEAD! THE LAST ONE AT THE CROSSING IS A CHICKEN!”
(Loud crash; explosion; sirens wailing in the distance...)
“Uhm, I guess it actually was a bad idea to drive drunk.”
Two weeks later.
“Hey guys, let’s drink and drive! What could possibly happen? We are the best drivers ever, and smart enough to stop driving when we notice that our abilities are impaired.”
“Uhm, you remember what happened the last time?”
“As the smart and rich people say, past performance is not an indicator of future performance. We have learned so much since then, we are the best drivers ever. Also, THE LAST ONE AT THE CROSSING IS A CHICKEN!”
Except by the analogy, we want to be able to drive better, whether drunk or sober. In fact, especially when drunk, because that’s where our poor driving causes real disaster elsewhere, as opposed to the relative safety of our test track.
We want to get Less Wrong, except where it would matter the most.
I think people in real life are actually doing this kind of thing, but they don’t drive in real traffic; instead they go to an empty place, and try e.g. driving between huge empty paper boxes (so that in case of crash nothing serious happens). And I think they don’t do it really to learn driving well while drunk, but rather to calibrate themselves about how exactly different levels of being drunk impact their performance.
So, what would be the analogy of the empty paper boxes for LW?
LW is the empty place with the empty boxes are the threads with politics in them.
Though driving isn’t the best metaphor. LW is the moot court. Or boxing ring. Or dance floor. Takes two to tango.
We could segregate these things for those who don’t feel their up to having a political discussion. Tag a thread with Politics. Don’t want to talk politics, don’t go into the thread.
If you practice driving while drunk, you will crash. This will not teach you to drive well (especially if you die). If you practice driving sober, you will get better at driving generally, and also in the domain where you drive drunk. There. analogy fixed. Don’t argue over analogies.
But driving drunk is not exactly the same skill as driving sober, so that practicing drunk can be expected to improve your skills in driving drunk in ways that only driving sober would not.
Even then, there’s a difference between “I need to get home but I’m impaired, so I’ll try to drive extra slowly and extra cautiously and hope for the best” and “THE LAST ONE AT THE CROSSING IS A CHICKEN”
This sounds right to me, but I think it mostly applies to discussions that are directly related to politics, whereas my post was primarily about the evidence for a claim that is very popular and only indirectly about politics insofar as this claim has become part of the political debate.
Debates about discussing politics on LW feel to me like this:
“It is a bad idea to drive drunk.”
“How can you say that? There is a huge variation among people with regards to (1) driving skill, and (2) alcohol metabolism. We are the best drivers ever, and we are smart enough to stop driving when we notice that our abilities are impaired.”
“Uhm, it sounds a bit like Dunning–Kruger in action, but… a little experiment shouldn’t hurt… I guess.”
“FULL SPEED AHEAD! THE LAST ONE AT THE CROSSING IS A CHICKEN!”
(Loud crash; explosion; sirens wailing in the distance...)
“Uhm, I guess it actually was a bad idea to drive drunk.”
Two weeks later.
“Hey guys, let’s drink and drive! What could possibly happen? We are the best drivers ever, and smart enough to stop driving when we notice that our abilities are impaired.”
“Uhm, you remember what happened the last time?”
“As the smart and rich people say, past performance is not an indicator of future performance. We have learned so much since then, we are the best drivers ever. Also, THE LAST ONE AT THE CROSSING IS A CHICKEN!”
Except by the analogy, we want to be able to drive better, whether drunk or sober. In fact, especially when drunk, because that’s where our poor driving causes real disaster elsewhere, as opposed to the relative safety of our test track.
We want to get Less Wrong, except where it would matter the most.
I think people in real life are actually doing this kind of thing, but they don’t drive in real traffic; instead they go to an empty place, and try e.g. driving between huge empty paper boxes (so that in case of crash nothing serious happens). And I think they don’t do it really to learn driving well while drunk, but rather to calibrate themselves about how exactly different levels of being drunk impact their performance.
So, what would be the analogy of the empty paper boxes for LW?
LW is the empty place with the empty boxes are the threads with politics in them.
Though driving isn’t the best metaphor. LW is the moot court. Or boxing ring. Or dance floor. Takes two to tango.
We could segregate these things for those who don’t feel their up to having a political discussion. Tag a thread with Politics. Don’t want to talk politics, don’t go into the thread.
If you practice driving while drunk, you will crash. This will not teach you to drive well (especially if you die). If you practice driving sober, you will get better at driving generally, and also in the domain where you drive drunk. There. analogy fixed. Don’t argue over analogies.
But driving drunk is not exactly the same skill as driving sober, so that practicing drunk can be expected to improve your skills in driving drunk in ways that only driving sober would not.
Even then, there’s a difference between “I need to get home but I’m impaired, so I’ll try to drive extra slowly and extra cautiously and hope for the best” and “THE LAST ONE AT THE CROSSING IS A CHICKEN”
This sounds right to me, but I think it mostly applies to discussions that are directly related to politics, whereas my post was primarily about the evidence for a claim that is very popular and only indirectly about politics insofar as this claim has become part of the political debate.