Epistemic Note: Many highly respected community members with substantially greater decision making experience (and Lesswrong karma) presumably disagree strongly with my conclusion.
FYI I wish to register my weak disapproval of this opening. A la Scott Alexander’s “Against Bravery Debates”, I think it is actively distracting and a little mind-killing to open by making a claim about status and popularity of a position even if it’s accurate.
I think in this case it would be reasonable to say something like “the implications of this argument being true involve substantial reallocation of status and power, so please be conscious of that and let’s all try to assess the evidence accurately and avoid overheating”. This is different from something like “I know lots of people will disagree with me on this but I’m going to say it”.
I’m not saying this was an easy post to write, but I think the standard to aim for is not having openings like this.
FYI I wish to register my weak disapproval of this opening. A la Scott Alexander’s “Against Bravery Debates”, I think it is actively distracting and a little mind-killing to open by making a claim about status and popularity of a position even if it’s accurate.
I think in this case it would be reasonable to say something like “the implications of this argument being true involve substantial reallocation of status and power, so please be conscious of that and let’s all try to assess the evidence accurately and avoid overheating”. This is different from something like “I know lots of people will disagree with me on this but I’m going to say it”.
I’m not saying this was an easy post to write, but I think the standard to aim for is not having openings like this.