Thanks for the suggestion, I think it is one worth giving thought, though tricky to implement in practice.
LessWrong (in its first incarnation) had different sections like “Main” and “Discussion”, but it didn’t work great in the end. People became afraid to post on Main, so everything ended up Discussion. And then, while this might work for a niche community, as LessWrong becomes more and more of a destination (due to the rising popularity of AI), we’d still have to enforce a minimum standard on Discussion/PvE before the quality diluted catastrophically, which means you end up facing the same challenges again (but with more people).
I’m interested in solutions here, but it is tricky. Right now I’m interested in Open Threads that have lower bars. Shortform was is also supposed to be more of a Butterfly place, though I’d want to give it more thought before making it a more 101 sanctioned area. But lots of things to explore.
You are welcome. You answered before I had time to write:
Edit: This is just a rough sketch, and I’ll be happy to patch it up if prompted.
Yeah, I imagine I am missing a lot of nuances, history of LW and otherwise.
If you want my specific help with anything, let me know. I’m only on the outside looking in, and there is only so much I am able to see from my vantage point.
I do believe I could make my idea work somewhat, and I understand it would have to accommodate a lot of different issues I might not be aware about, but I would be willing to give it a try.
With regard to PvE, I do not mean it as a sleeping pillow where anything goes. Or PvP as a free for all. There would be just as strict rules on both sides, but there would be different nuances, and probably different people giving the down-votes and commenting. It is more the separation between typical communication forms and understanding. So, maybe the whole analogue is bad (Blaming you for this Said :)
I wish you all the best whatever you choose to do, and hope you find a solution that errs a little bit less—as hoped for.
So, maybe the whole analogue is bad (Blaming you for this Said :)
Hah.
For what it’s worth, I do, actually, agree with the overall thrust of your suggestion. I have made similar suggestions myself, in the past… unfortunately, my understanding is that the LW team basically don’t think that anything like this is workable. I don’t think I agree with their reasoning, but they seem sufficiently firm in their conviction that I’ve mostly given up on trying to convince anyone that this sort of thing is a good idea.
(At one time, after the revival of Less Wrong, I hoped that the Personal / Frontpage distinction would serve a function similar to the one you describe. Unfortunately, the LW system design / community norms have been taken in a direction that makes it impossible for things to work that way. I understand that this, too, is a principled decision on the LW team’s part, but I think that it’s an unfortunate one.)
fwiw I think we’ve considered this sort of idea fairly seriously (I think there are a few nearby ideas clustered together, and it seems like various users have very different opinions on which ones seem “fine” and which ones seem pointed in a horribly wrong direction. I recall Benquo/Zack/Jessicata thinking one version of the idea was bad, although not sure I recall their opinion clearly enough to represent it)
I think there are a few nearby ideas clustered together, and it seems like various users have very different opinions on which ones seem “fine” and which ones seem pointed in a horribly wrong direction.
That does seem plausible (and frustrating).
I recall Benquo/Zack/Jessicata thinking one version of the idea was bad, although not sure I recall their opinion clearly enough to represent it
I would be very interested to hear from any or all of those people about their opinions on this topic!
I maybe want to specify-in-my-words the version of this I’m most enthusiastic about, to check that you in fact think this version of the thing is fine, rather than a perversion of rationality that should die-in-a-fire and/or not solve any problems you care about:
There are two clusters of norms people choose between. Both emphasize truthseeking, but have different standards for some flavor of politeness, how much effort critics are supposed to put in, Combat vs Nurture, etc. Authors pick a default setting but can change setting for individual posts.
Probably even the more-combaty-one has some kind of floor for basic politeness (you probably don’t want to be literal 4chan?) but not at a level you’d expect to come up very often on LessWrong.
I think the precious thing lost in the Nurture cluster is not Combat, but tolerance for or even encouragement of unapologetic and uncompromising dissent. This is straightforwardly good if it can be instantiated without regularly spawning infinite threads of back-and-forth arguing (unapologetic and uncompromising).
It should be convenient for people who don’t want to participate in that to opt out, and the details of this seem to be the most challenging issue.
Hmmm. I… do not think that this version of the thing is fine.
(I may write more later to elaborate on why I think that. Or maybe this isn’t the ideal place to do that? But I did want to answer your question here, at least.)
Nod. Since it somewhat informs the solution space I’m considering, I think I’ll go ahead and ask here what seem not-fine about it. (Or, maybe to resolve a thing I’m actually confused about, what seems different about this phrasing from what Caerulea said?)
I do believe the piece that is missing is emotions, human weakness, vulnerability and compassion.
If that isn’t enough, it is time to bring out the megaphone and start screaming “Misanthropy!” in the streets. I’ll join you, no worries. We can even wear matching WoW costumes.
NB: (I’m also blaming you for this comment, Said. Have you no shame?)
Hi Caerulea-Lawrence,
Thanks for the suggestion, I think it is one worth giving thought, though tricky to implement in practice.
LessWrong (in its first incarnation) had different sections like “Main” and “Discussion”, but it didn’t work great in the end. People became afraid to post on Main, so everything ended up Discussion. And then, while this might work for a niche community, as LessWrong becomes more and more of a destination (due to the rising popularity of AI), we’d still have to enforce a minimum standard on Discussion/PvE before the quality diluted catastrophically, which means you end up facing the same challenges again (but with more people).
I’m interested in solutions here, but it is tricky. Right now I’m interested in Open Threads that have lower bars. Shortform was is also supposed to be more of a Butterfly place, though I’d want to give it more thought before making it a more 101 sanctioned area. But lots of things to explore.
Hello again Ruby,
You are welcome. You answered before I had time to write:
Edit: This is just a rough sketch, and I’ll be happy to patch it up if prompted.
Yeah, I imagine I am missing a lot of nuances, history of LW and otherwise.
If you want my specific help with anything, let me know. I’m only on the outside looking in, and there is only so much I am able to see from my vantage point.
I do believe I could make my idea work somewhat, and I understand it would have to accommodate a lot of different issues I might not be aware about, but I would be willing to give it a try.
With regard to PvE, I do not mean it as a sleeping pillow where anything goes. Or PvP as a free for all. There would be just as strict rules on both sides, but there would be different nuances, and probably different people giving the down-votes and commenting. It is more the separation between typical communication forms and understanding. So, maybe the whole analogue is bad (Blaming you for this Said :)
I wish you all the best whatever you choose to do, and hope you find a solution that errs a little bit less—as hoped for.
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
Hah.
For what it’s worth, I do, actually, agree with the overall thrust of your suggestion. I have made similar suggestions myself, in the past… unfortunately, my understanding is that the LW team basically don’t think that anything like this is workable. I don’t think I agree with their reasoning, but they seem sufficiently firm in their conviction that I’ve mostly given up on trying to convince anyone that this sort of thing is a good idea.
(At one time, after the revival of Less Wrong, I hoped that the Personal / Frontpage distinction would serve a function similar to the one you describe. Unfortunately, the LW system design / community norms have been taken in a direction that makes it impossible for things to work that way. I understand that this, too, is a principled decision on the LW team’s part, but I think that it’s an unfortunate one.)
fwiw I think we’ve considered this sort of idea fairly seriously (I think there are a few nearby ideas clustered together, and it seems like various users have very different opinions on which ones seem “fine” and which ones seem pointed in a horribly wrong direction. I recall Benquo/Zack/Jessicata thinking one version of the idea was bad, although not sure I recall their opinion clearly enough to represent it)
That does seem plausible (and frustrating).
I would be very interested to hear from any or all of those people about their opinions on this topic!
I maybe want to specify-in-my-words the version of this I’m most enthusiastic about, to check that you in fact think this version of the thing is fine, rather than a perversion of rationality that should die-in-a-fire and/or not solve any problems you care about:
There are two clusters of norms people choose between. Both emphasize truthseeking, but have different standards for some flavor of politeness, how much effort critics are supposed to put in, Combat vs Nurture, etc. Authors pick a default setting but can change setting for individual posts.
Probably even the more-combaty-one has some kind of floor for basic politeness (you probably don’t want to be literal 4chan?) but not at a level you’d expect to come up very often on LessWrong.
There might be different moderators for each one.
Does that sound basically good to you?
I think the precious thing lost in the Nurture cluster is not Combat, but tolerance for or even encouragement of unapologetic and uncompromising dissent. This is straightforwardly good if it can be instantiated without regularly spawning infinite threads of back-and-forth arguing (unapologetic and uncompromising).
It should be convenient for people who don’t want to participate in that to opt out, and the details of this seem to be the most challenging issue.
Hmmm. I… do not think that this version of the thing is fine.
(I may write more later to elaborate on why I think that. Or maybe this isn’t the ideal place to do that? But I did want to answer your question here, at least.)
Nod. Since it somewhat informs the solution space I’m considering, I think I’ll go ahead and ask here what seem not-fine about it. (Or, maybe to resolve a thing I’m actually confused about, what seems different about this phrasing from what Caerulea said?)
You are taking punches like a true champ. :)
I do believe the piece that is missing is emotions, human weakness, vulnerability and compassion.
If that isn’t enough, it is time to bring out the megaphone and start screaming “Misanthropy!” in the streets.
I’ll join you, no worries. We can even wear matching WoW costumes.
NB: (I’m also blaming you for this comment, Said. Have you no shame?)