The three Versions have been subject of greater attention than I expected, I suppose examples are fairly memorable and easy to point at. For clarity, their main purpose was not to exemplify norms, but merely to demonstrate the grammatical concept of “core message” vs “extra information” with positively- and negatively-valenced examples. This is why they were so over the top—I wanted it to be unmistakable to even the most “tone-deaf” reader that the imagined author was saying a lot more than the putative propositional object-level thesis.
By which I mean to say, none of the three Versions encapsulate the norms I currently estimate are best, and in my mind, the discussion hasn’t been about arguing for one over the others, e.g. 1 vs 2. Afterall, they’re not norms to be argued for (though they help in describing norms).
However, clarifying my position with reference to the three Versions:
Most of the time, on LW, I’d want communication to look like Version 3 where nobody’s putting anything much positive/negative in the side channels which isn’t also about the core message. Instead thoughts are stated clearly and plainly without decoration.
[I edited this one after reflection.] I think that the extremely politics-y Version 1 is not something I want to see much in my ideal world, and not much on my ideal LessWrong. It’s not something I’d push people to do. Not like that. That said, some topics are very fraught and I think it’s better to discuss them with clear honest signalling of intent that is as rich as Version 1 than not at all or in a way that is highly destructive.
I can read Version 1 as being said by someone very politics-y, but also by someone being very compassionate. I could see that approach being key to enable important and productive discussions that couldn’t happen otherwise, e.g. where political tensions are already tight.
I do think there is a “steel” Version 1 which is in commonly virtuous but probably supererogatory. It’s not something I think I’d want to enforce in any way, but I might encourage it. By this I mean something like it is virtuous for an individual to put some effort into appearing non-X when they don’t actually mean to be X, and being perceived as X is bad. X could be hostile/dismissive/demeaning/judgmental/threatening/etc..
I suspect even a much milder version of Version 1 would seem bad to many here. Going forward, I want to dig into what “steel Version 1” would look like and whether it’s in fact virtuous/even assuming it was, whether it’s good to encourage it. Plus when even full-blown Version 1 is actually a good idea too.
[Further edit] Admittedly, I also have a strong prior that it’s a mistake most of the time to be hostile/dismissive/demeaning/judgmental/threatening/etc. on LessWrong and would encourage people to update towards it probably not being right to relate that way to others.
I don’t think I can honestly accept mere explicit endorsements of a high-level opinion here, because as far as I can tell, such endorsements are often accompanied by behavior, or other endorsements, that seem (to me) to contradict them. I guess that’s why the examples have attracted so much attention—I have more of an expectation that they correspond to the intuitions people will make decisions with, and those are what I want to be arguing with.
Having written that, it occurs to me that I too could do a better job giving examples that illustrate the core considerations I’m trying to draw attention to, so I’ll make an effort to do that in the future.
The three Versions have been subject of greater attention than I expected, I suppose examples are fairly memorable and easy to point at. For clarity, their main purpose was not to exemplify norms, but merely to demonstrate the grammatical concept of “core message” vs “extra information” with positively- and negatively-valenced examples. This is why they were so over the top—I wanted it to be unmistakable to even the most “tone-deaf” reader that the imagined author was saying a lot more than the putative propositional object-level thesis.
By which I mean to say, none of the three Versions encapsulate the norms I currently estimate are best, and in my mind, the discussion hasn’t been about arguing for one over the others, e.g. 1 vs 2. Afterall, they’re not norms to be argued for (though they help in describing norms).
However, clarifying my position with reference to the three Versions:
Most of the time, on LW, I’d want communication to look like Version 3 where nobody’s putting anything much positive/negative in the side channels which isn’t also about the core message. Instead thoughts are stated clearly and plainly without decoration.
[I edited this one after reflection.] I think that the extremely politics-y Version 1 is not something I want to see much in my ideal world, and not much on my ideal LessWrong. It’s not something I’d push people to do. Not like that. That said, some topics are very fraught and I think it’s better to discuss them with clear honest signalling of intent that is as rich as Version 1 than not at all or in a way that is highly destructive.
I can read Version 1 as being said by someone very politics-y, but also by someone being very compassionate. I could see that approach being key to enable important and productive discussions that couldn’t happen otherwise, e.g. where political tensions are already tight.
I do think there is a “steel” Version 1 which is in commonly virtuous but probably supererogatory. It’s not something I think I’d want to enforce in any way, but I might encourage it. By this I mean something like it is virtuous for an individual to put some effort into appearing non-X when they don’t actually mean to be X, and being perceived as X is bad. X could be hostile/dismissive/demeaning/judgmental/threatening/etc..
I suspect even a much milder version of Version 1 would seem bad to many here. Going forward, I want to dig into what “steel Version 1” would look like and whether it’s in fact virtuous/even assuming it was, whether it’s good to encourage it. Plus when even full-blown Version 1 is actually a good idea too.
[Further edit] Admittedly, I also have a strong prior that it’s a mistake most of the time to be hostile/dismissive/demeaning/judgmental/threatening/etc. on LessWrong and would encourage people to update towards it probably not being right to relate that way to others.
I don’t think I can honestly accept mere explicit endorsements of a high-level opinion here, because as far as I can tell, such endorsements are often accompanied by behavior, or other endorsements, that seem (to me) to contradict them. I guess that’s why the examples have attracted so much attention—I have more of an expectation that they correspond to the intuitions people will make decisions with, and those are what I want to be arguing with.
Having written that, it occurs to me that I too could do a better job giving examples that illustrate the core considerations I’m trying to draw attention to, so I’ll make an effort to do that in the future.