After pondering the adefinitemaybe case for a bit, I can’t shake the feeling that we really screwed this one up in a systematic way, that Less Wrong’s structure might be turning potential contributors off (or turning them into trolls). I have a few ideas for fixes, and I’ll post them as replies to this comment.
Essentially, what it looks like to me is that adefmay checked out a few recent articles, was intrigued, and posted something they thought clever and provocative (as well as true). Now, there were two problems with adefmay’s comment: first, they had an idea of the meaning of “evidence” that rules out almost everything short of a mathematical proof, and secondly, the comment looked like something that a troll could have written in bad faith.
But what happened next is crucial, it seems to me. A bunch of us downvoted the comment or (including me) wrote replies that look pretty dismissive and brusque. Thus adefmay immediately felt attacked from all sides, with nobody forming a substantive and calm reply (at best, we sent links to pages whose relevance was clear to us but not to adefmay). Is it any wonder that they weren’t willing to reconsider their definition of evidence, and that they started relishing their assigned role?
It might be too late now to salvage this particular situation, but the general problem needs to be addressed. When somebody with rationalist potential first signs up for an account, I think the chances of this situation recurring are way too high if they just jump right into a current thread as seems natural, because we seem like people who talk in special jargon and dismiss the obvious counterarguments for obscure reasons. It’s not clear from the outset that there are good reasons for the things we take for granted, or that we’re answering in shorthand because the Big Idea the new person just presented is fully answered within an old argument we’ve had.
I can’t help but think that some people might have hesitated to downvote adefmay’s first comment, or might have replied at greater length with a more positive tone, had it been obvious that this was in fact adefmay’s first post. (I did realize this, but replied in a comically insulting fashion anyhow. Mea culpa.)
It might be helpful if there were some visible sign that, for instance, this was among the 20 first comments from an account.
When it became clear that adefmay couldn’t role with the punches there were quite a few sensitive comments with good advice and explanations for why he/she had been sent links. His/her response to those was basically to get rude, indignant and come up with as many counter-arguments as possible while not once trying to understand someone else’s position or consider the possibility he/she was mistaken about something.
I don’t know if adefmay was intentionally trolling but he/she was certainly deficient in rationalist virtue.
That said, I think we need to handle newcomers better anyway and an FAQ section is really important. I’d help with it.
It seems plausible that things could have turned out much differently, but that the initial response did irreparable damage to the conversation. Perhaps putting adefmay on the defensive so soon made it implicitly about status and not losing face. Or perhaps the exchange fell into a pattern where acting the troll started to feel too good.
Overall, I didn’t find adefmay’s tone and obstinacy at the start to be worse than some comments (elsewhere) by people who I consider valuable members of Less Wrong.
There have been several newcomers in the last few days—maybe the mention in the Guardian drew them here.
Besides telling them what we’re all about, a standing invitation for newcomers to introduce themselves might be useful, but there isn’t a place for them to do so. How about another standard monthly thread?
I just noticed that I showed up around the same time as the Guardian Mention as well… However, I have been lurking (without registering) for two years now. I met Eliezer Yudowski at the First Singularity Summit, and became aware of OB as a result, and then became aware of this blog shortly after he split from OB.
However, I would like to say that a newcomers section in a FAQ or Wiki would have been most welcome.
I do have a little bit of a clue what I am doing here as well, as I have spent a lot of time on forums such as Richard Dawkins’ and Sam Harris’ and decided that I wanted to find some people who were a) more into AI and rational reasoning and b) closer to home.
I would second the suggestion for an introductory thread. And, some better guidelines for posting (what is likely to get downvoted, what is likely to get upvoted… although, from my vote count, I seem to have some clue of what works and what doesn’t.. Still, I could use a few more definitive guidelines that just not making stupid posts—or trollish posts).
I may be giving adefmay the benefit of the doubt due to an overactive conscience; I go back and forth on this particular case. Still, it seems to me that being new here can involve a lot of early perceived hostility (people who’ve joined the community more recently, feel free to support or correct this claim), that we may well be losing LW contributors for this reason, and that some relatively easy fixes might do a lot of good.
Seeing as I missed that whole thing, and I am interested in how to best define evidence (I need such a definition for other forums, probably more than I would need it here)… Could someone post those same links about the definition (or, I see the word “Meaning” used… Why is that???) of Evidence?
We put together a special forum (subset of threads and posts) for a number of old argument topics, and make sure that it is readily accessible from the main page, or especially salient for new people. We have a norm there to (as much as possible) write out our points from scratch instead of using shorthand and links as we do in discussions between LW veterans.
Benefits:
It’s much less of a status threat to be told that one’s comment belongs in another thread than to have it dismissed as happened to adefmay.
Most of the trouble seems to happen when new people jump into a current thread and derail a conversation between LW veterans, who react brusquely as above. Separating the newest/most advanced conversations from the old objections should make everyone happier.
I find that the people who have been on LW for a few months have just the right kind of zeal for these newfound ideas that makes them eager and able to defend them against the newest people, who find them absurd. I think this would be a good thing for both groups of people, and I expect it to happen naturally should such a place be created.
So if we made some collection of “FAQ threads” and made a big, obvious, enticing link to them on either the front page or the account creation page (that is, we give them a list of counterintuitive things we believe or interesting questions we’ve tackled, in the hopes they head there first), we might avoid more of these unfortunate calamities in the future.
I’m not sure there needs to be more than one FAQ thread. But lets start by generating a list of frequently asked questions, coming up with answers with consensus support.
Why is almost everyone here an atheist?
What are the “points” on each comment?
Aren’t knowledge and truth subjective or undefinable?
Can you ever really prove anything?
What’s all this talk about probabilities and what is a Bayesian?
Why do you all agree on so much? Am I joining a cult?
What are the moderation rules? What kind of comments will result in downvotes and what kind of comments could result in a ban?
Who are you people? (Demographics, and a statement to the effect of demographics don’t matter here. )
Basically, I think we need to do more for newcomers than just tell them to read a sequence; I mean, I think each of us had to actually argue out points we thought were obvious before we moved forward on these issues. Having a continuous open thread on such topics (including, of course, links to the relevant posts or Wiki entry) would be much better, IMO.
A monthly “Old Topics” thread, or a collection of them on various topics, would be great, although there ought to be a really obvious link directing people to it.
While I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a place to discuss those topics I think the first thing a newcomer sees should focus on epistemology, rationality and community norms of rationality.
1) This is still presumably what this site is about.
2) Once you get the right attitude and the right approach the other subjects don’t require patient explanation. A place to discuss those things is fine, but if the issue comes up elsewhere and a veteran does respond brusquely to a newcomer they can probably deal with it if they have internalized less wrong norms, traditional rationality and some of the Bayesian type stuff we do here.
3) There seems to be near universal agreement on the rationality stuff but I’m not sure that is the case with the other issues. I know I agree with the typical LW position on the first four of your questions, but I disagree on the last two. I suspect most people here don’t think cryonics will probably work (just that it working is likely enough to justify the cost). There are probably some determinists mixed in with a lot of compatibilists and there are definitely dissenters on theory of the mind stuff (I’m thinking of Michael Porter who otherwise appears to be a totally reasonable less wrong member). Check the survey results for more evidence of dissent. That there is still disagreement on these issues that is reason to keep discussing them. But I don’t know if we should present the majority views on all these issues as resolved to new users.
But I might just be privileging my own minority views. If the community wants these included I won’t object.
Good points, but I still think that these questions belong in some kind of “Old Topics” thread, because there’s already been a lot said about them, and because most new people will want to argue them anyway. Even if they’re not considered to be settled or to be conditions that define LW, I’d prefer if there’s a place for new people to start discussing them other than 2-year-old threads or tangential references in new posts.
After pondering the adefinitemaybe case for a bit, I can’t shake the feeling that we really screwed this one up in a systematic way, that Less Wrong’s structure might be turning potential contributors off (or turning them into trolls). I have a few ideas for fixes, and I’ll post them as replies to this comment.
Essentially, what it looks like to me is that adefmay checked out a few recent articles, was intrigued, and posted something they thought clever and provocative (as well as true). Now, there were two problems with adefmay’s comment: first, they had an idea of the meaning of “evidence” that rules out almost everything short of a mathematical proof, and secondly, the comment looked like something that a troll could have written in bad faith.
But what happened next is crucial, it seems to me. A bunch of us downvoted the comment or (including me) wrote replies that look pretty dismissive and brusque. Thus adefmay immediately felt attacked from all sides, with nobody forming a substantive and calm reply (at best, we sent links to pages whose relevance was clear to us but not to adefmay). Is it any wonder that they weren’t willing to reconsider their definition of evidence, and that they started relishing their assigned role?
It might be too late now to salvage this particular situation, but the general problem needs to be addressed. When somebody with rationalist potential first signs up for an account, I think the chances of this situation recurring are way too high if they just jump right into a current thread as seems natural, because we seem like people who talk in special jargon and dismiss the obvious counterarguments for obscure reasons. It’s not clear from the outset that there are good reasons for the things we take for granted, or that we’re answering in shorthand because the Big Idea the new person just presented is fully answered within an old argument we’ve had.
Partial Fix #2:
I can’t help but think that some people might have hesitated to downvote adefmay’s first comment, or might have replied at greater length with a more positive tone, had it been obvious that this was in fact adefmay’s first post. (I did realize this, but replied in a comically insulting fashion anyhow. Mea culpa.)
It might be helpful if there were some visible sign that, for instance, this was among the 20 first comments from an account.
When it became clear that adefmay couldn’t role with the punches there were quite a few sensitive comments with good advice and explanations for why he/she had been sent links. His/her response to those was basically to get rude, indignant and come up with as many counter-arguments as possible while not once trying to understand someone else’s position or consider the possibility he/she was mistaken about something.
I don’t know if adefmay was intentionally trolling but he/she was certainly deficient in rationalist virtue.
That said, I think we need to handle newcomers better anyway and an FAQ section is really important. I’d help with it.
It seems plausible that things could have turned out much differently, but that the initial response did irreparable damage to the conversation. Perhaps putting adefmay on the defensive so soon made it implicitly about status and not losing face. Or perhaps the exchange fell into a pattern where acting the troll started to feel too good.
Overall, I didn’t find adefmay’s tone and obstinacy at the start to be worse than some comments (elsewhere) by people who I consider valuable members of Less Wrong.
There have been several newcomers in the last few days—maybe the mention in the Guardian drew them here.
Besides telling them what we’re all about, a standing invitation for newcomers to introduce themselves might be useful, but there isn’t a place for them to do so. How about another standard monthly thread?
We don’t have personal profile pages here, do we?
There is this thread. But it needs to be linked to from some kind of faq page because right now it is too hidden from new users to be helpful.
I just noticed that I showed up around the same time as the Guardian Mention as well… However, I have been lurking (without registering) for two years now. I met Eliezer Yudowski at the First Singularity Summit, and became aware of OB as a result, and then became aware of this blog shortly after he split from OB.
However, I would like to say that a newcomers section in a FAQ or Wiki would have been most welcome.
I do have a little bit of a clue what I am doing here as well, as I have spent a lot of time on forums such as Richard Dawkins’ and Sam Harris’ and decided that I wanted to find some people who were a) more into AI and rational reasoning and b) closer to home.
I would second the suggestion for an introductory thread. And, some better guidelines for posting (what is likely to get downvoted, what is likely to get upvoted… although, from my vote count, I seem to have some clue of what works and what doesn’t.. Still, I could use a few more definitive guidelines that just not making stupid posts—or trollish posts).
I’d have to say that the trollness seems obvious as all hell to me. Also, consider the prior probabilities.
I may be giving adefmay the benefit of the doubt due to an overactive conscience; I go back and forth on this particular case. Still, it seems to me that being new here can involve a lot of early perceived hostility (people who’ve joined the community more recently, feel free to support or correct this claim), that we may well be losing LW contributors for this reason, and that some relatively easy fixes might do a lot of good.
Me too. Obvious from his second comment on, even. (Or, if not a troll, not going to become a valued contributor without some growing up.)
Seeing as I missed that whole thing, and I am interested in how to best define evidence (I need such a definition for other forums, probably more than I would need it here)… Could someone post those same links about the definition (or, I see the word “Meaning” used… Why is that???) of Evidence?
Never mind… It’s in the Wiki...
from the wiki
Partial Fix #1:
We put together a special forum (subset of threads and posts) for a number of old argument topics, and make sure that it is readily accessible from the main page, or especially salient for new people. We have a norm there to (as much as possible) write out our points from scratch instead of using shorthand and links as we do in discussions between LW veterans.
Benefits:
It’s much less of a status threat to be told that one’s comment belongs in another thread than to have it dismissed as happened to adefmay.
Most of the trouble seems to happen when new people jump into a current thread and derail a conversation between LW veterans, who react brusquely as above. Separating the newest/most advanced conversations from the old objections should make everyone happier.
I find that the people who have been on LW for a few months have just the right kind of zeal for these newfound ideas that makes them eager and able to defend them against the newest people, who find them absurd. I think this would be a good thing for both groups of people, and I expect it to happen naturally should such a place be created.
So if we made some collection of “FAQ threads” and made a big, obvious, enticing link to them on either the front page or the account creation page (that is, we give them a list of counterintuitive things we believe or interesting questions we’ve tackled, in the hopes they head there first), we might avoid more of these unfortunate calamities in the future.
I’m not sure there needs to be more than one FAQ thread. But lets start by generating a list of frequently asked questions, coming up with answers with consensus support.
Why is almost everyone here an atheist?
What are the “points” on each comment?
Aren’t knowledge and truth subjective or undefinable?
Can you ever really prove anything?
What’s all this talk about probabilities and what is a Bayesian?
Why do you all agree on so much? Am I joining a cult?
What are the moderation rules? What kind of comments will result in downvotes and what kind of comments could result in a ban?
Who are you people? (Demographics, and a statement to the effect of demographics don’t matter here. )
What else? Anyone have drafts of answers?
More FAQ topics:
Why the MWI?
Why do you all think cryonics will probably work?
Why a computational theory of mind?
What about free will and consciousness?
What do you mean by “morality”, anyway?
Wait a sec. Torture over dust specks?!?
Basically, I think we need to do more for newcomers than just tell them to read a sequence; I mean, I think each of us had to actually argue out points we thought were obvious before we moved forward on these issues. Having a continuous open thread on such topics (including, of course, links to the relevant posts or Wiki entry) would be much better, IMO.
A monthly “Old Topics” thread, or a collection of them on various topics, would be great, although there ought to be a really obvious link directing people to it.
While I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a place to discuss those topics I think the first thing a newcomer sees should focus on epistemology, rationality and community norms of rationality.
1) This is still presumably what this site is about.
2) Once you get the right attitude and the right approach the other subjects don’t require patient explanation. A place to discuss those things is fine, but if the issue comes up elsewhere and a veteran does respond brusquely to a newcomer they can probably deal with it if they have internalized less wrong norms, traditional rationality and some of the Bayesian type stuff we do here.
3) There seems to be near universal agreement on the rationality stuff but I’m not sure that is the case with the other issues. I know I agree with the typical LW position on the first four of your questions, but I disagree on the last two. I suspect most people here don’t think cryonics will probably work (just that it working is likely enough to justify the cost). There are probably some determinists mixed in with a lot of compatibilists and there are definitely dissenters on theory of the mind stuff (I’m thinking of Michael Porter who otherwise appears to be a totally reasonable less wrong member). Check the survey results for more evidence of dissent. That there is still disagreement on these issues that is reason to keep discussing them. But I don’t know if we should present the majority views on all these issues as resolved to new users.
But I might just be privileging my own minority views. If the community wants these included I won’t object.
Good points, but I still think that these questions belong in some kind of “Old Topics” thread, because there’s already been a lot said about them, and because most new people will want to argue them anyway. Even if they’re not considered to be settled or to be conditions that define LW, I’d prefer if there’s a place for new people to start discussing them other than 2-year-old threads or tangential references in new posts.