A relatively simple in-the-meantime solution for this situation is to create a channel whereby people can offer up anonymous criticism to your idea, and then publicly make a big deal about a specific anonymous criticism that was really useful, so as to encourage people to use that channel. (You can even seed the mechanism by making that anonymous criticism yourself.)
Sure, that’s not as pervasively useful as changing the culture so that everyone acts as you prefer, but it’s more cost-effective.
I’m afraid I don’t understand this at all. You want me to encourage people to use an anonymous channel by publicly praising their anonymous advise? Why would any normal status-seeking individual want that kind of praise? Wouldn’t they prefer private praise for private advise, or better yet, public praise for public advise.
As for the question of individual action rather than changing the culture, you are the one advocating a change to the culture here on LW. (Your prescription makes no sense at all as advise to an LW person seeking to interact with the outside world.) So, you should be advising sensitive people on LW to post including a boilerplate notice that only private or anonymous criticism will be considered by this author, should they prefer to operate that way. And let the rest of us continue to operate in public.
You want me to encourage people to use an anonymous channel by publicly praising their anonymous advise? Why would any normal status-seeking individual want that kind of praise?
Because they are bugged. We do not correctly account for anonymity since it is a relatively new phenonemon. This is most obviously visible in voting habits. (Humans vote as if they are making declarations of support in a public arena.)
Humans vote as if they are making declarations of support in a public arena.
Interesting. Can you point me to an example of something surprising that’s predicted by this interpretation? I’m a little confused, though, because for many people they’re very public about how they voted anyway (it seems unlikely they’re lying), so it is effectively public, no?
There are some examples that suggest that at least people think that voting actions have aspects of that sort,. The campaign slogans in the 1948 Italian election seem potentially relevant, where one famous slogan was ” “In the secrecy of the polling booth, God sees you—Stalin doesn’t.” Evidence against people voting like they are in public is the Bradley effect, so called because in the US, more people would in some elections say they were going to vote for a minority candidate than actually did so. However, there’s some question if the Bradley effect was ever genuine and not just a function of noise in the polls. This is potentially connected to social desireabiility bias.
Can you point me to an example of something surprising that’s predicted by this interpretation?
No. This prompts a tangential observation: I can’t give any examples of anything surprising that’s predicted by any belief that is coherently integrated into my mental model (ie. believed and understood). Things that occur exactly how I expect them to occur tend not to be surprising.
What I can do is point to an intuition that you have which I share and additional consider to be a related insight into trends in human behaviour:
I’m a little confused, though, because for many people they’re very public about how they voted anyway (it seems unlikely they’re lying)
There is something about you that makes it seem to you that they are unlikely to be lying. In addition, there is something about most humans that means you are likely to be right. There is a clear distinct difference in the payoff structure for the anonymous action and the unrelated verbal signalling game but we both expect humans to behave in part as though there isn’t.
, so it is effectively public, no?
Wedrifid_2010 could perhaps have appended the following to the comment you quoted: “in fact, human status-seeking behavioural heuristics are so bad at accounting for anonymous ballots that it seems to some observers that anonymous ballots are effectively public”.
You want me to encourage people to use an anonymous channel by publicly praising their anonymous advise?
That would be even better, if they make praiseworthy anonymous advice. What I was actually suggesting, though, was encouraging people by publicly praising other people’s anonymous advice, which I’m guessing makes even less sense to you.
Why would any normal status-seeking individual want that kind of praise?
Theory aside, I do observe that many people seem to be motivated when their output is praised publicly, even when they aren’t identified as the author. I can take advantage of this even if I don’t understand why it happens.
Similarly, I observe that publicly praising an act often encourages others to mimic it.
Neither of those observations strike me as implausible: they identify the action as praiseworthy. Many people are motivated to do things their culture identifies as praiseworthy.
you are the one advocating a change to the culture here on LW.
I don’t think I am, actually… certainly not in this thread.
Here, I’m responding to JoshuaZ’s proposed “in the meantime” solution for a scenario that lionhearted introduced as “If you’re at a meeting and someone gives a presentation and asks if anyone has questions.”
If I’m advocating cultural changes to LW in some other thread, it might be helpful to point to it, so we both know what advocacy you’re referring to.
Your prescription makes no sense at all as advise to an LW person seeking to interact with the outside world.
In that case, of course, it’s a useless comment. Naturally, I thought it made sense in that context when I wrote it. (And I haven’t yet understood why it is senseless, actually.)
you should be advising sensitive people on LW to post including a boilerplate notice that only private or anonymous criticism will be considered by this author, should they prefer to operate that way.
The issue I was concerned with was not that people might be too sensitive to receive criticism. It was that in a culture where people won’t “bluntly tell” JoshuaZ there’s a problem, they might still be willing to anonymously do so, so setting up a channel that allows them to do so would be an “in-the-meantime solution” that gets him the feedback he wants without first altering the entire culture (his proposed “long-term solution”).
And let the rest of us continue to operate in public.
The rest of you hereby receive my official permission to operate in public.
Or did I miss your point?
I don’t know if you did or not. Nor am I especially motivated right now to work with you to figure it out. Perhaps my replies helped clarify things; perhaps not.
It seems I did miss your point. I was confused by the switch, from JoshuaZ’s “in the meantime” advice to the critic, to your advice directed to the potential target of criticism. And in particular I missed that the motivation was to allow the target to get the feedback he needs from an audience culture which is disinclined to provide negative feedback.
My apologies for misunderstanding. I didn’t try hard enough to find a sympathetic reading.
A relatively simple in-the-meantime solution for this situation is to create a channel whereby people can offer up anonymous criticism to your idea, and then publicly make a big deal about a specific anonymous criticism that was really useful, so as to encourage people to use that channel. (You can even seed the mechanism by making that anonymous criticism yourself.)
Sure, that’s not as pervasively useful as changing the culture so that everyone acts as you prefer, but it’s more cost-effective.
I’m afraid I don’t understand this at all. You want me to encourage people to use an anonymous channel by publicly praising their anonymous advise? Why would any normal status-seeking individual want that kind of praise? Wouldn’t they prefer private praise for private advise, or better yet, public praise for public advise.
As for the question of individual action rather than changing the culture, you are the one advocating a change to the culture here on LW. (Your prescription makes no sense at all as advise to an LW person seeking to interact with the outside world.) So, you should be advising sensitive people on LW to post including a boilerplate notice that only private or anonymous criticism will be considered by this author, should they prefer to operate that way. And let the rest of us continue to operate in public.
Or did I miss your point?
Because they are bugged. We do not correctly account for anonymity since it is a relatively new phenonemon. This is most obviously visible in voting habits. (Humans vote as if they are making declarations of support in a public arena.)
Interesting. Can you point me to an example of something surprising that’s predicted by this interpretation? I’m a little confused, though, because for many people they’re very public about how they voted anyway (it seems unlikely they’re lying), so it is effectively public, no?
There are some examples that suggest that at least people think that voting actions have aspects of that sort,. The campaign slogans in the 1948 Italian election seem potentially relevant, where one famous slogan was ” “In the secrecy of the polling booth, God sees you—Stalin doesn’t.” Evidence against people voting like they are in public is the Bradley effect, so called because in the US, more people would in some elections say they were going to vote for a minority candidate than actually did so. However, there’s some question if the Bradley effect was ever genuine and not just a function of noise in the polls. This is potentially connected to social desireabiility bias.
No. This prompts a tangential observation: I can’t give any examples of anything surprising that’s predicted by any belief that is coherently integrated into my mental model (ie. believed and understood). Things that occur exactly how I expect them to occur tend not to be surprising.
What I can do is point to an intuition that you have which I share and additional consider to be a related insight into trends in human behaviour:
There is something about you that makes it seem to you that they are unlikely to be lying. In addition, there is something about most humans that means you are likely to be right. There is a clear distinct difference in the payoff structure for the anonymous action and the unrelated verbal signalling game but we both expect humans to behave in part as though there isn’t.
Wedrifid_2010 could perhaps have appended the following to the comment you quoted: “in fact, human status-seeking behavioural heuristics are so bad at accounting for anonymous ballots that it seems to some observers that anonymous ballots are effectively public”.
That would be even better, if they make praiseworthy anonymous advice. What I was actually suggesting, though, was encouraging people by publicly praising other people’s anonymous advice, which I’m guessing makes even less sense to you.
Theory aside, I do observe that many people seem to be motivated when their output is praised publicly, even when they aren’t identified as the author. I can take advantage of this even if I don’t understand why it happens.
Similarly, I observe that publicly praising an act often encourages others to mimic it.
Neither of those observations strike me as implausible: they identify the action as praiseworthy. Many people are motivated to do things their culture identifies as praiseworthy.
I don’t think I am, actually… certainly not in this thread.
Here, I’m responding to JoshuaZ’s proposed “in the meantime” solution for a scenario that lionhearted introduced as “If you’re at a meeting and someone gives a presentation and asks if anyone has questions.”
If I’m advocating cultural changes to LW in some other thread, it might be helpful to point to it, so we both know what advocacy you’re referring to.
In that case, of course, it’s a useless comment. Naturally, I thought it made sense in that context when I wrote it. (And I haven’t yet understood why it is senseless, actually.)
The issue I was concerned with was not that people might be too sensitive to receive criticism. It was that in a culture where people won’t “bluntly tell” JoshuaZ there’s a problem, they might still be willing to anonymously do so, so setting up a channel that allows them to do so would be an “in-the-meantime solution” that gets him the feedback he wants without first altering the entire culture (his proposed “long-term solution”).
The rest of you hereby receive my official permission to operate in public.
I don’t know if you did or not. Nor am I especially motivated right now to work with you to figure it out. Perhaps my replies helped clarify things; perhaps not.
It seems I did miss your point. I was confused by the switch, from JoshuaZ’s “in the meantime” advice to the critic, to your advice directed to the potential target of criticism. And in particular I missed that the motivation was to allow the target to get the feedback he needs from an audience culture which is disinclined to provide negative feedback.
My apologies for misunderstanding. I didn’t try hard enough to find a sympathetic reading.
Apology accepted; thanks. I’m glad we could clear that up.