The relevant question is not whether adults should be able to handle them, but whether adults actually can. Specifically, whether serious discussions of (say) religion or sex or or party politics between adults are usually conducted in a manner that LW participants would recognize as rational. If ordinary adults outside LW are generally content to discuss these things and some people on LW are not, this may indicate not that the LWers in question are intellectually deficient but merely that their standards are higher.
Incidentally, I find your comments curious in view of your recent comment which appears to say, roughly, “I am only interested in discussions on LW that are directly related to rationality and am sad that other things occupy so much of LW”. … But I suppose I probably misunderstood you and what you meant was “Of the things LW actually discusses much, rationality is the only thing that I find interesting [but there are all kinds of other discussions I’d be interested in having here if other people were willing to have them]”.
Relative to the general population baseline, adults can and do handle those topics. More so in real life. A community that prides itself on better thinking and debating practices should produce above-average-quality discussions on these topics, rather than flee from them like they bring about the death of the community.
If ordinary adults outside LW are generally content to discuss these things and some people on LW are not, this may indicate not that the LWers in question are intellectually deficient but merely that their standards are higher.
This is the kind of view that’s highly prone to self-flattery and therefore rings my alarm bells. What I mean to say is not merely that they’re content to do so. It’s that they’re confident that these are harmless, and that they can withstand whatever disagreement they have. People don’t have strokes, marriages don’t break and civil wars don’t start just because people occasionally argue about the artistic merits of the most recent blockbuster. Most of the time in fact the effects are net positive—people get to know each other better and have an excuse for interacting. That’s what they signed up for in the first place.
what you meant was “Of the things LW actually discusses much, rationality is the only thing that I find interesting [but there are all kinds of other discussions I’d be interested in having here if other people were willing to have them]”.
Indeed. Also, rationality is closer to the stated purpose of the community than the rest, and that was the reason for me bringing up the question in the first place.
should produce above-average-quality discussions on these topics, rather than flee from them
“Above-average” is really not a very high bar to clear, and any discussion about which nothing more positive could be said than “it’s above average relative to the general population baseline” would be a sad thing indeed to see on LW.
That’s the kind of view that’s highly prone to self-flattery
No doubt. (Though, as it happens, I am perfectly happy to discuss many of the topics FrameBenignly listed, so suggesting that some people on LW might want to avoid them because “above average” doesn’t satisfy them doesn’t seem likely to be motivated by self-flattery.)
people get to know each other better and have an excuse for interacting. That’s what they signed up for in the first place.
That isn’t why I (or many people, I’d guess) signed up here. I don’t mean that there’s anything wrong with having conversations for those purposes; I do it too. But that isn’t what LW is for, and I hope it will stay that way.
“Above-average” is really not a very high bar to clear, and any discussion about which nothing more positive could be said than “it’s above average relative to the general population baseline” would be a sad thing indeed to see on LW.
It was clear in the context that I meant “however high above average that you’re willing to imagine”. I was describing a lower bound on the quality (i.e. I’m not expecting it to go to average and below), not an upper bound. Why even treat it as a comment on the upper bound?
That isn’t why I (or many people, I’d guess) signed up here. I don’t mean that there’s anything wrong with having conversations for those purposes; I do it too. But that isn’t what LW is for, and I hope it will stay that way.
That’s true. But I was referring to real life, because that’s where most such conversations take place.
The relevant question is not whether adults should be able to handle them, but whether adults actually can. Specifically, whether serious discussions of (say) religion or sex or or party politics between adults are usually conducted in a manner that LW participants would recognize as rational. If ordinary adults outside LW are generally content to discuss these things and some people on LW are not, this may indicate not that the LWers in question are intellectually deficient but merely that their standards are higher.
Incidentally, I find your comments curious in view of your recent comment which appears to say, roughly, “I am only interested in discussions on LW that are directly related to rationality and am sad that other things occupy so much of LW”. … But I suppose I probably misunderstood you and what you meant was “Of the things LW actually discusses much, rationality is the only thing that I find interesting [but there are all kinds of other discussions I’d be interested in having here if other people were willing to have them]”.
Relative to the general population baseline, adults can and do handle those topics. More so in real life. A community that prides itself on better thinking and debating practices should produce above-average-quality discussions on these topics, rather than flee from them like they bring about the death of the community.
This is the kind of view that’s highly prone to self-flattery and therefore rings my alarm bells. What I mean to say is not merely that they’re content to do so. It’s that they’re confident that these are harmless, and that they can withstand whatever disagreement they have. People don’t have strokes, marriages don’t break and civil wars don’t start just because people occasionally argue about the artistic merits of the most recent blockbuster. Most of the time in fact the effects are net positive—people get to know each other better and have an excuse for interacting. That’s what they signed up for in the first place.
Indeed. Also, rationality is closer to the stated purpose of the community than the rest, and that was the reason for me bringing up the question in the first place.
“Above-average” is really not a very high bar to clear, and any discussion about which nothing more positive could be said than “it’s above average relative to the general population baseline” would be a sad thing indeed to see on LW.
No doubt. (Though, as it happens, I am perfectly happy to discuss many of the topics FrameBenignly listed, so suggesting that some people on LW might want to avoid them because “above average” doesn’t satisfy them doesn’t seem likely to be motivated by self-flattery.)
That isn’t why I (or many people, I’d guess) signed up here. I don’t mean that there’s anything wrong with having conversations for those purposes; I do it too. But that isn’t what LW is for, and I hope it will stay that way.
It was clear in the context that I meant “however high above average that you’re willing to imagine”. I was describing a lower bound on the quality (i.e. I’m not expecting it to go to average and below), not an upper bound. Why even treat it as a comment on the upper bound?
That’s true. But I was referring to real life, because that’s where most such conversations take place.