This is partly why I’ve shifted in my posts on scholarship to just building on my own thoughts over a long time. Having a readership, even if shallow, is motivating. I do occasionally get useful comments, sometimes via PM. I think reaching out to others for zoom or other back and forth goes a long way to establishing the trust needed to generate even a 45 minute conversation.
With commenting, I feel at each stage a concern that I won’t be responded to. I imagine others feel the same way. And this frequently turns out to be the case! Many times I’ve taken a fair bit of time writing up comments for posts where comments were explicitly solicited, only to have them ignored.
Other times, as on SSC/AC10, I notice that the OP has a pattern of posting no more than one reply per comment. So this causes me to develop an even stronger prior for them specifically about the depth to expect. And if they’re clearly not interested enough in what I have to say to read my reply, why should I think they care enough about me to have invested much thought into their comment in the first place?
I do think this is an important and solvable problem. I think part of the problem is lack of credibility and incentives to carry on long running conversation, and Quirrel is right that academia selects for and promotes those traits.
Nevertheless, there’s a real need for capacity to establish such conversations online. Partly because there’s a need for people to be able to have sustained discussions on topics outside their specialty. Partly as a hedge on academia’s incentives. So naive, annoying, or idealistic, it’s worth considering whether this is important and tractable enough to execute.
One problem, I think, is that synthesizing such conversation probably demands a LOT of upfront time and energy with a very low chance of any financial or status reward coming from it. You have to scour the internet for particular debate partners on your mutual topic of interest, invest lots of time trying again and again to start and sustain conversation, and pay for the privilege with your limited time and no promise of any recognition or reward in the end. Not even an academic paper!
Few are willing to pay that cost for so little reward.
Aside from shifting toward PMs and zoom calls (which I do recommend), I think the other solution you suggest is good. Probably it’s not necessary to be heavy handed with Beeminder and such. Just post a comment saying something like “I’m interested in spending at least X hours, with an option for more, having a longer conversation with you on this. Let me know if interested.” Accompanying this with a substantial object level comment would make it more credible.
This is partly why I’ve shifted in my posts on scholarship to just building on my own thoughts over a long time.
Hm, previously I had been assuming that this wouldn’t work because readership isn’t necessarily consistent, and because even if you do get the same readers they’d have lost the context of the previous posts. But in thinking about it now, I’m shifting a small-moderate amount away from this belief.
I think reaching out to others for zoom or other back and forth goes a long way to establishing the trust needed to generate even a 45 minute conversation.
My model is different here. I don’t get the sense that trust/personal connection is something people particularly look for as a prerequisite to having a long running conversation.
With commenting, I feel at each stage a concern that I won’t be responded to.
Thanks for contributing a data point here.
Other times, as on SSC/AC10, I notice that the OP has a pattern of posting no more than one reply per comment. So this causes me to develop an even stronger prior for them specifically about the depth to expect.
I’ve noticed this too and very much agree.
Probably it’s not necessary to be heavy handed with Beeminder and such.
I agree, but don’t feel strongly enough to think that these things aren’t worth experimenting with (the bar for experimenting is a lot lower).
In particular, my model is that heavy handed incentives would be more important for the other party. Eg. if Alice knows that there are people who pledged real money, she’ll feel more confident that they will keep their word and participate at a high level. On the other hand, if Alice only has a measly promise from the other people, she may think, “Meh, who knows whether they’ll really keep their word.”
Just post a comment saying something like “I’m interested in spending at least X hours, with an option for more, having a longer conversation with you on this. Let me know if interested.”
Hey, that’s a great MVP! I’ll try it for this post! (Done)
This is partly why I’ve shifted in my posts on scholarship to just building on my own thoughts over a long time.
[...]
Hm, previously I had been assuming that this wouldn’t work because readership isn’t necessarily consistent, and because even if you do get the same readers they’d have lost the context of the previous posts.
Oh, to be clear, this is a response to having to some extent given up on hoping for deep conversations from readership. Instead, I just try to structure my research such that I have a feeling of responding to and building on my own line of thinking, rather than just ping-ponging off other people’s thoughts. However, I do hold out hope that if my writings truly bear fruit, that having a demonstrated track record of thought behind them will somehow be helpful.
Also, sometimes you’re really just writing for a couple of other people who are seriously interested in your work. I’ve received some behind-the-scenes real attention in the EA sphere from my “true fans,” even though that wouldn’t show up in the comments.
I don’t get the sense that trust/personal connection is something people particularly look for as a prerequisite to having a long running conversation.
I view trust/personal connection as means to generate a credible expression of interest in further dialog and ability to deliver insight. The latter, not the former, is what’s necessary to provoke extended conversations. Trust/personal connection is a good motivator for the latter. So is professional interest. The big question is whether or not we can generate that sort of credibility in a cheaper way. Being concerned that the answer is “no,” I suggest leaning on the methods we do know work. But I could be wrong, and it’s certainly worth trying!
I agree, but don’t feel strongly enough to think that these things aren’t worth experimenting with (the bar for experimenting is a lot lower).
Yep, agreed. Just pointing toward the MVP as a starting point, as you describe. Worth trying the lightest-weight and most convenient options and seeing what you can milk out of them first.
I can pledge to continue responding indefinitely, but I can’t promise specific dates by which I’ll respond. If I come to a point where I notice myself feeling unlikely to continue the discussion, I also pledge to state that explicitly. If you haven’t heard from me in a while, I’m open to you asking me if I’m still interested in discussing.
Oh, to be clear, this is a response to having to some extent given up on hoping for deep conversations from readership. Instead, I just try to structure my research such that I have a feeling of responding to and building on my own line of thinking, rather than just ping-ponging off other people’s thoughts.
Ah, I see. I do see the value in this and might give it a shot myself.
It also makes me think about an idea I’ve always had: Blog Buddies. Alice is a blogger who is interested in having a lot of discussion and constructive criticism on her posts. So is Bob. And Carol. And Dave. They can all get together, form a group, and read + critique each others posts. Seems like it scratches an itch. I’ve thought about it as a startup idea, but I could see it making sense more narrowly on LessWrong.
Also, sometimes you’re really just writing for a couple of other people who are seriously interested in your work. I’ve received some behind-the-scenes real attention in the EA sphere from my “true fans,” even though that wouldn’t show up in the comments.
Yeah that makes sense. I’ve had some similar behind the scenes attention happen before. This makes me think of something Paul Graham says. That it’s better to have a small amount of users who really love you than to have a large amount of users kinda like you. He’s referring to startups, but perhaps it applies to writing as well.
I view trust/personal connection as means to generate a credible expression of interest in further dialog and ability to deliver insight. The latter, not the former, is what’s necessary to provoke extended conversations. Trust/personal connection is a good motivator for the latter. So is professional interest. The big question is whether or not we can generate that sort of credibility in a cheaper way. Being concerned that the answer is “no,” I suggest leaning on the methods we do know work. But I could be wrong, and it’s certainly worth trying!
I’m having trouble understanding what you mean here. Would you mind explaining this differently?
Worth trying the lightest-weight and most convenient options and seeing what you can milk out of them first.
Yeah. I was going to link to a Beeminder goal for the pledge I made on this post, but I agree with you and didn’t want to start off with such a heavy handed convention.
I can pledge to continue responding indefinitely, but I can’t promise specific dates by which I’ll respond. If I come to a point where I notice myself feeling unlikely to continue the discussion, I also pledge to state that explicitly. If you haven’t heard from me in a while, I’m open to you asking me if I’m still interested in discussing.
It also makes me think about an idea I’ve always had: Blog Buddies. Alice is a blogger who is interested in having a lot of discussion and constructive criticism on her posts. So is Bob. And Carol. And Dave. They can all get together, form a group, and read + critique each others posts. Seems like it scratches an itch. I’ve thought about it as a startup idea, but I could see it making sense more narrowly on LessWrong.
Yeah, this sounds like a book club, except where the participants are also the authors. I’ll bet that there are some groups of authors who do this already. Seems totally do-able. And I actually think that posts like this are exactly how you get this done.
This is part of why I’ve been posting a lot of questions lately—my stab at catalyzing conversation that people feel open to participating in. They’ve gotten a decent number of comments relative to the LW baseline. This feels like a solvable problem, though it probably has a few interlinked challenges (the intimidation factor, status concerns, building an expectation of continued discussion, and probably others too).
The fact is that we see a lot more idea posts than metaconversation posts on LW. By contrast, in my closest relationships, a huge proportion of the conversation is metaconversational. It’s about exploring the nuances of relationships and conversation challenges. Those conversations genuinely lead to baseline improvements and real progress. So it might be that we’re just straight-up neglecting something tractable that’s critical for generative conversation on LW to thrive.
What metaconversations have you experienced in your closest relationships and/or elsewhere that you think LessWrong would benefit from discussing?
How do you turn the metaconversations into actionable, implemented, and solved advice? Rather than such conversations well...becoming very navel gazing and meta circle jerk-y?
I imagine it’s much easier making such conversations bear fruit and pay rent in the context of close personal relationships because there should be a more visceral “this isn’t working” type of feeling fairly immediately, yes? Whereas in an online, usually loosely connected social environment I imagine the visceral and immediate feelings of “this doesn’t work” probably don’t arise as much, or at least not quickly. This is me speculating, what do you think?
I’ll second the “posting lots of questions” being more catalyzing and accessible feeling than regular posts. I still don’t comment too much nor write as much as I’d like, but whenever I see someone post a question post that seems to generate more discussion with people who’s names I don’t recognize than other types of posts. And seem more accessible.
Anecdote: I comment way more on metaconversation and community norms / culture types of posts than I do ideas focused and other kinds of posts. Not 100% certain why, might have to do with issues concerning people, group and community norms, culture, etc. feeling more accessible and interesting to me whereas pure ideas just...eh are less interesting to me usually. I like people a lot and seem to get more interested in something based on the impact that thing has on people. Probably is why I find X risks, AI Safety, and other such things to be very important and good and have read a good bit about such things, but whenever I try to dig into the weeds of the ideas and grok the technical idea aspects of those things...well that’s a lot less interesting to me. Anyway, this was an aside. Helpful to me though.
Adam Zerner’s recent question is a good example of a “this isn’t working” followed by analysis of the causes. Emotion is often a motivator for meta conversation in offline relationships. In online settings like LW, we might tend to start by imagining what sort of interactions we think are possible and missing, and then inferring the reason for their absence and experimenting with solutions.
Keeping those analyses general and succinct seems like the right way to go. I wouldn’t want to have a public discussion about my feelings about a specific other blogger. But trying to find explanations for general behavior online seems like world modeling, not navel gazing.
I agree re Adam’s question being a good example of the case, and not at all navel gazing.
My worry about navel gazing is motivated by some personal baggage, anxiety about what’s worth spending time on, and some anecdotal experiences where it seemed like metaconversations were not effective in doing anything and took a ton of time and energy, then nothing happened from them. Focusing on ”...trying to find explanations for general behavior online...” definitely is helpful world modeling that can provide useful insights and instigate changes in behavior in response to those insights.
I like how you only used the word meta conversation in your comment a single time and tabooed it otherwise, instead offering more specific and actionable commentary / insights about the issues of online discussions and how to align those with what people want out of the site + discussions.
Taking an Oath of Reply like you wrote is a good idea, and I’ll start doing that for my own posts or on discussions / comment threads too.
“In online settings like LW, we might tend to start by imagining what sort of interactions we think are possible and missing, and then inferring the reason for their absence and experimenting with solutions.”
This would make a really good question, if it hasn’t already been asked recently I’ll go make that post and reference this discussion, post, and other relevant things.
Yeah, this sounds like a book club, except where the participants are also the authors.
I like that analogy.
This is part of why I’ve been posting a lot of questions lately—my stab at catalyzing conversation that people feel open to participating in.
Yeah I like that idea.
The fact is that we see a lot more idea posts than metaconversation posts on LW. By contrast, in my closest relationships, a huge proportion of the conversation is metaconversational. It’s about exploring the nuances of relationships and conversation challenges. Those conversations genuinely lead to baseline improvements and real progress. So it might be that we’re just straight-up neglecting something tractable that’s critical for generative conversation on LW to thrive.
Huh, interesting. Drawing that connection to your social life makes it feel intuitive to me that we should be doing a lot more of it on LessWrong. Seems like a good topic for a follow up post.
By contrast, in my closest relationships, a huge proportion of the conversation is metaconversational.
Just curious, but if you don’t mind sharing, to what extent is this an exaggeration?
Not the clearest language, sorry. Slightly more specifically, I mean that a lot of the conversation is either about our own conversations, conversational dynamics generally, or conversation dynamics between ourselves and family/friends or between people we know and others.
I don’t have a confident number to put on it. Between 10-50% perhaps? Which feels huge to me.
I’m having trouble understanding what you mean here. Would you mind explaining this differently?
You’re right, that was convoluted :)
Having a prior that your conversation partner will reply motivates commenting. When both partners have that prior, they’ll continue their conversation, as we’re doing here. Figuring out how to generate that prior in both parties is the important part. So how do we generate that prior?
One way is trust/personal connection. If you’re having a conversation with a friend, you can usually expect they’ll respond when you bring up a new topic.
Another is professional interest in the topic. If you’re an academic and bring up a topic among colleagues at a conference, you can often expect at least some response.
However, these are just means to an end. The end being that prior expectation of receiving a response. There may be other means to that end that are cheaper and easier, like your pledge for ongoing discussion, or using Beeminder.
One way is trust/personal connection. If you’re having a conversation with a friend, you can usually expect they’ll respond when you bring up a new topic.
I actually don’t get a strong sense that this is true. The handful of people on LessWrong who I’m friends with, I expected that they’re slightly more likely to respond to my posts, but not by too much. I expect it to be mostly about whether they are interested in the post and have something to say.
Ah, what I mean is that if you specifically ask a person to discuss a topic, or bring it up clearly showing you want to discuss it with them, they’re likely to take you up on it in an organic conversation. Also, if you specifically ask a friend to give you feedback on a piece of writing, making it clear it would mean a lot to you, I wouldn’t be surprised if they do. Most people I know seem happy to help.
But yeah, just sending a friend a link to a post isn’t going to increase the response rate too much.
This is partly why I’ve shifted in my posts on scholarship to just building on my own thoughts over a long time. Having a readership, even if shallow, is motivating. I do occasionally get useful comments, sometimes via PM. I think reaching out to others for zoom or other back and forth goes a long way to establishing the trust needed to generate even a 45 minute conversation.
With commenting, I feel at each stage a concern that I won’t be responded to. I imagine others feel the same way. And this frequently turns out to be the case! Many times I’ve taken a fair bit of time writing up comments for posts where comments were explicitly solicited, only to have them ignored.
Other times, as on SSC/AC10, I notice that the OP has a pattern of posting no more than one reply per comment. So this causes me to develop an even stronger prior for them specifically about the depth to expect. And if they’re clearly not interested enough in what I have to say to read my reply, why should I think they care enough about me to have invested much thought into their comment in the first place?
I do think this is an important and solvable problem. I think part of the problem is lack of credibility and incentives to carry on long running conversation, and Quirrel is right that academia selects for and promotes those traits.
Nevertheless, there’s a real need for capacity to establish such conversations online. Partly because there’s a need for people to be able to have sustained discussions on topics outside their specialty. Partly as a hedge on academia’s incentives. So naive, annoying, or idealistic, it’s worth considering whether this is important and tractable enough to execute.
One problem, I think, is that synthesizing such conversation probably demands a LOT of upfront time and energy with a very low chance of any financial or status reward coming from it. You have to scour the internet for particular debate partners on your mutual topic of interest, invest lots of time trying again and again to start and sustain conversation, and pay for the privilege with your limited time and no promise of any recognition or reward in the end. Not even an academic paper!
Few are willing to pay that cost for so little reward.
Aside from shifting toward PMs and zoom calls (which I do recommend), I think the other solution you suggest is good. Probably it’s not necessary to be heavy handed with Beeminder and such. Just post a comment saying something like “I’m interested in spending at least X hours, with an option for more, having a longer conversation with you on this. Let me know if interested.” Accompanying this with a substantial object level comment would make it more credible.
Hm, previously I had been assuming that this wouldn’t work because readership isn’t necessarily consistent, and because even if you do get the same readers they’d have lost the context of the previous posts. But in thinking about it now, I’m shifting a small-moderate amount away from this belief.
My model is different here. I don’t get the sense that trust/personal connection is something people particularly look for as a prerequisite to having a long running conversation.
Thanks for contributing a data point here.
I’ve noticed this too and very much agree.
I agree, but don’t feel strongly enough to think that these things aren’t worth experimenting with (the bar for experimenting is a lot lower).
In particular, my model is that heavy handed incentives would be more important for the other party. Eg. if Alice knows that there are people who pledged real money, she’ll feel more confident that they will keep their word and participate at a high level. On the other hand, if Alice only has a measly promise from the other people, she may think, “Meh, who knows whether they’ll really keep their word.”
Hey, that’s a great MVP! I’ll try it for this post! (Done)
Oh, to be clear, this is a response to having to some extent given up on hoping for deep conversations from readership. Instead, I just try to structure my research such that I have a feeling of responding to and building on my own line of thinking, rather than just ping-ponging off other people’s thoughts. However, I do hold out hope that if my writings truly bear fruit, that having a demonstrated track record of thought behind them will somehow be helpful.
Also, sometimes you’re really just writing for a couple of other people who are seriously interested in your work. I’ve received some behind-the-scenes real attention in the EA sphere from my “true fans,” even though that wouldn’t show up in the comments.
I view trust/personal connection as means to generate a credible expression of interest in further dialog and ability to deliver insight. The latter, not the former, is what’s necessary to provoke extended conversations. Trust/personal connection is a good motivator for the latter. So is professional interest. The big question is whether or not we can generate that sort of credibility in a cheaper way. Being concerned that the answer is “no,” I suggest leaning on the methods we do know work. But I could be wrong, and it’s certainly worth trying!
Yep, agreed. Just pointing toward the MVP as a starting point, as you describe. Worth trying the lightest-weight and most convenient options and seeing what you can milk out of them first.
I can pledge to continue responding indefinitely, but I can’t promise specific dates by which I’ll respond. If I come to a point where I notice myself feeling unlikely to continue the discussion, I also pledge to state that explicitly. If you haven’t heard from me in a while, I’m open to you asking me if I’m still interested in discussing.
Ah, I see. I do see the value in this and might give it a shot myself.
It also makes me think about an idea I’ve always had: Blog Buddies. Alice is a blogger who is interested in having a lot of discussion and constructive criticism on her posts. So is Bob. And Carol. And Dave. They can all get together, form a group, and read + critique each others posts. Seems like it scratches an itch. I’ve thought about it as a startup idea, but I could see it making sense more narrowly on LessWrong.
Yeah that makes sense. I’ve had some similar behind the scenes attention happen before. This makes me think of something Paul Graham says. That it’s better to have a small amount of users who really love you than to have a large amount of users kinda like you. He’s referring to startups, but perhaps it applies to writing as well.
I’m having trouble understanding what you mean here. Would you mind explaining this differently?
Yeah. I was going to link to a Beeminder goal for the pledge I made on this post, but I agree with you and didn’t want to start off with such a heavy handed convention.
Cool, sounds good!
Yeah, this sounds like a book club, except where the participants are also the authors. I’ll bet that there are some groups of authors who do this already. Seems totally do-able. And I actually think that posts like this are exactly how you get this done.
This is part of why I’ve been posting a lot of questions lately—my stab at catalyzing conversation that people feel open to participating in. They’ve gotten a decent number of comments relative to the LW baseline. This feels like a solvable problem, though it probably has a few interlinked challenges (the intimidation factor, status concerns, building an expectation of continued discussion, and probably others too).
The fact is that we see a lot more idea posts than metaconversation posts on LW. By contrast, in my closest relationships, a huge proportion of the conversation is metaconversational. It’s about exploring the nuances of relationships and conversation challenges. Those conversations genuinely lead to baseline improvements and real progress. So it might be that we’re just straight-up neglecting something tractable that’s critical for generative conversation on LW to thrive.
What metaconversations have you experienced in your closest relationships and/or elsewhere that you think LessWrong would benefit from discussing?
How do you turn the metaconversations into actionable, implemented, and solved advice? Rather than such conversations well...becoming very navel gazing and meta circle jerk-y?
I imagine it’s much easier making such conversations bear fruit and pay rent in the context of close personal relationships because there should be a more visceral “this isn’t working” type of feeling fairly immediately, yes? Whereas in an online, usually loosely connected social environment I imagine the visceral and immediate feelings of “this doesn’t work” probably don’t arise as much, or at least not quickly. This is me speculating, what do you think?
I’ll second the “posting lots of questions” being more catalyzing and accessible feeling than regular posts. I still don’t comment too much nor write as much as I’d like, but whenever I see someone post a question post that seems to generate more discussion with people who’s names I don’t recognize than other types of posts. And seem more accessible.
Anecdote: I comment way more on metaconversation and community norms / culture types of posts than I do ideas focused and other kinds of posts. Not 100% certain why, might have to do with issues concerning people, group and community norms, culture, etc. feeling more accessible and interesting to me whereas pure ideas just...eh are less interesting to me usually. I like people a lot and seem to get more interested in something based on the impact that thing has on people. Probably is why I find X risks, AI Safety, and other such things to be very important and good and have read a good bit about such things, but whenever I try to dig into the weeds of the ideas and grok the technical idea aspects of those things...well that’s a lot less interesting to me. Anyway, this was an aside. Helpful to me though.
Adam Zerner’s recent question is a good example of a “this isn’t working” followed by analysis of the causes. Emotion is often a motivator for meta conversation in offline relationships. In online settings like LW, we might tend to start by imagining what sort of interactions we think are possible and missing, and then inferring the reason for their absence and experimenting with solutions.
Keeping those analyses general and succinct seems like the right way to go. I wouldn’t want to have a public discussion about my feelings about a specific other blogger. But trying to find explanations for general behavior online seems like world modeling, not navel gazing.
I agree re Adam’s question being a good example of the case, and not at all navel gazing.
My worry about navel gazing is motivated by some personal baggage, anxiety about what’s worth spending time on, and some anecdotal experiences where it seemed like metaconversations were not effective in doing anything and took a ton of time and energy, then nothing happened from them. Focusing on ”...trying to find explanations for general behavior online...” definitely is helpful world modeling that can provide useful insights and instigate changes in behavior in response to those insights.
I like how you only used the word meta conversation in your comment a single time and tabooed it otherwise, instead offering more specific and actionable commentary / insights about the issues of online discussions and how to align those with what people want out of the site + discussions.
Taking an Oath of Reply like you wrote is a good idea, and I’ll start doing that for my own posts or on discussions / comment threads too.
“In online settings like LW, we might tend to start by imagining what sort of interactions we think are possible and missing, and then inferring the reason for their absence and experimenting with solutions.”
This would make a really good question, if it hasn’t already been asked recently I’ll go make that post and reference this discussion, post, and other relevant things.
I like that analogy.
Yeah I like that idea.
Huh, interesting. Drawing that connection to your social life makes it feel intuitive to me that we should be doing a lot more of it on LessWrong. Seems like a good topic for a follow up post.
Just curious, but if you don’t mind sharing, to what extent is this an exaggeration?
Not the clearest language, sorry. Slightly more specifically, I mean that a lot of the conversation is either about our own conversations, conversational dynamics generally, or conversation dynamics between ourselves and family/friends or between people we know and others.
I don’t have a confident number to put on it. Between 10-50% perhaps? Which feels huge to me.
I see, that makes sense. That 10-50% range does seem huge to me also, but I think it’s cool :)
You’re right, that was convoluted :)
Having a prior that your conversation partner will reply motivates commenting. When both partners have that prior, they’ll continue their conversation, as we’re doing here. Figuring out how to generate that prior in both parties is the important part. So how do we generate that prior?
One way is trust/personal connection. If you’re having a conversation with a friend, you can usually expect they’ll respond when you bring up a new topic.
Another is professional interest in the topic. If you’re an academic and bring up a topic among colleagues at a conference, you can often expect at least some response.
However, these are just means to an end. The end being that prior expectation of receiving a response. There may be other means to that end that are cheaper and easier, like your pledge for ongoing discussion, or using Beeminder.
This makes perfect sense now, thanks!
I actually don’t get a strong sense that this is true. The handful of people on LessWrong who I’m friends with, I expected that they’re slightly more likely to respond to my posts, but not by too much. I expect it to be mostly about whether they are interested in the post and have something to say.
Ah, what I mean is that if you specifically ask a person to discuss a topic, or bring it up clearly showing you want to discuss it with them, they’re likely to take you up on it in an organic conversation. Also, if you specifically ask a friend to give you feedback on a piece of writing, making it clear it would mean a lot to you, I wouldn’t be surprised if they do. Most people I know seem happy to help.
But yeah, just sending a friend a link to a post isn’t going to increase the response rate too much.
Gotcha, I agree.