“Is it a demon thread?” is more about “there is some weird force compelling more and more people to argue, raising tensions” than it’s about “the argument is counterproductive or going in circles”
I had assumed it was both. Frankly, I don’t care at all about the first kind of demon threads. If you entered a demon thread where nothing is actually being discussed, and ended up wasting your time and energy, that’s your own fault. On the other hand, when people with good intentions start discussing a meaningful topic, but then end up going in circles and become increasingly frustrated, that is a problem that needs solving. To be fair, most demon threads may belong to both kinds. However, I feel that your solution mostly just helps with the first kind.
By the way, do you think there are demon threads going on in Kenshō that we could study?
Also, it just struck me that I don’t understand, in what way is your disagreement with Qiaochu demonic? I don’t feel that compelled to join, and I don’t really see you going in circles. Maybe you resolved the thread too soon, before it became a good example?
To be fair, most demon threads may belong to both kinds. However, I feel that your solution mostly just helps with the first kind.
I specifically think that demon threads tend to cause the second thing, but not always (it’s more like “being a demon thread increases the difficulty of having a productive conversation” than “makes the conversation bad”)
The Kensho thread was actually one of my motivating examples for this post. Clearly a demon thread—lots of people getting drawn in, arguing frustratedly in circles… but my impression was that some kind of incremental progress was actually made that was at least useful to some people, so it was a counterexample proving that demon thread != “doesn’t matter”.
but my impression was that some kind of incremental progress was actually made
It’s my impression that all demon threads of the second kind do make some tiny sliver of progress, but that’s not good enough. To be fair, I haven’t read enough of that thread to know how much progress you’re talking about.
lots of people getting drawn in
Again, why is this a defining feature at all? Are you saying that no discussions between two people in private are demonic? I completely disagree. I think all but the most shallow demon threads have a core of a few serious people who are invested, frustrated, arguing in circles, and then sometimes there is a mass of temp people who pop in, leave one remark and never come back (this is especially true with reddit style comments, where pairs of people easily branch-off into their own discussions). You’re identifying demon threads with the temp people, but the temp people don’t matter, the thread isn’t hurting them, their presence is completely cosmetic. The problems that really need to be solved are the problems of the serious people.
I think you and Raemon may be talking about different kinds of threads (and if that turns out to be true, you might want to pick a different name for the kinds of threads you’re talking about?)
My intuition matches Raemon’s, I think—it’s not possible for a private thread between two people to be ‘demonic’ in my model, because being ‘demonic’ is deeply wrapped up in social signalling, and a private conversation between two people doesn’t have the same kind of social signalling that exists as soon as you add a third participant or an observer.
I actually think a private thread can be demonic. Some clarification and/or confusion:
I have a fairly strong “know it when I see it” vibe about demon threads, but it’s a fuzzy category, and I’m not sure I’ve yet cleanly defined it. (And I may have contradicted myself somewhere since I’m still ironing out the definition)
I’ve participated in private conversations (even in person) where I noticed myself:
a) feeling compelled to participate even as I start noticing the conversation is low value
b) feeling defensive, tightness in my arms, neck hairs are standing on end, and I’m starting to argue from a position of hostility/protectiveness rather than earnest collaboration.
c) consequently, end up having a conversation that didn’t accomplish the goals I’d reflectively endorse
Hypothetically, the “compulsion to participate” and “rising hostility that makes it harder to communicate” can be separate axis, that don’t have to come together. I think I’m using the term “demon thread” to refer to something a cluster that often includes both, but sometimes just one or the other.
I’m not sure it’s necessary to do rigorously define it, so long as you can successfully trigger “detect that a thread is about to start rolling down a hill towards ‘hard to communicate well’ and ‘sucks up people’s time and goodwill’, and then either gracefully end the conversation, or figure out how to have a better version of it.”
I think a potential factor to consider here is that normally, even when speaking in private, there’s no spoken guarantee that the conversation will remain private, e.g. it’s entirely possible that at some point after having had a private conversation with you, I might offhandedly mention to someone else “Raemon said X a while back”—and the possibility of my doing so brings back the common knowledge/signaling aspect that so often leads to demon threads. Hypothetically, therefore, a private conversation where both participants agree beforehand to not make the conversation public unless both of them agree would lack this aspect entirely, and hence make it much easier to talk in good faith.
I admit that this may seem a bit like hair-splitting, though. I think most participants in this conversation have participated in enough demon threads in the past to have a fairly decent idea of what we’re all referring to, and slight differences in intuition like this may not be worth bringing up. (Of course, sometimes they point to a much deeper and more fundamental inferential gap, but I’m inclined to think this isn’t the case here.)
Then let’s talk about specific threads. I’m saying that here starts the most demonic subthread in Kensho, and that most others are not much of a problem (note, I haven’t real all the comments, so there could be worse cases. Also, meta: linking to comments is a pain). This is a branch of two people only, so your “step 1” doesn’t really make sense and “step 2″ requires magic.
This is a branch of two people only, so your “step 1” doesn’t really make sense
Based on personal experience, I think there’s a difference between having a conversation in private, versus having it with a single person, but in a public place where anyone can read what either of you two is saying and form impressions of you based on it. If you agree that such a distinction exists in principle, then I think that suffices to address the quoted objection.
Slightly tangentially: I should also note that I do not view the thread you linked as a particularly strong example of a demon thread, if it is one at all. Of course, I only skimmed the thread in question, so it’s possible that I missed something; it’s also possible that because I was not a participant in that thread myself and don’t possess any social connections to either of the participants, the stakes in status were harder for me to perceive. Even so, I think that if you want to talk about examples of demon threads, there are much clearer cases to point to. (Is there a specific reason you chose that particular thread to talk about, or was it simply due to said thread being fresh in your mind?)
in a public place where anyone can read what either of you two is saying
In reddit, once you go a dozen comments deep and once the main post is no longer hot, you can be pretty sure that nobody is keeping up with your discussion. In LW, where we have “recent comments” section, this is less certain.
I do not view the thread you linked as a particularly strong example of a demon thread
Near the end the thread has “You’ve dratically missed the point of all that I’ve said, missed what I was doing and latched on to only the propositional content of those sentences that I wrote.” , I think that’s how you’d expect a demon thread to end up. I’m referring to the discussion between SaidAchmiz and dsatan, not Valentine, sorry if that was unclear from my link. I also only skimmed it too, but I think that’s good enough—the defining properties of a demon thread aren’t that sensitive to the particular arguments used.
the stakes in status
Why is everyone bringing this up? The very beginning of Raemon’s original demon thread post says “If someone in the future linked you to this post, it’s probably because a giant sprawling mess of angry, confused comments is happening—or is about to happen—and it’s going to waste a lot of time, make people upset, and probably less likely to listen to each other about whatever the conversation ostensibly is about.”. My example is a demon thread, because it is a sprawling mess of angry, confused comments that waste time and make people upset. If it doesn’t have stakes in status, then stakes in status don’t cause demon threads, not the other way around.
there are much clearer cases to point to.
Go ahead, point to them. I only chose that thread because I recently noticed it by chance.
Interestingly, that very thread was what prompted my question of how to handle cases where one’s interlocutor refuses, or ignores, offers to take the conversation private. Coincidence? Surely not…
That thread is certainly a significant case study of something. I have not yet looked through the thread in enough detail to have a clear sense of everything that happened. (I was following comments as they showed up on the front page but not religiously trying to take in the whole thing, given because the volume). But, since I’ve adopted demon threads as my pet issue for the month and that thread is the one everyone’s looking at, I suppose I should delve into it thoroughly.
It may be a few days before I’m able to dedicate the time to it but plan to do so.
I had assumed it was both. Frankly, I don’t care at all about the first kind of demon threads. If you entered a demon thread where nothing is actually being discussed, and ended up wasting your time and energy, that’s your own fault. On the other hand, when people with good intentions start discussing a meaningful topic, but then end up going in circles and become increasingly frustrated, that is a problem that needs solving. To be fair, most demon threads may belong to both kinds. However, I feel that your solution mostly just helps with the first kind.
By the way, do you think there are demon threads going on in Kenshō that we could study?
Also, it just struck me that I don’t understand, in what way is your disagreement with Qiaochu demonic? I don’t feel that compelled to join, and I don’t really see you going in circles. Maybe you resolved the thread too soon, before it became a good example?
I specifically think that demon threads tend to cause the second thing, but not always (it’s more like “being a demon thread increases the difficulty of having a productive conversation” than “makes the conversation bad”)
The Kensho thread was actually one of my motivating examples for this post. Clearly a demon thread—lots of people getting drawn in, arguing frustratedly in circles… but my impression was that some kind of incremental progress was actually made that was at least useful to some people, so it was a counterexample proving that demon thread != “doesn’t matter”.
It’s my impression that all demon threads of the second kind do make some tiny sliver of progress, but that’s not good enough. To be fair, I haven’t read enough of that thread to know how much progress you’re talking about.
Again, why is this a defining feature at all? Are you saying that no discussions between two people in private are demonic? I completely disagree. I think all but the most shallow demon threads have a core of a few serious people who are invested, frustrated, arguing in circles, and then sometimes there is a mass of temp people who pop in, leave one remark and never come back (this is especially true with reddit style comments, where pairs of people easily branch-off into their own discussions). You’re identifying demon threads with the temp people, but the temp people don’t matter, the thread isn’t hurting them, their presence is completely cosmetic. The problems that really need to be solved are the problems of the serious people.
I think you and Raemon may be talking about different kinds of threads (and if that turns out to be true, you might want to pick a different name for the kinds of threads you’re talking about?)
My intuition matches Raemon’s, I think—it’s not possible for a private thread between two people to be ‘demonic’ in my model, because being ‘demonic’ is deeply wrapped up in social signalling, and a private conversation between two people doesn’t have the same kind of social signalling that exists as soon as you add a third participant or an observer.
I actually think a private thread can be demonic. Some clarification and/or confusion:
I have a fairly strong “know it when I see it” vibe about demon threads, but it’s a fuzzy category, and I’m not sure I’ve yet cleanly defined it. (And I may have contradicted myself somewhere since I’m still ironing out the definition)
I’ve participated in private conversations (even in person) where I noticed myself:
a) feeling compelled to participate even as I start noticing the conversation is low value
b) feeling defensive, tightness in my arms, neck hairs are standing on end, and I’m starting to argue from a position of hostility/protectiveness rather than earnest collaboration.
c) consequently, end up having a conversation that didn’t accomplish the goals I’d reflectively endorse
Hypothetically, the “compulsion to participate” and “rising hostility that makes it harder to communicate” can be separate axis, that don’t have to come together. I think I’m using the term “demon thread” to refer to something a cluster that often includes both, but sometimes just one or the other.
I’m not sure it’s necessary to do rigorously define it, so long as you can successfully trigger “detect that a thread is about to start rolling down a hill towards ‘hard to communicate well’ and ‘sucks up people’s time and goodwill’, and then either gracefully end the conversation, or figure out how to have a better version of it.”
I think a potential factor to consider here is that normally, even when speaking in private, there’s no spoken guarantee that the conversation will remain private, e.g. it’s entirely possible that at some point after having had a private conversation with you, I might offhandedly mention to someone else “Raemon said X a while back”—and the possibility of my doing so brings back the common knowledge/signaling aspect that so often leads to demon threads. Hypothetically, therefore, a private conversation where both participants agree beforehand to not make the conversation public unless both of them agree would lack this aspect entirely, and hence make it much easier to talk in good faith.
I admit that this may seem a bit like hair-splitting, though. I think most participants in this conversation have participated in enough demon threads in the past to have a fairly decent idea of what we’re all referring to, and slight differences in intuition like this may not be worth bringing up. (Of course, sometimes they point to a much deeper and more fundamental inferential gap, but I’m inclined to think this isn’t the case here.)
Then let’s talk about specific threads. I’m saying that here starts the most demonic subthread in Kensho, and that most others are not much of a problem (note, I haven’t real all the comments, so there could be worse cases. Also, meta: linking to comments is a pain). This is a branch of two people only, so your “step 1” doesn’t really make sense and “step 2″ requires magic.
Based on personal experience, I think there’s a difference between having a conversation in private, versus having it with a single person, but in a public place where anyone can read what either of you two is saying and form impressions of you based on it. If you agree that such a distinction exists in principle, then I think that suffices to address the quoted objection.
Slightly tangentially: I should also note that I do not view the thread you linked as a particularly strong example of a demon thread, if it is one at all. Of course, I only skimmed the thread in question, so it’s possible that I missed something; it’s also possible that because I was not a participant in that thread myself and don’t possess any social connections to either of the participants, the stakes in status were harder for me to perceive. Even so, I think that if you want to talk about examples of demon threads, there are much clearer cases to point to. (Is there a specific reason you chose that particular thread to talk about, or was it simply due to said thread being fresh in your mind?)
In reddit, once you go a dozen comments deep and once the main post is no longer hot, you can be pretty sure that nobody is keeping up with your discussion. In LW, where we have “recent comments” section, this is less certain.
Near the end the thread has “You’ve dratically missed the point of all that I’ve said, missed what I was doing and latched on to only the propositional content of those sentences that I wrote.” , I think that’s how you’d expect a demon thread to end up. I’m referring to the discussion between SaidAchmiz and dsatan, not Valentine, sorry if that was unclear from my link. I also only skimmed it too, but I think that’s good enough—the defining properties of a demon thread aren’t that sensitive to the particular arguments used.
Why is everyone bringing this up? The very beginning of Raemon’s original demon thread post says “If someone in the future linked you to this post, it’s probably because a giant sprawling mess of angry, confused comments is happening—or is about to happen—and it’s going to waste a lot of time, make people upset, and probably less likely to listen to each other about whatever the conversation ostensibly is about.”. My example is a demon thread, because it is a sprawling mess of angry, confused comments that waste time and make people upset. If it doesn’t have stakes in status, then stakes in status don’t cause demon threads, not the other way around.
Go ahead, point to them. I only chose that thread because I recently noticed it by chance.
Interestingly, that very thread was what prompted my question of how to handle cases where one’s interlocutor refuses, or ignores, offers to take the conversation private. Coincidence? Surely not…
That thread is certainly a significant case study of something. I have not yet looked through the thread in enough detail to have a clear sense of everything that happened. (I was following comments as they showed up on the front page but not religiously trying to take in the whole thing, given because the volume). But, since I’ve adopted demon threads as my pet issue for the month and that thread is the one everyone’s looking at, I suppose I should delve into it thoroughly.
It may be a few days before I’m able to dedicate the time to it but plan to do so.