Because I want more new ideas and alternate viewpoints, and I believe that can be helped by making experiments less costly. Ctrl+f for “like a skilled musician”
Because I want people to be able to more quickly relinquish incorrect beliefs, and I believe punishing someone for ceasing to argue for a particular position hinders this. Ctrl+f for “rather than hurt themselves trying”
Because I want people to have more chances of being convinced of things, and I believe persisting in arguing with them after they want to leave a conversation burns their patience for a point of view. Ctrl+f for “Once someone is in the frame of mind” and also “you are giving them negative”
Because I want people to be comfortable engaging in discussion, and I believe that can be helped by making it easier to disengage. Ctrl+f for “If they had instead kept me”
If I’m right, then the upsides are that people
offer and hear more lines of argument,
don’t feel like they have to keep arguing for a position even as the evidence moves against them
are happier to hear more arguments from those they disagree with
What are the downsides?
People don’t stay as long talking to those they don’t enjoy talking to. One common reason someone isn’t enjoying a conversation is because they’re losing an argument, so this costs the changing of the minds that happen in say (making the number up but it feels about right) the back quarter of protracted and unpleasant arguments.
Those who feel they put effort into a good argument may feel that effort was wasted when the other person taps out in response. Some effort may genuinely be wasted this way.
Since conversations don’t have as clear a reset as wrestling matches, there will likely be some interminable arguments about whether bringing a topic up again a week later counts as not respecting a tap out. (Or variations on people not doing tap out correctly.)
There’s a limited number of conversational moves people keep in their heads, and this takes up a slot that perhaps could be better spent on something else.
Lists are no doubt not exhaustive; they’re what I have in mind. I’ll admit, I don’t think the downsides outweigh the upsides. For your example of novel discoveries outweighing embarrassing online commentators, I notice I don’t think that’s the tradeoff we’re making? If I picture the reverse (that abandoning a line of argument is more costly and less allowed) I expect intellectuals to do less “hey, I had a weird idea. what if. . .” when their missteps are more socially punished.
The primary goal here isn’t to save online commentators some embarrassment! That’s the method, not the goal! If you think they’re wrong and you’re right then the more embarrassed and ashamed they are the less likely they come back again to keep talking with you, which was your primary method of convincing them you were right, wasn’t it?
For the shy folks that for whatever reason must use their real name, well there are costs and benefits to using real name identifiers.
And in any case almost none of them will ever be so important, or attain a position of such significance, that whether they disengage or engage will move the needle, frankly.
Maybe if hundreds of such folks simultaneously did so en masse, but anything below that will see replacement.
Whether via themselves creating a pseudonym identity after being embarrassed too many times, new folks joining the online commentating sphere, etc.
And for the small fraction that refuse to do that and quit forever, who will not accept a pseudonym, well there simply isn’t a need for that many conversational foils, devils-advocates, agitators, mouth-pieces, prima-donnas, etc...
Even for a LW sized community, a few dozen is probably sufficient to satisfy all relevant interest groups.
So I’m not convinced it’s a big enough problem to be worth changing any paradigms. This applies to all online communities, not just LW, a half-heartedly supported and enforced rule change is usually worse then no change at all.
Because I want more new ideas and alternate viewpoints, and I believe that can be helped by making experiments less costly. Ctrl+f for “like a skilled musician”
Because I want people to be able to more quickly relinquish incorrect beliefs, and I believe punishing someone for ceasing to argue for a particular position hinders this. Ctrl+f for “rather than hurt themselves trying”
Because I want people to have more chances of being convinced of things, and I believe persisting in arguing with them after they want to leave a conversation burns their patience for a point of view. Ctrl+f for “Once someone is in the frame of mind” and also “you are giving them negative”
Because I want people to be comfortable engaging in discussion, and I believe that can be helped by making it easier to disengage. Ctrl+f for “If they had instead kept me”
If I’m right, then the upsides are that people
offer and hear more lines of argument,
don’t feel like they have to keep arguing for a position even as the evidence moves against them
are happier to hear more arguments from those they disagree with
What are the downsides?
People don’t stay as long talking to those they don’t enjoy talking to. One common reason someone isn’t enjoying a conversation is because they’re losing an argument, so this costs the changing of the minds that happen in say (making the number up but it feels about right) the back quarter of protracted and unpleasant arguments.
Those who feel they put effort into a good argument may feel that effort was wasted when the other person taps out in response. Some effort may genuinely be wasted this way.
Since conversations don’t have as clear a reset as wrestling matches, there will likely be some interminable arguments about whether bringing a topic up again a week later counts as not respecting a tap out. (Or variations on people not doing tap out correctly.)
There’s a limited number of conversational moves people keep in their heads, and this takes up a slot that perhaps could be better spent on something else.
Lists are no doubt not exhaustive; they’re what I have in mind. I’ll admit, I don’t think the downsides outweigh the upsides. For your example of novel discoveries outweighing embarrassing online commentators, I notice I don’t think that’s the tradeoff we’re making? If I picture the reverse (that abandoning a line of argument is more costly and less allowed) I expect intellectuals to do less “hey, I had a weird idea. what if. . .” when their missteps are more socially punished.
The primary goal here isn’t to save online commentators some embarrassment! That’s the method, not the goal! If you think they’re wrong and you’re right then the more embarrassed and ashamed they are the less likely they come back again to keep talking with you, which was your primary method of convincing them you were right, wasn’t it?
Meh. I feel like those downsides are not very strong and I can come up with better.
The shy folks can hide behind pseudonyms.
For the shy folks that for whatever reason must use their real name, well there are costs and benefits to using real name identifiers.
And in any case almost none of them will ever be so important, or attain a position of such significance, that whether they disengage or engage will move the needle, frankly.
Maybe if hundreds of such folks simultaneously did so en masse, but anything below that will see replacement.
Whether via themselves creating a pseudonym identity after being embarrassed too many times, new folks joining the online commentating sphere, etc.
And for the small fraction that refuse to do that and quit forever, who will not accept a pseudonym, well there simply isn’t a need for that many conversational foils, devils-advocates, agitators, mouth-pieces, prima-donnas, etc...
Even for a LW sized community, a few dozen is probably sufficient to satisfy all relevant interest groups.
So I’m not convinced it’s a big enough problem to be worth changing any paradigms. This applies to all online communities, not just LW, a half-heartedly supported and enforced rule change is usually worse then no change at all.