If the participants are actually spending time with each other though, rather than making their impressions through video footage, then it’s much harder to drive them into conflict than to make them appear to be in conflict. And if the participants actually manage to communicate and work out their issues, then engineering the appearance of a long term conflict would be liable to be more trouble than it was worth.
I don’t think I would personally be surprised by how much of the narratives of these shows are constructed, and I suspect many other people here would not be surprised, and as a result my inclination would be to treat any sort of footage the directors showed me of the other contestants in order to provoke a reaction as being meaningful only in light of how the directors want to manipulate us. If the nerds in question are good at dissolving disputes, attempting to manipulate them in such a way is likely to be ineffective.
But since the show is likely not to sell without it, an avoidance of conflict would mean the end of the show, not just the end of conflict on the show.
Also, since the Less Wrong cluster is only a small portion of nerdspace, and nerds are not all particularly good at communicating and dissolving disagreements, it may not be so difficult for them to find contestants with whom their direction plan is workable.
What makes you think that the ‘Less Wrong cluster’ is particularly good at dissolving disagreements? Keep in mind that the forum mechanics and policies are highly engineered to disincentivize discussion of divisive topics, which might create the illusion of agreement.
By dissolving, I don’t mean resolving, but recognizing that there wasn’t a basis for disagreement in the first place. That’s the principle of dissolving a question.
That’s what makes me suspect it might be more difficult to engineer conflict among them, they’d be more likely to notice that there weren’t substantial grounds for them to be at odds in the first place, and prevent the conflict from becoming self perpetuating.
I’ve certainly seen cases of this happening here, where I would expect a much longer and more drawn out conflict elsewhere.
That’s what makes me suspect it might be more difficult to engineer conflict among them, they’d be more likely to notice that there weren’t substantial grounds for them to be at odds in the first place, and prevent the conflict from becoming self perpetuating.
Well, these show tend to work on a “there can be only one” principle: each week one contestant is removed until the last man standing wins. The confilct that this mechanic creates seems pretty hard to “dissolve”.
I’ve certainly seen cases of this happening here, where I would expect a much longer and more drawn out conflict elsewhere.
As I said, forum mechanics and moderation policy: Karma penalities, banned topics, etc: people don’t “dissolve” their disagrement, they just avoid discussing divisive topics.
It hasn’t been my experience that people here particularly avoid talking about divisive topics.
The mechanism of implementing karma penalties for replying to heavily downvoted comments is fairly recent, as are most of the topic bans. For a long time, there was only one banned topic, and that one had a built in expiration date which ran up years ago.
Politics isn’t banned, just discouraged, I’ve seen a number of political discussions here, and participated in a few. As long as they stick to actual issues of policy rather than Blues vs. Greens, they generally don’t attract objection.
What Desrtopa said. Also one can get away with discussing the basilisk as long as one doesn’t go into too many details and/or attract enough attention.
It still pales in comparison to the power of invented meaning through editing.
It’s the Kuleshov Effect turned up to 11.
If the participants are actually spending time with each other though, rather than making their impressions through video footage, then it’s much harder to drive them into conflict than to make them appear to be in conflict. And if the participants actually manage to communicate and work out their issues, then engineering the appearance of a long term conflict would be liable to be more trouble than it was worth.
I don’t think I would personally be surprised by how much of the narratives of these shows are constructed, and I suspect many other people here would not be surprised, and as a result my inclination would be to treat any sort of footage the directors showed me of the other contestants in order to provoke a reaction as being meaningful only in light of how the directors want to manipulate us. If the nerds in question are good at dissolving disputes, attempting to manipulate them in such a way is likely to be ineffective.
But since the show is likely not to sell without it, an avoidance of conflict would mean the end of the show, not just the end of conflict on the show.
Also, since the Less Wrong cluster is only a small portion of nerdspace, and nerds are not all particularly good at communicating and dissolving disagreements, it may not be so difficult for them to find contestants with whom their direction plan is workable.
What makes you think that the ‘Less Wrong cluster’ is particularly good at dissolving disagreements?
Keep in mind that the forum mechanics and policies are highly engineered to disincentivize discussion of divisive topics, which might create the illusion of agreement.
By dissolving, I don’t mean resolving, but recognizing that there wasn’t a basis for disagreement in the first place. That’s the principle of dissolving a question.
That’s what makes me suspect it might be more difficult to engineer conflict among them, they’d be more likely to notice that there weren’t substantial grounds for them to be at odds in the first place, and prevent the conflict from becoming self perpetuating.
I’ve certainly seen cases of this happening here, where I would expect a much longer and more drawn out conflict elsewhere.
Well, these show tend to work on a “there can be only one” principle: each week one contestant is removed until the last man standing wins. The confilct that this mechanic creates seems pretty hard to “dissolve”.
As I said, forum mechanics and moderation policy: Karma penalities, banned topics, etc: people don’t “dissolve” their disagrement, they just avoid discussing divisive topics.
It hasn’t been my experience that people here particularly avoid talking about divisive topics.
The mechanism of implementing karma penalties for replying to heavily downvoted comments is fairly recent, as are most of the topic bans. For a long time, there was only one banned topic, and that one had a built in expiration date which ran up years ago.
Politics is a banned topic, and there is another one which can’t even be mentioned.
Politics isn’t banned, just discouraged, I’ve seen a number of political discussions here, and participated in a few. As long as they stick to actual issues of policy rather than Blues vs. Greens, they generally don’t attract objection.
What Desrtopa said. Also one can get away with discussing the basilisk as long as one doesn’t go into too many details and/or attract enough attention.