I agree with every word of this comment (with the possible exception of the last sentence).
However, I would really like to see the development of a general norm on LW against being offended. About anything. I would like for someone to be able to post the most unthinkably offensive comment you can imagine and have the replies consist only of dispassionate corrections of false statements. (Perhaps with downvoting as appropriate.)
Think about this seriously for a moment. LW is already like this to a greater extent than any other place I know. Does this make it better or worse than other places? My intuition is that the priority that folks here give to questions of truth and falsity at the expense of other considerations is a large part of what makes this place special. I feel that , ideally, there really ought to be somewhere where “offense” just doesn’t enter into the social dynamics at all.
Now of course, that would be extremely difficult to implement; LW already does better than anywhere else, and we still have to deal with these issues now and then. But to find out what direction we should head in, ask yourself what the ideal state of affairs would really be. Reflect on why “offense” exists—what purposes, biological or otherwise, this psychological mechanism serves. Then consider what our goals are here. Does allowing the offense mechanism to operate in its normal way tend more to serve these goals, or does it tend more to get in the way?
As you can probably tell, I incline toward the latter view. If what we’re primarily interested in is believing true things and disbelieving false things, then we have to contemplate the possibility that, once in a while—perhaps only rarely, but sometimes nonetheless—an offensive hypothesis will turn out to be true. Sometimes, even—still more rarely, but it will occasionally happen—an offensive fact will turn out to be important. If we do not permit ourselves to consider whether offensive hypotheses are true, and whether offensive facts are important, then we run the risk of making serious errors in cases where they are. And if we do not permit others to express their private deliberations about offensive hypotheses, then not only do we sacrifice the opportunity to hear suggestions we ourselves might not have considered, but we also sacrifice the opportunity to prevent them from developing false beliefs. (“Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires.”.)
There have been times when I have come dangerously close to expressing offense or indignation; and afterward, I have always felt better the more I restrained myself, and stuck to the ideal of dispassionate correction. Facts and arguments do after all tend to speak for themselves—at least in a place like this. Since we don’t gloat around here (another norm that should be maintained as much as possible), people will usually accept corrections fairly readily. This is good. I’m having a hard time thinking of any occasion where I have regretted showing insufficient indignation.
However, I would really like to see the development of a general norm on LW against being offended.
Your reasons for this seem sound, but how do you intend to accomplish it? To train ourselves not to feel the instinct is a high bar, and I’m pessimistic about the efficacy of that approach. To encourage backing off and cooling down before replying to an inflammatory post is more plausible, but still very difficult. In any case, I think Molybdenumblue was dead on here:
If you believe that other human beings are a useful source of insight, you would do well to make some effort not to offend.
These two ideas shouldn’t be seen in conflict, but in concert. If I make extra effort not to offend you, and you make extra effort not to be offended, we might just do all right.
However, I would really like to see the development of a general norm on LW against being offended. About anything.
Amen!
I might change that phrasing a bit, though, since it’s more about expression than the actual being offended part. For example, one can say, “When you said X, I felt personally offended for reasons Y and Z”, and this is not in the same category as accusing the commenter of being a bad person.
Is that an intentional reference to NVC or are you just independently clever? :)
Neither. ISTM this sort of statement is seen in a lot of self-help, communication, and related works. Where it originated, I don’t know, but I’ve seen similar things stated as far back as 1985, and most recently I’ve seen an excellent explanation and set of demonstrations of it in AMP’s “Foundations of Inner Game” program… and I’ve stolen their formulation of it as the format for giving feedback in Mind Hackers’ Guild practice circles.
Fair enough. I suppose it also fits the basic i-statement syntax I learned long before I’d heard of NVC. You can treat my reply just as generic agreement and approval, then.
I have regretted not acting in situations where my indignation was what would have driven me to act. Showing my indignation through the stereotypical manners would not have helped though.
I agree with every word of this comment (with the possible exception of the last sentence).
However, I would really like to see the development of a general norm on LW against being offended. About anything. I would like for someone to be able to post the most unthinkably offensive comment you can imagine and have the replies consist only of dispassionate corrections of false statements. (Perhaps with downvoting as appropriate.)
Think about this seriously for a moment. LW is already like this to a greater extent than any other place I know. Does this make it better or worse than other places? My intuition is that the priority that folks here give to questions of truth and falsity at the expense of other considerations is a large part of what makes this place special. I feel that , ideally, there really ought to be somewhere where “offense” just doesn’t enter into the social dynamics at all.
Now of course, that would be extremely difficult to implement; LW already does better than anywhere else, and we still have to deal with these issues now and then. But to find out what direction we should head in, ask yourself what the ideal state of affairs would really be. Reflect on why “offense” exists—what purposes, biological or otherwise, this psychological mechanism serves. Then consider what our goals are here. Does allowing the offense mechanism to operate in its normal way tend more to serve these goals, or does it tend more to get in the way?
As you can probably tell, I incline toward the latter view. If what we’re primarily interested in is believing true things and disbelieving false things, then we have to contemplate the possibility that, once in a while—perhaps only rarely, but sometimes nonetheless—an offensive hypothesis will turn out to be true. Sometimes, even—still more rarely, but it will occasionally happen—an offensive fact will turn out to be important. If we do not permit ourselves to consider whether offensive hypotheses are true, and whether offensive facts are important, then we run the risk of making serious errors in cases where they are. And if we do not permit others to express their private deliberations about offensive hypotheses, then not only do we sacrifice the opportunity to hear suggestions we ourselves might not have considered, but we also sacrifice the opportunity to prevent them from developing false beliefs. (“Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires.”.)
There have been times when I have come dangerously close to expressing offense or indignation; and afterward, I have always felt better the more I restrained myself, and stuck to the ideal of dispassionate correction. Facts and arguments do after all tend to speak for themselves—at least in a place like this. Since we don’t gloat around here (another norm that should be maintained as much as possible), people will usually accept corrections fairly readily. This is good. I’m having a hard time thinking of any occasion where I have regretted showing insufficient indignation.
Your reasons for this seem sound, but how do you intend to accomplish it? To train ourselves not to feel the instinct is a high bar, and I’m pessimistic about the efficacy of that approach. To encourage backing off and cooling down before replying to an inflammatory post is more plausible, but still very difficult. In any case, I think Molybdenumblue was dead on here:
These two ideas shouldn’t be seen in conflict, but in concert. If I make extra effort not to offend you, and you make extra effort not to be offended, we might just do all right.
Amen!
I might change that phrasing a bit, though, since it’s more about expression than the actual being offended part. For example, one can say, “When you said X, I felt personally offended for reasons Y and Z”, and this is not in the same category as accusing the commenter of being a bad person.
Is that an intentional reference to NVC or are you just independently clever? :)
Neither. ISTM this sort of statement is seen in a lot of self-help, communication, and related works. Where it originated, I don’t know, but I’ve seen similar things stated as far back as 1985, and most recently I’ve seen an excellent explanation and set of demonstrations of it in AMP’s “Foundations of Inner Game” program… and I’ve stolen their formulation of it as the format for giving feedback in Mind Hackers’ Guild practice circles.
Fair enough. I suppose it also fits the basic i-statement syntax I learned long before I’d heard of NVC. You can treat my reply just as generic agreement and approval, then.
I have regretted not acting in situations where my indignation was what would have driven me to act. Showing my indignation through the stereotypical manners would not have helped though.