I propose another discussion norm: committing to being willing to have a crisis of faith in certain discussions and if not, de-stigmatizing admitting when you are, in fact, unwilling to entertain certain ideas or concepts, and participants respecting those.
As a matter of pure category, yeah, it’s more advanced than “don’t make stuff up”.
I usually see these kinds of guides as an implicit “The community is having problems with these norms”
If you were to ask me “what’s the most painful aspect about comments on lesswrong?”, it’s reading comments that go on for 1k words a piece and neither commenter ever agrees, and it’s probably the most spooky part for me as a lurker, and made me hesitant to participation.
So I guess I misread the intent of the post and why it was boosted? I dunno, are these not proposals for new rules?
Edit: Sorry, I read a bit more in the thread and these guidelines aren’t proposals for new rules.
Since that’s the case, then I guess I just don’t understand what problem is being solved. The default conversational norms here are already high-quality, it’s just really burdensome and scary to engage here.
And in effort of maintaining my proposed norm: you’d have to make an arduously strong case (either via many extremely striking examples or lots of data with specific, less-striking examples) to convince me that this actually makes the site a better place to engage than what people seem to be doing on their own just fine.
Second Edit: I tried to follow the “Explain, don’t convince” request in the rule here. Please let me know if I didn’t do a good job.
Third edit: some wording felt like it wasn’t making my point.
I propose another discussion norm: committing to being willing to have a crisis of faith in certain discussions and if not, de-stigmatizing admitting when you are, in fact, unwilling to entertain certain ideas or concepts, and participants respecting those.
Seems good, but seems like probably not a basic norm? Feels more advanced than “foundational.”
As a matter of pure category, yeah, it’s more advanced than “don’t make stuff up”.
I usually see these kinds of guides as an implicit “The community is having problems with these norms”
If you were to ask me “what’s the most painful aspect about comments on lesswrong?”, it’s reading comments that go on for 1k words a piece and neither commenter ever agrees, and it’s probably the most spooky part for me as a lurker, and made me hesitant to participation.
So I guess I misread the intent of the post and why it was boosted? I dunno, are these not proposals for new rules?
Edit: Sorry, I read a bit more in the thread and these guidelines aren’t proposals for new rules.
Since that’s the case, then I guess I just don’t understand what problem is being solved. The default conversational norms here are already high-quality, it’s just really burdensome and scary to engage here.
And in effort of maintaining my proposed norm: you’d have to make an arduously strong case (either via many extremely striking examples or lots of data with specific, less-striking examples) to convince me that this actually makes the site a better place to engage than what people seem to be doing on their own just fine.
Second Edit: I tried to follow the “Explain, don’t convince” request in the rule here. Please let me know if I didn’t do a good job.
Third edit: some wording felt like it wasn’t making my point.