Generally, LW’s comment section, as opposed to some other forums/blogs, doesn’t seem to me to really encourage comprehensive discussion. It is a place to read an article and the comments on the article, and then your comment in response to what has been said so far. Anytime you “engage” someone on the internet, it can get a bit long-winded to follow that conversation to it’s conclusion. I “ignore” most comments (no response) as a matter of decorum, even when I’d enjoy personally engaging on a topic.
Other times, I’m satisfied the comments have pretty much summed it all up. Or, the whole damned topic is above my head.
Is your observation a recent one? Or has LW always been like this?
LW’s comment section, as opposed to some other forums/blogs, doesn’t seem to me to really encourage comprehensive discussion
Out of curiosity, what about it seems to discourage extended discussion—is it something like the threading structure or more like the tone and social norms? Or looking at it another way, what other forums seem to encourage fuller discussion and what’s the difference between those and LessWrong?
(For context, when I think of other discussion forums, what comes to mind is reddit, facebook and google+ posts, and the comments sections on e.g. scottaaronson.com/blog or marginalrevolution.com. I find the quality of discussions on LessWrong to be superior to all of these. So I’m wondering if you would make a different evaluation, or if you’re comparing to different forums.)
Out of curiosity, what about it seems to discourage extended discussion—is it something like the threading structure
I think the threading structure makes group discussion of a point of contention unproductive. The latest replies are dispersed throughout the page, and there is limited nesting in practice. Lengthy back and forths are left to the small handful of those posting and getting reply notifications.
As far as technology for discussion goes, The Web Zillion Point O has miles to go to catch up to the technology of Usenet and trn.
It is, perhaps, a little bit format and a little bit social norm. Please don’t mistake me: I generally like LW’s style, as I think forum discussions tend to go on ad naseum, end up having little to do with the original topic, and devolve into little more than a pissing match between two people who don’t recognize they are largely debating definitions.
Well, there is a balance between saying too much and not saying enough. The internet (and namely forums) are notoriously guilty of the former.
I like LW because it seems to avoid the afformentioned pissing matches that are common to the forums I’ve looked at. I get good information and do my own research.
If I want to beat a topic to death (and I sometimes do), I’ve observed LW is not the sort of place where that is welcome (or at least it just doesn’t seem to happen).
Ah, reading back again, I realize I have committed several types of inferential silence in relation to your comment, in particular, I failed to upvote despite that I considered it discussion-relevant, even so far as using it as evidence to derive points I made in other comments without direct citation. I think the question at the end of your comment threw me off in that, not feeling an answer to your questions was necessary, I should not comment or interact with your post.
Generally, LW’s comment section, as opposed to some other forums/blogs, doesn’t seem to me to really encourage comprehensive discussion. It is a place to read an article and the comments on the article, and then your comment in response to what has been said so far. Anytime you “engage” someone on the internet, it can get a bit long-winded to follow that conversation to it’s conclusion. I “ignore” most comments (no response) as a matter of decorum, even when I’d enjoy personally engaging on a topic.
Other times, I’m satisfied the comments have pretty much summed it all up. Or, the whole damned topic is above my head.
Is your observation a recent one? Or has LW always been like this?
Out of curiosity, what about it seems to discourage extended discussion—is it something like the threading structure or more like the tone and social norms? Or looking at it another way, what other forums seem to encourage fuller discussion and what’s the difference between those and LessWrong?
(For context, when I think of other discussion forums, what comes to mind is reddit, facebook and google+ posts, and the comments sections on e.g. scottaaronson.com/blog or marginalrevolution.com. I find the quality of discussions on LessWrong to be superior to all of these. So I’m wondering if you would make a different evaluation, or if you’re comparing to different forums.)
I think the threading structure makes group discussion of a point of contention unproductive. The latest replies are dispersed throughout the page, and there is limited nesting in practice. Lengthy back and forths are left to the small handful of those posting and getting reply notifications.
As far as technology for discussion goes, The Web Zillion Point O has miles to go to catch up to the technology of Usenet and trn.
It is, perhaps, a little bit format and a little bit social norm. Please don’t mistake me: I generally like LW’s style, as I think forum discussions tend to go on ad naseum, end up having little to do with the original topic, and devolve into little more than a pissing match between two people who don’t recognize they are largely debating definitions.
Ah, so not encouraging comprehensive discussion you actually see as a positive!
Well, there is a balance between saying too much and not saying enough. The internet (and namely forums) are notoriously guilty of the former.
I like LW because it seems to avoid the afformentioned pissing matches that are common to the forums I’ve looked at. I get good information and do my own research.
If I want to beat a topic to death (and I sometimes do), I’ve observed LW is not the sort of place where that is welcome (or at least it just doesn’t seem to happen).
Gotcha, makes sense.
Ah, reading back again, I realize I have committed several types of inferential silence in relation to your comment, in particular, I failed to upvote despite that I considered it discussion-relevant, even so far as using it as evidence to derive points I made in other comments without direct citation. I think the question at the end of your comment threw me off in that, not feeling an answer to your questions was necessary, I should not comment or interact with your post.
To answer your question, I refer to MarkL’s comment: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/iq6/inferential_silence/9sss I’m unsure if MarkL should rather have replied to your post instead of commenting separately, or if it makes much of a difference.