Let’s be more generous to each other. To each others’ arguments and possible meanings.
I don’t know that I’m for this. I like the sentiment. But I’ve recently noticed the aspect that I enjoy about LW (when it is at is best) is it’s relatively cold, irrational indifference.
In my regular world, which is not filled with scholars or even particular rational people, everyone seems phony, flattering and patronizing. It’s very Facebook-y.
I love having a place to go to find a rational take on things. I often search LW for discussion on things I’m interested in.
Maybe you are right that the style of engagement has devolved and that has caused—or at least contributed to—lower quality content.
Didn’t the latest poll indicate numbers are up year-over-year? Perhaps quantity of users is diluting the quality of the content?
You extend to me quite a bit of courtesy here, and your tone is very generous although you disagree with me. I seem to see a lot of posts these days that skip the courtesy (which is necessary for productive discourse, rationality is about winning, etc.) and start with “You’re wrong” and then proceed from there with middle fingers raised. I do think most of these are relative newcomers, as you say.
Any post trying to say something complex is bound to have multiple valid interpretations. This is just a fact of communication and the difficulty of expressing ideas using language. The truth of this is borne out by the fact that multiple commenters responding to the same post will interpret the original post differently. So, it is not so radical, I think, for me to suggest that we wait to say “I disagree!” or “You’re wrong!” until after we’ve first said “Let me make sure I understand what it is you’re saying.”
I’d agree there can be a great deal of courtesy-skipping here. It slapped me in the face at first.
Then I got used it. And it forced me to get smarter, and to be more careful about what I said and how I chose to say it. I’m grateful for LW in that it forced me out of some lazy communication habits. I’m still lazy in my communication, but LW helps to the extent I engage with intention.
Perhaps some of it is just a style issue? Or that social awareness of courtesy tends not to go hand-in-hand with brute IQ and technical genius?
Anyway, you make good points (and, to evidence those good points, it basically true that I quite telling people they made good points on LW some time ago as it seemed to violate the often kurt decorum. :)
You extend to me quite a bit of courtesy here, and your tone is very generous although you disagree with me. I seem to see a lot of posts these days that skip the courtesy (which is necessary for productive discourse, rationality is about winning, etc.) and start with “You’re wrong” and then proceed from there with middle fingers raised. I do think most of these are relative newcomers, as you say.
Which in turn means that rationalists, and especially apprentice rationalists watching other rationalists at work, are especially at-risk for absorbing cynicism as though it were a virtue in its own right—assuming that whosoever speaks of ulterior motives is probably a wise rationalist with uncommon insight; or believing that it is an entitled benefit of realism to feel superior to the naive herd that still has a shred of hope.
People here can be blunt for the sake of getting to the point, or can at least appear blunt. This could make it look like “rationalists are blunt,” which makes people blunt for the sake of signaling rationality.
This is obviously my own opinion, but I see being blunt regardless of context as a social habit that one grows out of, not something that one grows into. I certainly haven’t personally found it useful to become more rude over time, quite the opposite.
From a tribal affiliation standpoint, we are often reflexively portrayed as “the ones who value truth and honesty above feelings,” as if this necessitates that feelings not matter at all, or that they not exist, which is totally contrary to the truth of human psychology and how our interactions work.
Interesting.
I don’t know that I’m for this. I like the sentiment. But I’ve recently noticed the aspect that I enjoy about LW (when it is at is best) is it’s relatively cold, irrational indifference.
In my regular world, which is not filled with scholars or even particular rational people, everyone seems phony, flattering and patronizing. It’s very Facebook-y.
I love having a place to go to find a rational take on things. I often search LW for discussion on things I’m interested in.
Maybe you are right that the style of engagement has devolved and that has caused—or at least contributed to—lower quality content.
Didn’t the latest poll indicate numbers are up year-over-year? Perhaps quantity of users is diluting the quality of the content?
You extend to me quite a bit of courtesy here, and your tone is very generous although you disagree with me. I seem to see a lot of posts these days that skip the courtesy (which is necessary for productive discourse, rationality is about winning, etc.) and start with “You’re wrong” and then proceed from there with middle fingers raised. I do think most of these are relative newcomers, as you say.
Any post trying to say something complex is bound to have multiple valid interpretations. This is just a fact of communication and the difficulty of expressing ideas using language. The truth of this is borne out by the fact that multiple commenters responding to the same post will interpret the original post differently. So, it is not so radical, I think, for me to suggest that we wait to say “I disagree!” or “You’re wrong!” until after we’ve first said “Let me make sure I understand what it is you’re saying.”
I’d agree there can be a great deal of courtesy-skipping here. It slapped me in the face at first.
Then I got used it. And it forced me to get smarter, and to be more careful about what I said and how I chose to say it. I’m grateful for LW in that it forced me out of some lazy communication habits. I’m still lazy in my communication, but LW helps to the extent I engage with intention.
Perhaps some of it is just a style issue? Or that social awareness of courtesy tends not to go hand-in-hand with brute IQ and technical genius?
Anyway, you make good points (and, to evidence those good points, it basically true that I quite telling people they made good points on LW some time ago as it seemed to violate the often kurt decorum. :)
This reminds me of Cynical about Cynicism where Yudkowsky writes:
People here can be blunt for the sake of getting to the point, or can at least appear blunt. This could make it look like “rationalists are blunt,” which makes people blunt for the sake of signaling rationality.
This is obviously my own opinion, but I see being blunt regardless of context as a social habit that one grows out of, not something that one grows into. I certainly haven’t personally found it useful to become more rude over time, quite the opposite.
From a tribal affiliation standpoint, we are often reflexively portrayed as “the ones who value truth and honesty above feelings,” as if this necessitates that feelings not matter at all, or that they not exist, which is totally contrary to the truth of human psychology and how our interactions work.