I’m beginning to think that LW needs some better mechanism for dealing with the phenomenon of commenters who are polite, repetitive, immune to all correction, and consistently wrong about everything.
The problem is quite simple. Tim, and the rest of the class of commenters to which you refer, simply haven’t learned how to lose. This can be fixed by making it clear that this community’s respect is contingent on retracting any inaccurate positions. Posts in which people announce that they have changed their mind are usually upvoted (in contrast to other communities), but some people don’t seem to have noticed.
Therefore, I propose adding a “plonk” button on each comment. Pressing it would hide all posts from that user for a fixed duration, and also send them an anonymous message (red envelope) telling them that someone plonked them, which post they were plonked for, and a form letter reminder that self-consistency is not a virtue and a short guide to losing gracefully.
Posts in which people announce that they have changed their mind are usually upvoted
As a total newbie to this site, I applaud this sentiment, but have just gone through an experience where this has not, in fact, happened.
After immediately retracting my erroneous statement (and explaining exactly where and why I’d gone wrong), I continued to be hammered over arguments that I had not actually made. My retracted statements (which I’ve left in place, along with the edits explaining why they’re wrong) stay just as down-voted as before...
My guess is that some of the older members of this site may realise that this is how it’s supposed to work… but it’s certainly not got through to us newbies yet ;)
Perhaps it should be added to the etiquette section in the newbie pages (eg the karma-section in the FAQ) ?
I hereby suggest once again that “Vote up” and “Vote down” be changed to “More like this” and “Less like this” in the interface.
OTOH, there’s the reasonable counterargument that anyone who needs to be told this won’t change their behaviour because of it—i.e., rules against cluelessness don’t have anything to work via.
Translation: I haven’t managed to convince you therefore you must be punished for your insolent behaviour of not being convinced by my arguments. I cannot walk away from this and leave you being wrong, you must profess to agree with me and if you are not rational enough to understand and accept logical arguments then you will be forced to profess agreement.
Who did you say hasn’t learned how to lose?
I’m beginning to think that LW needs some better mechanism for dealing with the phenomenon of commenters who are polite, repetitive, immune to all correction, and consistently wrong about everything. I know people don’t like it when I say this sort of thing, but seriously, people like that can lower the perceived quality of a whole website.
Warn, then ban the people involved.
If you decide that refusing to be convinced by evidence while also unable to convincingly counter it, and at the same time continuing to argue is bad form for the LW that you want to create, then stand by that decision and act on it.
Translation: [...] I cannot walk away from this and leave you being wrong, you must profess to agree with me and if you are not rational enough to understand and accept logical arguments then you will be forced to profess agreement.
I never said anything about using force. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s a different position, not a translation.
If you can clarify the distinction you draw between the use of force and the use of punishments to modify behavior and why that distinction is important, I’d be interested.
Of course. The defining difference is that force can’t be ignored, so threatening a punishment only constitutes force if the punishment threatened is strong enough; condemnation doesn’t count unless it comes with additional consequences. Force is typically used in the short term to ensure conformance with plans, while behaviour modification is more like long-term groundwork. Well executed behaviour modifications stay in place with minimal maintenance, but the targets of force will become more hostile with each application. If you use a behaviour modification strategy when you should be using force, people may defy you when you can ill afford it. If you use force when you should be using behavior modification strategies, you will accumulate enemies you don’t need.
So, if sfb edits the parent to read “then we will rely on punishment to modify your behavior so you profess agreement” instead of “then you will be forced to profess agreement,” that addresses your objection?
Memory charms do have their uses. Unfortunately, they seem to only work in universes where minds are ontologically basic mental entities, and the potions available in this universe are not fast, reliable or selective enough to be adequate substitutes.
Interesting, I would have guessed that memory modification would be easier when minds aren’t ontologically basic mental entities because there are then actual parts of the mind that one can target.
You (probably) know what I meant, and whether or not you mentioned force specifically—either way doesn’t change the gist of the “translation”. A weasely objection.
and a form letter reminder that self-consistency is not a virtue [..] making it clear that this community’s respect is contingent on [..]
Is changing professed beliefs to something else without understanding / agreeing with the new position, but just doing it to gain community respect, a virtue?
Tim, and the rest of the class of commenters to which you refer, simply haven’t learned how to lose.
Or still isn’t convinced that he is wrong by the time you have passed your tolerance of explaining so you give up and decide he must be broken. Your proposed ‘solution’ is a hack so you can give up on convincing him but still have him act convinced for the benefit of appearances—maybe you are simply expecting far far too short inferential distances?
Escalating punishment so someone “learns better” can work, but it requires real punishments, not symbolic ones. It’s not clear to me that “plonking” would accomplish that.
And, of course, it has all the same problems that punishment-based behavior modification always has.
The problem is quite simple. Tim, and the rest of the class of commenters to which you refer, simply haven’t learned how to lose. This can be fixed by making it clear that this community’s respect is contingent on retracting any inaccurate positions. Posts in which people announce that they have changed their mind are usually upvoted (in contrast to other communities), but some people don’t seem to have noticed.
Therefore, I propose adding a “plonk” button on each comment. Pressing it would hide all posts from that user for a fixed duration, and also send them an anonymous message (red envelope) telling them that someone plonked them, which post they were plonked for, and a form letter reminder that self-consistency is not a virtue and a short guide to losing gracefully.
Eliezer has really got to do something about his fictional villains escaping into real life. First Clippy, now you too?
Meh. The villains seem a lot less formidable in real life, like they left something essential behind in the fiction.
Hey, be patient. I haven’t been here very long, and building up power takes time.
That is a problem with demiurges, yes.
As a total newbie to this site, I applaud this sentiment, but have just gone through an experience where this has not, in fact, happened.
After immediately retracting my erroneous statement (and explaining exactly where and why I’d gone wrong), I continued to be hammered over arguments that I had not actually made. My retracted statements (which I’ve left in place, along with the edits explaining why they’re wrong) stay just as down-voted as before...
My guess is that some of the older members of this site may realise that this is how it’s supposed to work… but it’s certainly not got through to us newbies yet ;)
Perhaps it should be added to the etiquette section in the newbie pages (eg the karma-section in the FAQ) ?
I hereby suggest once again that “Vote up” and “Vote down” be changed to “More like this” and “Less like this” in the interface.
OTOH, there’s the reasonable counterargument that anyone who needs to be told this won’t change their behaviour because of it—i.e., rules against cluelessness don’t have anything to work via.
Translation: I haven’t managed to convince you therefore you must be punished for your insolent behaviour of not being convinced by my arguments. I cannot walk away from this and leave you being wrong, you must profess to agree with me and if you are not rational enough to understand and accept logical arguments then you will be forced to profess agreement.
Who did you say hasn’t learned how to lose?
Warn, then ban the people involved.
If you decide that refusing to be convinced by evidence while also unable to convincingly counter it, and at the same time continuing to argue is bad form for the LW that you want to create, then stand by that decision and act on it.
On a site called “Less Wrong,” is that terribly surprising?
I never said anything about using force. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s a different position, not a translation.
If you can clarify the distinction you draw between the use of force and the use of punishments to modify behavior and why that distinction is important, I’d be interested.
Of course. The defining difference is that force can’t be ignored, so threatening a punishment only constitutes force if the punishment threatened is strong enough; condemnation doesn’t count unless it comes with additional consequences. Force is typically used in the short term to ensure conformance with plans, while behaviour modification is more like long-term groundwork. Well executed behaviour modifications stay in place with minimal maintenance, but the targets of force will become more hostile with each application. If you use a behaviour modification strategy when you should be using force, people may defy you when you can ill afford it. If you use force when you should be using behavior modification strategies, you will accumulate enemies you don’t need.
Makes sense.
So, if sfb edits the parent to read “then we will rely on punishment to modify your behavior so you profess agreement” instead of “then you will be forced to profess agreement,” that addresses your objection?
What is your opinion on the use of memory charms to modify behavior?
Memory charms do have their uses. Unfortunately, they seem to only work in universes where minds are ontologically basic mental entities, and the potions available in this universe are not fast, reliable or selective enough to be adequate substitutes.
Interesting, I would have guessed that memory modification would be easier when minds aren’t ontologically basic mental entities because there are then actual parts of the mind that one can target.
We don’t have tools sharp enough to get a grip on those parts, yet.
You (probably) know what I meant, and whether or not you mentioned force specifically—either way doesn’t change the gist of the “translation”. A weasely objection.
From the username, I was expecting that the suggestion was going to be to say avada kedavra.
I’d never say that on a forum that would generate a durable record of my comment.
Is changing professed beliefs to something else without understanding / agreeing with the new position, but just doing it to gain community respect, a virtue?
Or still isn’t convinced that he is wrong by the time you have passed your tolerance of explaining so you give up and decide he must be broken. Your proposed ‘solution’ is a hack so you can give up on convincing him but still have him act convinced for the benefit of appearances—maybe you are simply expecting far far too short inferential distances?
Escalating punishment so someone “learns better” can work, but it requires real punishments, not symbolic ones. It’s not clear to me that “plonking” would accomplish that.
And, of course, it has all the same problems that punishment-based behavior modification always has.
As long as you are no fooming FAI...