People here don’t like discussing politics because it’s a very charged topic, it’s very easy to become defensive/offensive, and it doesn’t yield very much utility. Article
Yes, but we are going to need to deal with eventually. If we’re only rational by staying away from the issues that we are actually very emotional about then we aren’t doing anything very impressive. “Refining the art of human rationality except in the areas that normally inflames emotions” doesn’t sound like a great motto.
I don’t think we, as a community, are strong enough at rationality to deal with it. I’d like to be wrong, but I’m not in much of hurry to find out.
And even if we are good enough, and have a big rational discussion on a hot-button and usually divisive topic, and come out mostly agreeing that the Herp position is right an the Derp position is wrong—that will just make the site more attractive to less-rational Herpists, and give Derpists a pretext to dismiss LessWrong because “they’re obviously motivated by Herpism”.
And even if we are good enough, and have a big rational discussion on a hot-button and usually divisive topic, and come out mostly agreeing that the Herp position is right an the Derp position is wrong—that will just make the site more attractive to less-rational Herpists, and give Derpists a pretext to dismiss LessWrong because “they’re obviously motivated by Herpism”.
This argument seems like it might show too much. If someone said this about an issue that isn’t political (say the existence of God) we would reject it. What gives politics such a unique status? Certainly religious opinions create about as much tribalism.
Religious questions are much easier than political questions, and can be answered with much more certainty. Political questions are also detrimental to sane discussion because they often rest upon (disguised) moral questions, which encourage tribalism and are harder still to resolve, if they can be resolved at all.
Religious opinions are divisive, we took our side, and don’t seem to be considered very highly by those who took the other.
I don’t mind closing the community to believers, in first approximation their ideas are worthless. But I wouldn’t extend that to liberals, libertarians, conservatives, environmentalists, anarchists, etc.
I can’t think of any other topic beyond religion and politics where it’s commonly expected that everyone has a position—some people can have strong and conflicting opinions on say parenting styles or whether Esperanto is a real language or interpretations of quantum mechanics or operating systems or whether Batman could beat Superman, but they don’t go around saying “Oh yeah he disagrees with me because he’s a yellowist” or something like that.
I don’t know if I am explaining this well (and may be someone can do better), but discussing politics tends to create “us” vs. “them” mentality really quickly. We are all (well, except, Eliezer of course) flawed humans here and are prone to such reactions. I think all of us will get out more utility if we juts obtain from discussing politics while we become more rational. An infight would be very deadly to a small community like this. It’s like protecting a child from some aspects of the outside world: yes, they’ll have to deal with it eventually, but for now it’s better if they don’t.
I don’t know if I am explaining this well (and may be someone can do better), but discussing politics tends to create “us” vs. “them” mentality really quickly.
You explained it well and it is a phenomenon we often reference. Perhaps the greatest source of bias humans have. Certainly the source of the most annoying biases we have. :)
We are all (well, except, Eliezer of course) flawed humans here and are prone to such reactions.
Don’t even joke about that (please).
An infight would be very deadly to a small community like this.
From past experience the infighting isn’t deadly but it is certainly distracting and probably does some damage. I note that as a community we don’t seem especially prone to strongly identifying with world or national politics in the patriotic tribal sense. That kind of politics is far closer to mere abstract theory. The real political infighting lesswrong is vulnerable to tends to be moral and local. (And vulnerable it is.)
It may or may not have been a sarcastic reference to this, rather than joke-cultishness.
I understand. I was making a (minimally emphasized) personal request to not be reminded of that, even in jest. It is a source of (mild) negative affect and causes a commensurately mild interference with my ability to maintain respect for Eliezer, with spill over to SIAI and LW. (But I didn’t want to include the reasoning with the request because it didn’t feel like the time to criticise.)
I’m sorry, I am still a bit new to this website, and I miss the finer points sometimes. I’ll try not to make jokes like that in the future. I understand where you are coming from and how my sort of remarks, even in jest, could be damaging.
I note that as a community we don’t seem especially prone to strongly identifying with world or national politics in the patriotic tribal sense. That kind of politics is far closer to mere abstract theory. The real political infighting lesswrong is vulnerable to tends to be moral and local. (And vulnerable it is.)
I agree that there probably isn’t that much tribal patriotism here, but there are probably a few posters whose minds are tainted by ideology (libertarianism, left-liberalism, environmentalism, maybe conservatism) (I don’t consider my mind untainted by ideology), which can be equally polarizing.
Correct political analysis.
People here don’t like discussing politics because it’s a very charged topic, it’s very easy to become defensive/offensive, and it doesn’t yield very much utility. Article
Yes, but we are going to need to deal with eventually. If we’re only rational by staying away from the issues that we are actually very emotional about then we aren’t doing anything very impressive. “Refining the art of human rationality except in the areas that normally inflames emotions” doesn’t sound like a great motto.
I don’t think we, as a community, are strong enough at rationality to deal with it. I’d like to be wrong, but I’m not in much of hurry to find out.
And even if we are good enough, and have a big rational discussion on a hot-button and usually divisive topic, and come out mostly agreeing that the Herp position is right an the Derp position is wrong—that will just make the site more attractive to less-rational Herpists, and give Derpists a pretext to dismiss LessWrong because “they’re obviously motivated by Herpism”.
This argument seems like it might show too much. If someone said this about an issue that isn’t political (say the existence of God) we would reject it. What gives politics such a unique status? Certainly religious opinions create about as much tribalism.
Religious questions are much easier than political questions, and can be answered with much more certainty. Political questions are also detrimental to sane discussion because they often rest upon (disguised) moral questions, which encourage tribalism and are harder still to resolve, if they can be resolved at all.
Religious opinions are divisive, we took our side, and don’t seem to be considered very highly by those who took the other.
I don’t mind closing the community to believers, in first approximation their ideas are worthless. But I wouldn’t extend that to liberals, libertarians, conservatives, environmentalists, anarchists, etc.
I can’t think of any other topic beyond religion and politics where it’s commonly expected that everyone has a position—some people can have strong and conflicting opinions on say parenting styles or whether Esperanto is a real language or interpretations of quantum mechanics or operating systems or whether Batman could beat Superman, but they don’t go around saying “Oh yeah he disagrees with me because he’s a yellowist” or something like that.
I don’t know if I am explaining this well (and may be someone can do better), but discussing politics tends to create “us” vs. “them” mentality really quickly. We are all (well, except, Eliezer of course) flawed humans here and are prone to such reactions. I think all of us will get out more utility if we juts obtain from discussing politics while we become more rational. An infight would be very deadly to a small community like this. It’s like protecting a child from some aspects of the outside world: yes, they’ll have to deal with it eventually, but for now it’s better if they don’t.
You explained it well and it is a phenomenon we often reference. Perhaps the greatest source of bias humans have. Certainly the source of the most annoying biases we have. :)
Don’t even joke about that (please).
From past experience the infighting isn’t deadly but it is certainly distracting and probably does some damage. I note that as a community we don’t seem especially prone to strongly identifying with world or national politics in the patriotic tribal sense. That kind of politics is far closer to mere abstract theory. The real political infighting lesswrong is vulnerable to tends to be moral and local. (And vulnerable it is.)
It may or may not have been a sarcastic reference to this, rather than joke-cultishness.
I understand. I was making a (minimally emphasized) personal request to not be reminded of that, even in jest. It is a source of (mild) negative affect and causes a commensurately mild interference with my ability to maintain respect for Eliezer, with spill over to SIAI and LW. (But I didn’t want to include the reasoning with the request because it didn’t feel like the time to criticise.)
I’m sorry, I am still a bit new to this website, and I miss the finer points sometimes. I’ll try not to make jokes like that in the future. I understand where you are coming from and how my sort of remarks, even in jest, could be damaging.
For what it is worth, I think such jokes are a) amusing b) helpful.
Fair enough.
I agree that there probably isn’t that much tribal patriotism here, but there are probably a few posters whose minds are tainted by ideology (libertarianism, left-liberalism, environmentalism, maybe conservatism) (I don’t consider my mind untainted by ideology), which can be equally polarizing.
Well, I suppose if we supplemented that with inventing Prozium) we would be all set! ;)