If this norm were to be followed, I think it should apply to endorsements / positive statements as well. Unjustified positivity and endorsement is more harmful when criticism is discouraged.
I think that being unreasonably negative is generally a lot worse than being unreasonably positive, at least in terms of its effect on other participants—while both might be epistemically unsound, the consequences of a space being too negative are much more stifling to a community than the consequences of a space being too positive.
That said, I do think it would be good form to justify or retract unreasonably positive statements as well if challenged!
the consequences of a space being too negative are much more stifling to a community than the consequences of a space being too positive.
I don’t agree with this. I’ve felt pretty silenced by people having high opinions of e.g. certain orgs and seeming actively uninterested in information indicating that such opinions are false. Which means it’s harder for me to talk about what I actually think.
I anticipate much more negative social feedback for criticizing things people like, versus for praising things people don’t like.
As far as I can tell, “well-calibrated” is actually optimal, and deviations from that are stifling, because they contribute to a sense that everyone is lying all the time, and you have to either join in the lies, stay quiet, or be a rebel.
If this norm were to be followed, I think it should apply to endorsements / positive statements as well. Unjustified positivity and endorsement is more harmful when criticism is discouraged.
I think that being unreasonably negative is generally a lot worse than being unreasonably positive, at least in terms of its effect on other participants—while both might be epistemically unsound, the consequences of a space being too negative are much more stifling to a community than the consequences of a space being too positive.
That said, I do think it would be good form to justify or retract unreasonably positive statements as well if challenged!
I don’t agree with this. I’ve felt pretty silenced by people having high opinions of e.g. certain orgs and seeming actively uninterested in information indicating that such opinions are false. Which means it’s harder for me to talk about what I actually think.
I anticipate much more negative social feedback for criticizing things people like, versus for praising things people don’t like.
As far as I can tell, “well-calibrated” is actually optimal, and deviations from that are stifling, because they contribute to a sense that everyone is lying all the time, and you have to either join in the lies, stay quiet, or be a rebel.