I personally come to Less Wrong specifically for the debates (well, that, and HP:MoR Wild Mass Guessing). Therefore, raising the barrier to entry would be exactly the opposite of what I want, since it would eliminate many fresh voices, and limit the conversation to those who’d already read all of the sequences (a category that would exclude myself, now that I think about it), and agree with everything said therein. You can quibble about whether such a community would constitute a “phyg” or not, but it definitely wouldn’t be a place where any productive debate could occur. People who wholeheartedly agree with each other tend not to debate.
A ‘debate club’ mindset is one of the things I would try to avoid. Debates emerge when there are new ideas to be expressed and new outlooks or bodies of knowledge to consider—and the supply of such is practically endless. You don’t go around trying to artificially encourage an environment of ignorance just so some people are sufficiently uninformed that they will try to argue trivial matters. That’s both counterproductive and distasteful.
I would not be at all disappointed if a side effect of maintaining high standards of communication causes us to lose some participants who “come to Less Wrong specifically for the debates”. Frankly, that would be among the best things we could hope for. That sort of mindset is outright toxic to conversations and often similarly deleterious to the social atmosphere.
You don’t go around trying to artificially encourage an environment of ignorance just so some people are sufficiently uninformed that they will try to argue trivial matters.
I wasn’t suggesting we do that, FWIW.
That sort of mindset is outright toxic to conversations and often similarly deleterious to the social atmosphere.
I think there’s a difference between flame wars and informed debate. I’m in favor of the latter, not the former. On the other hand, I’m not a big fan of communities where everyone agrees with everyone else. I acknowledge that they can be useful as support groups, but I don’t think that LW is a support group, nor should it become one. Rationality is all about changing one’s beliefs, after all...
You said that we should avoid debate because it’s bad for the social atmosphere.
No I didn’t. I said we should avoid creating a deliberate environment of ignorance just so that debate is artificially supported. To the extent that debate is a means to an end it is distinctly counterproductive to deliberately sabotage that same end so that more debate is forced.
Upon rereading, I think I see what you’re getting at, but you seem to be arguing from the principle that creating ignorance is the preferred way to create debate. That seems ahem non-obvious to me. There’s no shortage of topics where informed debate is possible, and seeking to debate those does not require(and, in fact, generally works against) promoting ignorance. Coming here for debate does not imply wanting to watch an intellectual cripplefight.
Upon rereading, I think I see what you’re getting at, but you seem to be arguing from the principle that creating ignorance is the preferred way to create debate. That seems ahem non-obvious to me.
I seem to be coming from a position of making a direct reply to Bugmaster with the specific paragraph I was replying to quoted. That should have made the meaning more obvious to you.
There’s no shortage of topics where informed debate is possible, and seeking to debate those does not require(and, in fact, generally works against) promoting ignorance.
Which is what I myself advocated with:
Debates emerge when there are new ideas to be expressed and new outlooks or bodies of knowledge to consider—and the supply of such is practically endless.
A ‘debate club’ mindset is one of the things I would try to avoid. Debates emerge when there are new ideas to be expressed and new outlooks or bodies of knowledge to consider—and the supply of such is practically endless. You don’t go around trying to artificially encourage an environment of ignorance just so some people are sufficiently uninformed that they will try to argue trivial matters. That’s both counterproductive and distasteful.
I would not be at all disappointed if a side effect of maintaining high standards of communication causes us to lose some participants who “come to Less Wrong specifically for the debates”. Frankly, that would be among the best things we could hope for. That sort of mindset is outright toxic to conversations and often similarly deleterious to the social atmosphere.
I wasn’t suggesting we do that, FWIW.
I think there’s a difference between flame wars and informed debate. I’m in favor of the latter, not the former. On the other hand, I’m not a big fan of communities where everyone agrees with everyone else. I acknowledge that they can be useful as support groups, but I don’t think that LW is a support group, nor should it become one. Rationality is all about changing one’s beliefs, after all...
Debate is a tool for achieving truth. Why is that such a terrible thing?
I didn’t say it was. Please read again.
You said that we should avoid debate because it’s bad for the social atmosphere. I’m not seeing much difference.
No I didn’t. I said we should avoid creating a deliberate environment of ignorance just so that debate is artificially supported. To the extent that debate is a means to an end it is distinctly counterproductive to deliberately sabotage that same end so that more debate is forced.
See also: Lost purpose.
Upon rereading, I think I see what you’re getting at, but you seem to be arguing from the principle that creating ignorance is the preferred way to create debate. That seems ahem non-obvious to me. There’s no shortage of topics where informed debate is possible, and seeking to debate those does not require(and, in fact, generally works against) promoting ignorance. Coming here for debate does not imply wanting to watch an intellectual cripplefight.
I seem to be coming from a position of making a direct reply to Bugmaster with the specific paragraph I was replying to quoted. That should have made the meaning more obvious to you.
Which is what I myself advocated with: