The direction I’d like to see LW moving in as a community
Criticism has a perverse characteristic:
Fresh ideas are easier to criticize than established ideas, because the language, supporting evidence, and theoretical mechanics have received less attention.
Criticism has more of a chilling effect on new thinkers with fresh ideas than on established thinkers with popular ideas.
Ideas that survive into adulthood will therefore tend to be championed by thinkers who are less receptive to criticism.
Maybe we need some sort of “baby criticism” for new ideas. A “developmentally-appropriate criticism,” so to speak.
As a community, that might look something like this:
We presume that each post has a core of a good idea contained within it.
We are effusive in our praise of those posts.
We ask clarifying questions, for examples, and for what sorts of predictions the post makes, as though the OP were an expert already. This process lets them get their thoughts together, flesh out the model, and build on it perhaps in future posts.
We focus on parts of the post that seem correct but under-specified, rather than on the parts that seem wrong. If you’re digging for gold, 99% of the earth around you will contain nothing of value. If you focus on “digging for dirt,” it’s highly unlikely that you’ll find gold. But if you pan the stream, looking for which direction to walk in where you find the most flecks of gold, you’ll start to zero in on the place with the most value to be found.
We show each other care and attention as people who are helping each other develop as writers and thinkers, rather than treating the things people write as the primary object of our concern.
This reminds me of the “babble and prune” concept. We should allow… maybe not literally the “babble” stage, but something in between, when the idea is already half-shaped but not completed.
I think the obvious concern is that all kinds of crackpottery may try to enter this open door, so what would be the balance mechanism? Should authors specify their level of certainty and be treated accordingly? (Maybe choose one of predefined levels from “just thinking aloud” to “nitpicking welcome”.) In a perfect world, certainty could be deduced from the tone of the article, but this does not work reliably. Something else...?
We show each other care and attention as people who are helping each other develop as writers and thinkers, rather than treating the things people write as the primary object of our concern.
While this sounds nice on the abstract level I’m not sure what concrete behavior you are pointing to. Could you link to examples of comments that you think do this well?
I don’t want to take the time to do what you’ve requested. Some hypothetical concrete behaviors, however:
Asking questions with a tone that conveys a tentative willingness to play with the author’s framework or argument, and an interest in hearing more of the authors’ thoughts.
Compliments, “this made me think of,” “my favorite part of your post was”
Noting connections between a post and the authors’ previous writings.
The direction I’d like to see LW moving in as a community
Criticism has a perverse characteristic:
Fresh ideas are easier to criticize than established ideas, because the language, supporting evidence, and theoretical mechanics have received less attention.
Criticism has more of a chilling effect on new thinkers with fresh ideas than on established thinkers with popular ideas.
Ideas that survive into adulthood will therefore tend to be championed by thinkers who are less receptive to criticism.
Maybe we need some sort of “baby criticism” for new ideas. A “developmentally-appropriate criticism,” so to speak.
As a community, that might look something like this:
We presume that each post has a core of a good idea contained within it.
We are effusive in our praise of those posts.
We ask clarifying questions, for examples, and for what sorts of predictions the post makes, as though the OP were an expert already. This process lets them get their thoughts together, flesh out the model, and build on it perhaps in future posts.
We focus on parts of the post that seem correct but under-specified, rather than on the parts that seem wrong. If you’re digging for gold, 99% of the earth around you will contain nothing of value. If you focus on “digging for dirt,” it’s highly unlikely that you’ll find gold. But if you pan the stream, looking for which direction to walk in where you find the most flecks of gold, you’ll start to zero in on the place with the most value to be found.
We show each other care and attention as people who are helping each other develop as writers and thinkers, rather than treating the things people write as the primary object of our concern.
This reminds me of the “babble and prune” concept. We should allow… maybe not literally the “babble” stage, but something in between, when the idea is already half-shaped but not completed.
I think the obvious concern is that all kinds of crackpottery may try to enter this open door, so what would be the balance mechanism? Should authors specify their level of certainty and be treated accordingly? (Maybe choose one of predefined levels from “just thinking aloud” to “nitpicking welcome”.) In a perfect world, certainty could be deduced from the tone of the article, but this does not work reliably. Something else...?
While this sounds nice on the abstract level I’m not sure what concrete behavior you are pointing to. Could you link to examples of comments that you think do this well?
I don’t want to take the time to do what you’ve requested. Some hypothetical concrete behaviors, however:
Asking questions with a tone that conveys a tentative willingness to play with the author’s framework or argument, and an interest in hearing more of the authors’ thoughts.
Compliments, “this made me think of,” “my favorite part of your post was”
Noting connections between a post and the authors’ previous writings.
Offers to collaborate or edit.