I don’t think it’s an important problem. Nitpicks can be annoying, but (1) you don’t have to reply to nitpicking comments; and (2) if all you get are nitpicks, this is evidence that no one wants to (or can) attack your core claims.
While (2) is true, an environment crowded with nitpickers means that the expected value of the average comment in the community declines. This may continue past the point that you stop expecting any of the discussion to be worthwhile.
My impression is that “the expected value of the average comment” is predominantly the function of the average IQ of the commentariat and only in a very minor way the function of their propensity to nitpick.
This violates Grice’s maxims of quantity and relation.
A lot of the content of communication is about which things are said and which are unsaid. Promoting an issue to someone’s attention is privileging the hypothesis. People have social intuitions that take this into account even when they can’t articulate them. In general, if the response you get to something you’ve written is largely composed of annoyances, it’s a very reasonable response to downregulate that behavior—plus, it’ll happen automatically, whether reasonable or not. So if we want more high-quality writing, we should not be happy with an environment that rewards writing with serious flaws, but only annoys the best writers.
I think disagreement on something like the above is pretty key to why other folks here have expressed frustration about your commenting. You seem to be ignoring important social norms that, when they function well, reward virtue and punish vice, instead making claims on others’ attention even when they’re not justified by relevance.
Incidentally, I consider this good evidence for the merits of claim-tagging, since I think both your comments on this post so far are highly relevant, and I’m affirmatively glad you wrote them!
First, the question isn’t whether nitpicking is good or bad. It is bad by definition since the word carries negative connotations (the same meaning with positive connotations would be called something like “careful and thorough detail-oriented assessment”). The question is whether nitpicking is important and I haven’t seen data or convincing arguments that it is.
Second, when you write “largely composed of annoyances” and “we should not be happy with an environment that rewards writing with serious flaws, but only annoys the best writers” you implicitly assume that most comments are nitpicks. There is no reason to make such an assumption (and where does “rewarding” come from, anyway?).
You seem to be ignoring important social norms
Which important social norms are they? and of which society?
I’ve been busy. To be frank, hanging out at LW isn’t the most productive use of time, so I don’t want to deliberately redirect my attention here. We’ll see how it goes.
I don’t think it’s an important problem. Nitpicks can be annoying, but (1) you don’t have to reply to nitpicking comments; and (2) if all you get are nitpicks, this is evidence that no one wants to (or can) attack your core claims.
While (2) is true, an environment crowded with nitpickers means that the expected value of the average comment in the community declines. This may continue past the point that you stop expecting any of the discussion to be worthwhile.
Also, pedantic nitpickers feed on each other.
My impression is that “the expected value of the average comment” is predominantly the function of the average IQ of the commentariat and only in a very minor way the function of their propensity to nitpick.
This violates Grice’s maxims of quantity and relation.
A lot of the content of communication is about which things are said and which are unsaid. Promoting an issue to someone’s attention is privileging the hypothesis. People have social intuitions that take this into account even when they can’t articulate them. In general, if the response you get to something you’ve written is largely composed of annoyances, it’s a very reasonable response to downregulate that behavior—plus, it’ll happen automatically, whether reasonable or not. So if we want more high-quality writing, we should not be happy with an environment that rewards writing with serious flaws, but only annoys the best writers.
I think disagreement on something like the above is pretty key to why other folks here have expressed frustration about your commenting. You seem to be ignoring important social norms that, when they function well, reward virtue and punish vice, instead making claims on others’ attention even when they’re not justified by relevance.
Incidentally, I consider this good evidence for the merits of claim-tagging, since I think both your comments on this post so far are highly relevant, and I’m affirmatively glad you wrote them!
First, the question isn’t whether nitpicking is good or bad. It is bad by definition since the word carries negative connotations (the same meaning with positive connotations would be called something like “careful and thorough detail-oriented assessment”). The question is whether nitpicking is important and I haven’t seen data or convincing arguments that it is.
Second, when you write “largely composed of annoyances” and “we should not be happy with an environment that rewards writing with serious flaws, but only annoys the best writers” you implicitly assume that most comments are nitpicks. There is no reason to make such an assumption (and where does “rewarding” come from, anyway?).
Which important social norms are they? and of which society?
You have been noticeably not commenting. Care to comment why?
I’ve been busy. To be frank, hanging out at LW isn’t the most productive use of time, so I don’t want to deliberately redirect my attention here. We’ll see how it goes.