Opinion just within tech already seems pretty polarized, or rather, all over the place. You have doomers, SJWs, accelerationists, deniers… And avoiding all forms of polarization, at all scales, seems impossible. People naturally form opposing alliances. Is there a particular polarization that you especially want to prevent?
I agree that opinions are already divided in the tech community. I’m not sure about the emotional and communication dynamics. So I think it might be important to not make that divide worse, and instead make it easier for people to cross that divide.
I think most nontechnical people aren’t polarized yet, and they probably get a vote, figuratively and literally. So trying to avoid polarizing them might still be worthwhile.
I’m still very vague about what you want to prevent. You want non-technical people to all agree on something? To be mild rather than passionate, if they do disagree? Are you aiming to avoid political polarisation, specifically? Do you just want people to agree that there’s a problem, but not necessarily agree on the solution?
Yes, it’s fair to say that I’d like people to disagree mildly rather than passionately if they do disagree. Belief in human-caused climate change actually decreased among half of the US population even as evidence accumulated, based on the polarization effects. And I think those could be deadly, since having a lot of people disagree might well produce no regulatory action whatsoever.
I don’t think this is likely to polarize along existing political lines, and thank goodness. But it is a pretty important issue that people are passionate about, and that creates a strong potential for polarization.
Opinion just within tech already seems pretty polarized, or rather, all over the place. You have doomers, SJWs, accelerationists, deniers… And avoiding all forms of polarization, at all scales, seems impossible. People naturally form opposing alliances. Is there a particular polarization that you especially want to prevent?
I agree that opinions are already divided in the tech community. I’m not sure about the emotional and communication dynamics. So I think it might be important to not make that divide worse, and instead make it easier for people to cross that divide.
I think most nontechnical people aren’t polarized yet, and they probably get a vote, figuratively and literally. So trying to avoid polarizing them might still be worthwhile.
I’m still very vague about what you want to prevent. You want non-technical people to all agree on something? To be mild rather than passionate, if they do disagree? Are you aiming to avoid political polarisation, specifically? Do you just want people to agree that there’s a problem, but not necessarily agree on the solution?
Yes, it’s fair to say that I’d like people to disagree mildly rather than passionately if they do disagree. Belief in human-caused climate change actually decreased among half of the US population even as evidence accumulated, based on the polarization effects. And I think those could be deadly, since having a lot of people disagree might well produce no regulatory action whatsoever.
I don’t think this is likely to polarize along existing political lines, and thank goodness. But it is a pretty important issue that people are passionate about, and that creates a strong potential for polarization.