“Don’t believe in yourself! Believe that I believe in you!”
If you’re trying to quote Gurren-Lagann here, I believe you botched the quote. “Believe in me who believes in you!” But maybe it was dubbed differently. In any case, I do find some amusement in your approvingly quoting a show which was more or less premised on a rejection of rationality. “Throw away your logic and kick reason to the curb!” I’ll have to remember that for the next anti-rationalism quotes thread.
But anyways, I did like this post, although as you implicitly concede it’s just one narrative of community development among many. I’m sure that there have been as many communities to have fallen due to despotic moderation or impoverished by rigid ideological guidelines as there have been ruined in the ways described in the OP. Oftentimes the “idiots” who “ruin” the comm are actually the lonely voices of reason. It’s a fine line to walk, and I look forward to someday seeing a modern-day Machiavelli write a tract on “The Internet Community Moderator”. Because it really is that tricky.
I’ve seen it happen, actually. I went to a Christian youth forum looking for some shooting-fish-in-a-barrel debating fun, and over time I noticed that a handful of rationalists gradually came to dominate discussion, to the point where the majority would avoid making ridiculous statements in order to avoid being called out on it.
A few bright, articulate people who can type fast are surprisingly effective. If LW ever invades some other forum, that forum will either get out the banhammer or be overrun.
If LW ever invades some other forum, that forum will either get out the banhammer or be overrun.
OK, that sounds like a lot of fun. Which would be exactly the wrong reason for us to do it.
That being said, what would be the result of a coup like that? If we could actually expect to change a few minds in the process, it might be worth trying.
On the other hand, reputation is a valuable commodity. What would such an act do to our visibility and reputation?
I don’t think Gurren Lagann is meant to be taken seriously; it struck me, when I was watching it, as a reductio of the old-style mecha genre (a loving one, one done by fans of it, but still a reductio). It’s a funny quip because it’s so contradictory to the usual believe-in-yourself spiel, is all.
I can’t think of a specific example that a broad audience might know about, but it’s relatively easy to see how this could arise. Take a community of “idiots”, by whatever criteria we’d use to apply the term to the lone troll. Many of them exist which espouse all sorts of nonsense. Throw in someone who actually understands the topics which these people purport to discuss. Unless that person is incredibly subtle and eloquent, they will be denounced as an idiot in any number of ways.
I can speak here from my own experience as an economist who’s tried to make arguments about public choice and decentralized knowledge to a general (online) audience in order to defend free markets. A lot of crowds really will have none of it. I think this is a frustration which even the best libertarian-leaning individuals have run into. But given persistence, one can gain ground… and subsequently be accused of “ruining” a safe space which was reserved for the narrow worldview which you challenged. In face, any community with “safe space” disclaimers is probably extremely vulnerable to this—I just doubt you’ve engaged with many.
OK, yes, that’s a counterexample. However, in all those instances, the community itself is screwed in a fundamental way, and the fix is not for people to welcome the “idiots”: the fix is to leave the community and go somewhere more sensible. Is there an example of a community good enough that you would recommend anyone to join, but which would have been improved by taking the criticism of unpopular members more seriously? It doesn’t have to be a well-known example, and you don’t have to link to it; even anecdotal evidence would be enlightening here.
Damaging such a broken community might be a good thing, much as tearing down a dangerously decrepit building can be better than letting squatters stay in it until it collapses on them.
(I think that analogy as gone about as far as it should go)
The real broken analogy is comparing an online social club to a community, of all things. In the real world, a community is a group of people who deal with one another and compromise their values in order to share protection from bodily harm and cultivate a nurturing surrounding ecology. Invoking this metaphor (and the instinct of protection which it naturally evokes) in reference to a virtual social space is a recipe for cultishness, irrationality and grossly authoritarian “gardening” methods, such as enforcing petty politeness norms in the face of serious challenges involving failures of reasoning or ethics.
The fact that we’re even talking about how a basic challenge to groupthink might “destroy a community” shows this more clearly than anything else could. The term “virtual community” should be permanently taboo-ed here, as a matter of minimally required sanity.
In inferring that’s necessarily the case, one probably commits the fallacy of composition.
Most real-world communities involve such compromises, if only in the values of autonomy and freedom. We will gladly make these compromises given the attendant benefits, but this is not to say that a change in core values has not occurred.
Speaking of “Invoking this metaphor (and the instinct of protection which it naturally evokes)”...
You are misinterpreting my point. I’m not saying we should care about how a pure social club is managing itself. I’ll even endorse such clubs calling themselves “online communities”, if this makes folks happier. But the moment an “online community” is having harmful effects on the real world (say, by fostering misconceptions about economics and free markets [as per sibling thread], or by spreading lies such as “global warming is caused by solar activity, not by human beings”), is when respectfully engaging with that “community” becomes justified and praise-worthy. And so is criticizing them as “authoritarian” if they were to dismiss genuine grievances about their real-world impact with petty concerns about “politeness” and “manners”.
This is part of the reason why Less Wrong discourages political discussion. We do not know how to have a genuinely useful/productive political debate online, and we don’t want trolls to come here and complain about how their pet political cause is being handled. So we focus on the smaller problems of epistemic and instrumental rationality, leaving politics to specialized “open politics” websites which can experiment and take the heat for what they do. In turn, open politics folks will hopefully refer to Less Wrong for basic rationality stuff.
When multiple parties make a pact to modify their actions from what they would otherwise have done, it is a mistake to think that they have necessarily modified their values. In particular, if they agree to modify their actions to be similar to each other’s, to each perform the actions that best jointly satisfy their values, it is a mistake to think that any individual or all of them now has the value set that would be implied by an individual independently choosing to act as each has agreed.
“authoritarian”
Criticizing for doing a type of thing is misguided. “Slavery!”
Concerns about politeness, manners, and social norms that underlie clear communication are tied into real-world impact. You seem to be artificially constructing criticism by looking for types of things and labeling them with the term that describes them and connotes they are evil without making concrete criticisms of things actually said or done here (I didn’t see “politeness” or “manners” invoked in this comment thread, for example).
“Revolutions create a curious inversion of perception. In ordinary times, people who do no more than describe the world around them are seen as pragmatists, while those who imagine fabulous alternative futures are viewed as radicals. The last couple of decades haven’t been ordinary, however. Inside the papers, the pragmatists were the ones simply looking out the window and noticing that the real world was increasingly resembling the unthinkable scenario. These people were treated as if they were barking mad. Meanwhile the people spinning visions of popular walled gardens and enthusiastic micropayment adoption, visions unsupported by reality, were regarded not as charlatans but saviors.”
This comment is a great example of how torn I am sometimes when allocating votes. At first glance, it seems like you’re just saying something insulting and possibly mean, and adding little to the conversation—verdict: downvote.
Then, I realize that this is actually a good counterargument, once the time is taken to unpack it. Clearly it would be the case that a participant in the community would think that the “idiots” aren’t the lonely voices of reason, if they actually were. If this happens frequently, then such a person would not notice the phenomenon at all.
Now I must decide whether to leave it neutral or upvote it. Since I had to do the work to get at the point of the comment, rather than having it spelled out in the comment (preferably with references where applicable), I would think it’s not worth an upvote. On the other hand, the act of working out something like this is itself valuable (as we see in Zen stories), so maybe it is worth an upvote.
If you’re trying to quote Gurren-Lagann here, I believe you botched the quote. “Believe in me who believes in you!” But maybe it was dubbed differently. In any case, I do find some amusement in your approvingly quoting a show which was more or less premised on a rejection of rationality. “Throw away your logic and kick reason to the curb!” I’ll have to remember that for the next anti-rationalism quotes thread.
But anyways, I did like this post, although as you implicitly concede it’s just one narrative of community development among many. I’m sure that there have been as many communities to have fallen due to despotic moderation or impoverished by rigid ideological guidelines as there have been ruined in the ways described in the OP. Oftentimes the “idiots” who “ruin” the comm are actually the lonely voices of reason. It’s a fine line to walk, and I look forward to someday seeing a modern-day Machiavelli write a tract on “The Internet Community Moderator”. Because it really is that tricky.
On the other hand, “lonely voices of reason” are unlikely to overrun a community of idiots the way idiots can overrun a more intelligent community.
Unless LWers got together and staged an invasion… wouldn’t that make for an interesting day at some forum...
I’ve seen it happen, actually. I went to a Christian youth forum looking for some shooting-fish-in-a-barrel debating fun, and over time I noticed that a handful of rationalists gradually came to dominate discussion, to the point where the majority would avoid making ridiculous statements in order to avoid being called out on it.
A few bright, articulate people who can type fast are surprisingly effective. If LW ever invades some other forum, that forum will either get out the banhammer or be overrun.
OK, that sounds like a lot of fun. Which would be exactly the wrong reason for us to do it.
That being said, what would be the result of a coup like that? If we could actually expect to change a few minds in the process, it might be worth trying.
On the other hand, reputation is a valuable commodity. What would such an act do to our visibility and reputation?
I don’t think Gurren Lagann is meant to be taken seriously; it struck me, when I was watching it, as a reductio of the old-style mecha genre (a loving one, one done by fans of it, but still a reductio). It’s a funny quip because it’s so contradictory to the usual believe-in-yourself spiel, is all.
Could you give an example where you’ve seen this? In 20 years online I’ve seen it once, maybe.
I can’t think of a specific example that a broad audience might know about, but it’s relatively easy to see how this could arise. Take a community of “idiots”, by whatever criteria we’d use to apply the term to the lone troll. Many of them exist which espouse all sorts of nonsense. Throw in someone who actually understands the topics which these people purport to discuss. Unless that person is incredibly subtle and eloquent, they will be denounced as an idiot in any number of ways.
I can speak here from my own experience as an economist who’s tried to make arguments about public choice and decentralized knowledge to a general (online) audience in order to defend free markets. A lot of crowds really will have none of it. I think this is a frustration which even the best libertarian-leaning individuals have run into. But given persistence, one can gain ground… and subsequently be accused of “ruining” a safe space which was reserved for the narrow worldview which you challenged. In face, any community with “safe space” disclaimers is probably extremely vulnerable to this—I just doubt you’ve engaged with many.
OK, yes, that’s a counterexample. However, in all those instances, the community itself is screwed in a fundamental way, and the fix is not for people to welcome the “idiots”: the fix is to leave the community and go somewhere more sensible. Is there an example of a community good enough that you would recommend anyone to join, but which would have been improved by taking the criticism of unpopular members more seriously? It doesn’t have to be a well-known example, and you don’t have to link to it; even anecdotal evidence would be enlightening here.
Damaging such a broken community might be a good thing, much as tearing down a dangerously decrepit building can be better than letting squatters stay in it until it collapses on them.
(I think that analogy as gone about as far as it should go)
The real broken analogy is comparing an online social club to a community, of all things. In the real world, a community is a group of people who deal with one another and compromise their values in order to share protection from bodily harm and cultivate a nurturing surrounding ecology. Invoking this metaphor (and the instinct of protection which it naturally evokes) in reference to a virtual social space is a recipe for cultishness, irrationality and grossly authoritarian “gardening” methods, such as enforcing petty politeness norms in the face of serious challenges involving failures of reasoning or ethics.
The fact that we’re even talking about how a basic challenge to groupthink might “destroy a community” shows this more clearly than anything else could. The term “virtual community” should be permanently taboo-ed here, as a matter of minimally required sanity.
You make a good case for this
That’s wrong. It would be a poor isomorphism, it’s a fantastic analogy.
In inferring that’s necessarily the case, one probably commits the fallacy of composition.
Speaking of words worthy of “taboo”...
Speaking of “Invoking this metaphor (and the instinct of protection which it naturally evokes)”...
Most real-world communities involve such compromises, if only in the values of autonomy and freedom. We will gladly make these compromises given the attendant benefits, but this is not to say that a change in core values has not occurred.
You are misinterpreting my point. I’m not saying we should care about how a pure social club is managing itself. I’ll even endorse such clubs calling themselves “online communities”, if this makes folks happier. But the moment an “online community” is having harmful effects on the real world (say, by fostering misconceptions about economics and free markets [as per sibling thread], or by spreading lies such as “global warming is caused by solar activity, not by human beings”), is when respectfully engaging with that “community” becomes justified and praise-worthy. And so is criticizing them as “authoritarian” if they were to dismiss genuine grievances about their real-world impact with petty concerns about “politeness” and “manners”.
This is part of the reason why Less Wrong discourages political discussion. We do not know how to have a genuinely useful/productive political debate online, and we don’t want trolls to come here and complain about how their pet political cause is being handled. So we focus on the smaller problems of epistemic and instrumental rationality, leaving politics to specialized “open politics” websites which can experiment and take the heat for what they do. In turn, open politics folks will hopefully refer to Less Wrong for basic rationality stuff.
All else equal, one infers values from actions.
When multiple parties make a pact to modify their actions from what they would otherwise have done, it is a mistake to think that they have necessarily modified their values. In particular, if they agree to modify their actions to be similar to each other’s, to each perform the actions that best jointly satisfy their values, it is a mistake to think that any individual or all of them now has the value set that would be implied by an individual independently choosing to act as each has agreed.
Criticizing for doing a type of thing is misguided. “Slavery!”
Concerns about politeness, manners, and social norms that underlie clear communication are tied into real-world impact. You seem to be artificially constructing criticism by looking for types of things and labeling them with the term that describes them and connotes they are evil without making concrete criticisms of things actually said or done here (I didn’t see “politeness” or “manners” invoked in this comment thread, for example).
Often, it depends. ;)
It is legitimate to have preferences (or ethics or morals) that do deprecate all instances of doing a type of thing.
Worse, what I said was logically self-contradictory.
Let’s try again:
For almost any type of thing, it is not true that it is always deleterious.
Criticizing a type of thing is useful to the extent you and others are poor at reasoning about and acting on specifics.
Good point.
That works!
There is something related (albeit about an industry, rather than a community) in http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/
“Revolutions create a curious inversion of perception. In ordinary times, people who do no more than describe the world around them are seen as pragmatists, while those who imagine fabulous alternative futures are viewed as radicals. The last couple of decades haven’t been ordinary, however. Inside the papers, the pragmatists were the ones simply looking out the window and noticing that the real world was increasingly resembling the unthinkable scenario. These people were treated as if they were barking mad. Meanwhile the people spinning visions of popular walled gardens and enthusiastic micropayment adoption, visions unsupported by reality, were regarded not as charlatans but saviors.”
“Could you give an example where you’ve seen this? In 20 years online I’ve seen it once, maybe.”
Are you aware of the famous advice regarding poker games and suckers?
This comment is a great example of how torn I am sometimes when allocating votes. At first glance, it seems like you’re just saying something insulting and possibly mean, and adding little to the conversation—verdict: downvote.
Then, I realize that this is actually a good counterargument, once the time is taken to unpack it. Clearly it would be the case that a participant in the community would think that the “idiots” aren’t the lonely voices of reason, if they actually were. If this happens frequently, then such a person would not notice the phenomenon at all.
Now I must decide whether to leave it neutral or upvote it. Since I had to do the work to get at the point of the comment, rather than having it spelled out in the comment (preferably with references where applicable), I would think it’s not worth an upvote. On the other hand, the act of working out something like this is itself valuable (as we see in Zen stories), so maybe it is worth an upvote.
YMMV.
I see quite a different perspective: