Yeah, I wouldn’t call my writing “rational”, but it seems like I got rid of some bad habits that are frequent on other parts of internet, and it is annoying when a new user unknowingly brings them here. I wish I could pinpoint them; that would probably be a useful list of do’s and dont’s.
One such example is exaggeration. In many debates, exaggeration is a way to get attention. People are screaming at each other; you need to scream louder than average in order to be noticed. Here, hyperbole will more likely make you seem stupid. We want a calibrated presentation of your case instead. If it is not the most important thing in the world, that is perfectly okay… unless you pretend that it is.
Similarly, humility. If you are not sure about something, that is okay as you admit it. The problem is when you write as if you are 100% sure of something, but make obvious mistakes.
Do not use CAPS LOCK, do not make clickbait titles… okay, this is probably obvious. It just seems to me that what the annoying stuff has in common is fighting for attention (by sacrificing to Moloch). The proper way to get attention is to write good content. -- Perhaps we should remind the new users that there are mechanisms that reward this. In short term, karma. In long term, selecting the best articles of the year.
(Generally, trying to seem cool can backfire? Or maybe it’s just because I am mostly noticing the unsuccessful attempts to seem cool?)
If you make a mistake, do not double down. Your article getting −10 karma should not motivate you to write three more articles on the same topic. You are not going to win that way. More likely, you will get banned.
We are not one convincing article away from joining your religion or your political cause.
One of the things I like least in comments is imputing (bad) motives: “Clearly you wrote this to X” or “Your purpose is to Y” etc.
Another thing I don’t like is confidently paraphrasing what someone else said, in a way that’s inevitably a misunderstanding or strawman. “You’re clearly endorsing <politically disfavored concept, e.g. eugenics>. How dare you!”. Trying to paraphrase others is good, if it’s done in a spirit of curiosity: “Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understood you to say X.”, or “As I understand it, you imply Y.”
Yeah, I wouldn’t call my writing “rational”, but it seems like I got rid of some bad habits that are frequent on other parts of internet, and it is annoying when a new user unknowingly brings them here. I wish I could pinpoint them; that would probably be a useful list of do’s and dont’s.
One such example is exaggeration. In many debates, exaggeration is a way to get attention. People are screaming at each other; you need to scream louder than average in order to be noticed. Here, hyperbole will more likely make you seem stupid. We want a calibrated presentation of your case instead. If it is not the most important thing in the world, that is perfectly okay… unless you pretend that it is.
Similarly, humility. If you are not sure about something, that is okay as you admit it. The problem is when you write as if you are 100% sure of something, but make obvious mistakes.
Do not use CAPS LOCK, do not make clickbait titles… okay, this is probably obvious. It just seems to me that what the annoying stuff has in common is fighting for attention (by sacrificing to Moloch). The proper way to get attention is to write good content. -- Perhaps we should remind the new users that there are mechanisms that reward this. In short term, karma. In long term, selecting the best articles of the year.
(Generally, trying to seem cool can backfire? Or maybe it’s just because I am mostly noticing the unsuccessful attempts to seem cool?)
If you make a mistake, do not double down. Your article getting −10 karma should not motivate you to write three more articles on the same topic. You are not going to win that way. More likely, you will get banned.
We are not one convincing article away from joining your religion or your political cause.
One of the things I like least in comments is imputing (bad) motives: “Clearly you wrote this to X” or “Your purpose is to Y” etc.
Another thing I don’t like is confidently paraphrasing what someone else said, in a way that’s inevitably a misunderstanding or strawman. “You’re clearly endorsing <politically disfavored concept, e.g. eugenics>. How dare you!”. Trying to paraphrase others is good, if it’s done in a spirit of curiosity: “Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understood you to say X.”, or “As I understand it, you imply Y.”
Thank you!