I would like to note that I disagree strongly with you on when and how, in your analogy on science-fiction and and a teacher, the conflict is likely to be occurring. I see it more as, the teacher says something about science-fiction being inherently unrealistic (likely without having even mentioned they would give lower grades on science-fiction) when giving a student a B- on an otherwise well-written assignment involving writing a coherent and realistic story, and the student fires back about the kinds of writing the teacher favors as being unrealistic (which may even be true), so the B- is clearly invalid, and refuses to take any feedback on the issue. Other students may then copy the technique of just ignoring what the teacher says too, feeling fully justified.
You seem like a Kantian—searching for a universalizable law that makes society operate well. For Kant, it was never permissible to lie. In his view, behaviors were either permissible in all contexts, or permissible in no contexts. The moral code that society should follow was the set of rules that could be universally imposed, context-free, and still have society function well. He bit the bullet: if an axe murder was at the door, demanding you tell him where his intended victim was hiding, you were morally forbidden from lying to him—although I don’t know if it was required to tell him what he wanted to know.
Hence, when I offer a situation which (in my mind), the student was clearly the victim of a year-long campaign of degrading his literary talents and preferences by a teacher with an axe to grind, your response is to consider a different situation in which the student is rejecting sound advice, or at least advice worthy of consideration, by a teacher with a respectful tone.
If SOL helps in protecting one’s well-being the axe-grinding teacher, but also impairs our ability to receive useful feedback from constructive criticism, and if the common good depends more on receptivity to constructive criticism than to defense against destructive criticism, then we have to reject SOL entirely. It is not universalizable.
I’m a utilitarian, not a Kantian.
As a utilitarian, I allow that we shouldn’t always evaluate individual actions on their own merits. Instead, we sometimes need to create rules that are net utility enhancing. However, I think that it’s best when rules are as contextually-informed as possible, while Kant thought they should be minimally contextually informed, or really evaluated in a context-free manner, as in the axe murderer scenario.
Sometimes, we deal with the problem where contexts are misinterpreted, deliberately or accidentally. In situations like this, I think the right thing to do is lean toward more general, “outside-view,” less contextual rules. Sometimes, the problem of context interpretation is so huge that we have to impose a crude, context-free rule to deal with the problem.
For example, the vast majority of people who might like to bring sharp objects onto an airplane are probably people who want them for nonviolent purposes. We could consider a rule that it’s permissible to bring sharp objects onto planes, as long as you don’t intend to hijack the aircraft. However, the problem of terrorism is so important that we impose a blanket ban on sharp objects, entirely ignoring contexts like “this is an old lady with her knitting needles, she obviously wants to pass the time on the plane knitting a sweater.” This is the right thing to do to make rules about what you can bring on planes, in my view. It happens to align with the Kantian tendency to make blanket rules.
By contrast, in the school setting, I think that there exist both students who reject constructive criticism, and teachers who treat their students badly. I think that ultimately, both student and teacher, in collaboration with their social networks, must interpret context and decide what behaviors seem right and wrong in fielding conflicts. Hence, I think that the decision for students in these situations to SOL is neither obviously right nor obviously wrong. It would be contextual, and I think that the student and teacher have to be the interpreters of that context.
Likewise in internet comments. There is typically no outside authority to appeal to, and the aspects of the conversation that inform its overall context are ambiguous. Participants therefore must ultimately make contextual decisions for themselves, to decide whether or not SOL is appropriate.
Since I can see contexts where SOL would be both appropriate and inappropriate, I think it is basically morally neutral, and feels to me like a status-neutral move that is not inherently rude. The key, then, is to parse these contexts and try to generalize to identify when SOL is appropriate. If it is not a common/visible technique in situations where it would be appropriate and helpful, then the thing to do is to raise awareness of how to apply it in that context. This is why I wrote the post. I didn’t describe the context too elaborately, because I thought that to most readers, the problem was coming up with the SOL technique, not figuring out what sort of context I meant.
As a note, I engage with fight-related metaphors partly because I am trying to engage with previous LW-linked writings on the subject, and partly because it has taken a while to figure out a more appropriate metaphor that captures how I think about these issues. Now that I have, I would probably prefer to drop the fight metaphor, because I think that an “intimidation” and “context interpretation” metaphor captures better how I parse this whole issue.
Accusations of Kantianism, huh? Definitely not Kantian, but not utilitarian either. Kantian ethics are, frankly, stupid (though honorable in their own way), since they don’t take the actual circumstances into account. We can’t just escape the muddle by condensing every category of moral question into a single answer apiece. Utilitarianism is clearly incalculable in the vast majority of cases and thus usually a way to justify its users own prejudices (whether they are good ones or ill. Utilitarianism doesn’t actually care whether the person using it has good or ill intentions, since utility isn’t even defined.). In what way is it superior to just saying, use math when appropriate? In circumstances where either one really does work, they’re pretty simple, so sure, use them. Pragmatic use of simple solutions is a virtue. (Have I given enough evidence that I believe in virtue ethics yet?)
I believe your arguments for SOL use idealized settings for them since they only work at all in those circumstances, and it is easier to think about where your paradigm works even when arguing in good faith. I see easy arguments about why it’s clearly counterproductive to do SOL even in your analogy, but you believe that the math somehow works out in its favor there (perhaps because the semester is ending?) without clearly differentiating how the people involved will only do it then? That really doesn’t seem like human nature. Human nature doesn’t go away to make math easier. (If you want to be truly utilitarian about it, you need math, which needs a full study of the effects, which is completely impractical.)
SOL is not morally neutral for the obvious reason that it will have given results if introduced into the repertoire, and further results if encouraged, that will clearly lean away from neutrality. If a given intervention will reasonably have certain moral effects, it is not neutral. The color blue is not a moral issue, but outlawing it, or only allowing it, would both be clearly immoral. SOL itself likely does not have a huge effect, but it will definitely have one -we’re just arguing about which way it will go.
What actual rule do you have that would allow it to have the effects you want not clearly be less than the undesirable ones, even from a utilitarian standpoint? It is a generalized win-any-argument tool that contributes nothing to the argument itself. And no, you can’t just argue that people can use utilitarianism since they can’t calculate the result (especially in real time.) (and any calculations will clearly be biased by obvious self-justification features of human nature).
Under what circumstances do you know it is good to use? In which of those is it superior to other tools you could use? Under what circumstances should you not use it? None of those are supplied, and I believe it is because it is too difficult to know when using it would be appropriate; people naturally supply answers that we know are wrong (whenever someone won’t just admit your argument is better). That coupled with obvious and significant negative effects means we should lean very strongly toward other tools.
The problem with viewing things through “context interpretation” is that context is only shared within (relatively) very small sub-groups of humanity. It is vastly harder than you think. For example, (I would guess) the hardest parts of learning a new language aren’t grammar, meaning, and syntax, they are knowing what will be understood, what you will be expected to understand, and which things will be elided at a given point. Thus, in order to make things work as you expect outside of that sub-group (which may even just be outside of the one person), you have to supply the full context.
If this wasn’t the case, I could simply make my posts:
Point A
Point B
Point C
without further elaboration, and you could reply
X
Y
Z
and so on.
The easiest way would be to provide a rule for classifying contexts under your rule, but even that has been rather problematic, see deontology vs utilitarianism vs virtue ethics in the first place, where we can’t even share very sparse meta-contexts efficiently (though it is worth understanding the moral frameworks used by the vast majority of people who don’t use pure intuition, of course.). Deontology and utilitarianism both require a lot of explanation when told to college students, and virtue ethics only doesn’t because religious people talk of it so frequently (though many people who believe in virtue ethics are not religious, such as myself.).
You could probably come up with a first approximation, but then you’d have to figure out if said rule could even make sense across the four different moral frameworks (even if everyone was trying to be good.). (Ironically, it almost certainly wouldn’t work for deontology since you would formulate it as an approximation of utilitarianism.) If it didn’t you’d then have a duty to determine if that mattered, and then why not if you kept it.
You could come up with separate rules for each approach, but then all of them would have to still be good when interacting with each other.
I think your main issue with my critiques is that I think things can always get much worse, that this is much more likely than getting much better in the short term if we just do whatever sounds right at the moment, and when changing things, we need to be very careful about that. (Despite that, things do tend to get much better over time because people genuinely do try to improve our lives.)
Whereas you (seem to) think it is easy to make things better, that things are unlikely to get much worse, and marginal care will prevent things from getting worse, and so we should rush ahead and improve faster.
I’d like to try and orient this dialogue around the areas where I think we might make progress. There are two aspects of your response that I can’t agree with you on, which I’ll list without necessarily feeling excited about focusing further conversation on them (but feel free to pursue if you wish). IMO:
All moral schemes face profound calculability/evaluation challenges, and all of them deal with this with some practical heuristic.
I’ve done a fair bit of work to define specific contexts in which I think SOL is appropriate; I think that both of us have made quite a bit of reference to abstract and idealized scenarios. I don’t think we should pick on each other about that.
I agree with you that context interpretation is very challenging. This is why I advocate it as a key part of deciding when it’s appropriate to SOL, and have tried to spell out a couple such contexts here in some detail. We can suggest some rules of thumb that might generalize across contexts:
Anticipation of abusive or deliberately time-wasting or baiting responses from the other person.
Anonymity, questionable motives, and minimal investment to participate for debaters, which makes it difficult to build trust and employ other solutions.
Common good in sharing information, with little private benefit.
A conversation that has an important objective/scientific/mathematical aspect, so that the right answer isn’t purely subjective.
Openness of the conversational forum to all participants.
I think your main issue with my critiques is that I think things can always get much worse, that this is much more likely than getting much better in the short term if we just do whatever sounds right at the moment, and when changing things, we need to be very careful about that. (Despite that, things do tend to get much better over time because people genuinely do try to improve our lives.)
Whereas you (seem to) think it is easy to make things better, that things are unlikely to get much worse, and marginal care will prevent things from getting worse, and so we should rush ahead and improve faster.
I actually agree with you that it’s easy to make things worse by taking ill-considered actions, and yet people typically put enough consideration and are responsive enough to the feedback they get that things move in a positive direction over time.
However, I think that in this case, the “ill-considered action” that seems “easy” is to stay silent in the face of hostility. This is widespread, common advice: block people on Facebook who are unpleasant, avoid zones on the internet that are populated by trolls, divert the conversation away from charged topics, avoid nasty people as much as possible.
The hard truth, to me, is that we actually have a social duty in some situations to enter hostile environments and confront people who are trying to suppress the truth with honesty and forthrightness. Yet it is too big an ask to require people to do this, while also shouldering large amounts of abuse and time-wasting. Hence, tools are required that balance these competing demands, and SOL is one of them. I think that it is intrinsically morally neutral, but when used in this way, SOL is virtuous relative to the alternative of avoiding the conversation or staying silent. There may be a better alternative in some contexts, and for some people, but not always.
I would find it most compelling if you engaged with one or the other of the specific scenarios I outlined (the sci-fi teacher, under the circumstances I was suggesting of a cruel teacher discouraging a young student over the teacher’s genre preferences; or the case of editing Wikipedia), and suggested an alternative approach that both allows engagement with the hostile environment while also protecting the person from abuse and time-wasting.
I don’t really think it will help, but even in your version of the student teacher interaction, it is still obviously negative.
1)Of minor but obvious importance, it is very confrontational and not beneficial. It in no way helps the student, it in no way helps the teacher, it doesn’t help any bystanders that hear about it. All it does is add a moment of satisfaction at telling off the teacher, and continues burning bridges (which the student obviously doesn’t care about, but isn’t good utilitarian thinking for a student, nor taking into account the feelings of the teacher for more universalist types.). (Telling off a person who is acting badly can be virtuous though.)
2)Crucially, the student knew exactly what they were doing by writing the science fiction for a class where the teacher was obviously telling them not to write science fiction. They picked this fight intentionally. (This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it needs to be justified too.)
The student could have also given a defense of sci-fi in class when the teacher kept saying negative things about it, that would have been more on point without being the one to actually escalate. (It would not necessarily have gone any better, of course.)
3)There is no internal difference for the student between the teacher mocking it for being science fiction, and making good points about typical failure modes of science fiction and then the student’s writing that said student didn’t want to hear, so there is no principled way to determine whether it really is this circumstance. The student can only see these things from the inside. It would be much more obvious if the student had previously asked the teacher their exact reasons for being so anti-sci-fi. (This is not an expected solution though since it runs counter to most people’s natures.)
Definitely not defending the teacher in this setup, of course. Taking the hypothetical as objective, it is an extremely unvirtuous way for a teacher to act. I don’t have a strong objection to telling off the teacher here, which this definitely is, but setting up things for it to go this way is clearly a bad thing, and the student did that at least semi-intentionally.
The defense of sci-fi being put this way makes it much less likely to be heard. Telling the other students why sci-fi is good has a much better chance of working. If everyone is persuaded about the incorrectness of the teacher’s bigotry against the genre, that pretty effectively neuters the effect of the teacher’s view without the negative side effects.
The Wikipedia example is harder to know how to interact with because I have little experience with being an editor of any kind, and only occasionally use Wikipedia more than for a moment, but it is well known that Wikipedia has some despotic editors too, that rule by fiat and keep pages wrong. It makes perfect sense for the people that when people want to fix something clearly wrong with a page, that they will be very frustrated when not allowed to do it. Many people will be wrong when thinking so, but so will many of the people assuming they don’t have a point just because it looks similar to a previous rejected point.
Better than SOL for Wikipedia would probably be to come up with a reasonable policy for the level of evidence required to change a particular controversial part of the page, along with a list of reasons why it is the way it is (this should also include self-reference on the level of evidence required to change the policy for when to change the policy on changing the part). This should be based on the current level of evidence that established it the way it is now (including both the evidence for and against). Also an explanation of what kinds of argument are given what kinds of weight, and an explanation of that (though this can be more general) would be good.
This is much more difficult in the short term than just stopping, but I don’t really see this as much different than what the policy should be even on parts where there is no disagreement on completely non-controversial pages. This should lead to higher quality pages. A reasonable policy on when things deserve a response would also be a good thing. (These all can obviously be abused too.)
Off-topic trolling can of course just be removed, but on topic trolling should just be treated by the strength of its (non)arguments. People are notoriously bad (because of normal human motivations) at telling the difference between good and bad versions of on topic engagement in places where there is intended to be mass use. Your job as an editor is to neutrally use good evidence, not just that which you agree with. (I expect based on our exchanges that you find this frustrating, but probably do a reasonable job.)
Does engaging in your exact examples really help bridge the gap between our positions or really increase comprehension? I think it is clear how things could be done better than SOL, by never letting it get to that point, by being thorough, and/or by simply side stepping it, and making the arguments to the other people.
(Side note: By this point in our many exchanges, I do think I’ve fairly effectively determined why I had an initial reaction that it was obviously wrong to endorse the technique, and I believe my reasons are clearly correct. There are simply better approaches, and even just being okay with bare stopping is still better in most circumstances.)
I agree with you that the student/teacher example can be interpreted as an unwise and unsympathetic decision on the part of the student. My view is that the student could have felt stifled for a year by his creative writing teacher. After taking a risk to show what sort of writing he’s really passionate about, the teacher dressed him down in an unnecessarily cruel way. The student could cultivate an ability to react dispassionately to such destructive criticism and simply walk away.
On the other hand, it seems like a valuable skill to me to reject stifling and to vocally stand up for oneself in such situations. After all, it’s not just the literary criticism that’s a factor in this situation, but also the power dynamic in the student/teacher relationship, which the teacher seems to be abusing. While it’s hard to predict the results for this particular student, his teacher, and the other students who this teacher will teach in the future, the student’s reaction to me would probably read as a benefit to himself and others, as well as pleasantly admirable irrespective of utility (I am not a perfect utility maximizer), if I observed it in real life.
I can therefore appreciate your contrasting viewpoint, but can’t agree that it is “obviously” negative. I think it is probably positive, but does have a chance of a negative result. While I’ve outlined some rules of thumb that would generalize across situations, I do think that the particularities of each case matter a lot, and we’ll never have enough detail from a hypothetical example to resolve it conclusively (and what would be the point of trying?).
Better than SOL for Wikipedia would probably be to come up with a reasonable policy for the level of evidence required to change a particular controversial part of the page, along with a list of reasons why it is the way it is (this should also include self-reference on the level of evidence required to change the policy for when to change the policy on changing the part). This should be based on the current level of evidence that established it the way it is now (including both the evidence for and against). Also an explanation of what kinds of argument are given what kinds of weight, and an explanation of that (though this can be more general) would be good.
… This should lead to higher quality pages. A reasonable policy on when things deserve a response would also be a good thing. (These all can obviously be abused too.)
I agree that it might be possible to design complex systems to structure the way argument and evidence get synthesized into Wikipedia changes. SOL, to me, is a tool to use when such structured systems do not exist, and will not for the foreseeable future.
This is much more difficult in the short term than just stopping, but I don’t really see this as much different than what the policy should be even on parts where there is no disagreement on completely non-controversial pages.
I didn’t really follow this sentence, could you say it a different way?
Your job as an editor is to neutrally use good evidence, not just that which you agree with. (I expect based on our exchanges that you find this frustrating, but probably do a reasonable job.)
This is an uncalled-for dig in the context of a pretty deep and friendly discussion. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t repeat this sort of move in the future, or I will terminate my side of the conversation.
I think it is clear how things could be done better than SOL, by never letting it get to that point, by being thorough, and/or by simply side stepping it, and making the arguments to the other people.
Remember that half the purpose of SOL is to avoid being on the receiving end of verbal abuse in the context of a hostile environment. The hostile environment is assumed, so “never letting it get to that point” is kind of a dodge. Being thorough and side stepping may decrease the attack surface, and that is beneficial. However, none of these fully address the problem of verbal abuse online, and it’s not hard to find examples of very thorough arguments addressed to the audience resulting in verbal abuse in the comments anyway. Hence, I don’t see these as full solutions for the problem SOL is meant to address.
By contrast, “bare stopping” does not accomplish the other half of the purpose of SOL, which is to convey information to the audience.
So to me, none of your proposed solutions fully solve the problem that SOL does. They are not “better approaches” to the problem SOL is meant to solve, any more than a screwdriver is a “better approach” to nailing than a hammer. They are useful in related circumstances, they do similar things, and yet you cannot use them interchangeably.
I reject your claim that what I said about needing to neutrally use good evidence as an editor was a dig, since it was simply an explanation saying what the duties of an editor are (and I very clearly stated that I believed you were likely to do it well, unless you’re somehow objecting to me calling it frustrating, which is just obvious?), because it was necessary when talking about what the policy should be. This failure of communication is exactly what I was talking about with people being unable to tell good vs. bad engagement on a topic. You assumed I was making a dig when I was doing nothing of the sort. (It is, of course, possible someone else would say exactly that as a dig.) My arguments should be evaluated on their own merits, not on whether or not someone guesses they are made for good or bad reasons.
Your duties as an editor do, in fact, determine what you should be doing, for the most obvious of reasons. The neutral use of good evidence is vital to the official reasons for Wikipedia’s very existence. (It is very explicit that there should be neutrality, though that is often not true in practice since everyone involved is human.)
I’ll expand the sentence you said you wanted rephrased into an equivalent paragraph: I am advocating a difficult policy on how to deal with changing Wikipedia pages explicitly based on levels of evidence on controversial parts. It would be much easier to use the SOL approach than to do this. The levels of evidence policy, however is not significantly different than what I believe should be the policy on every page, not just on controversial ones. It does not simply seem like a burden (though it clearly is one), but a way to improve Wikipedia. (It is also very much in keeping with the intended spirit of Wikipedia).
I do agree that telling off a person acting badly in the sci-fi example can be a good thing, (and would note that the satisfaction it engenders is a positive under a utilitarianism), and I’m perfectly willing to accept that you want it to be that way as a reason for supporting it -we’ll simply disagree that it somehow makes up for all of the obvious negative effects. You don’t seem to have engaged at all with the idea that intentionally making it get to that point was a clearly bad thing under most moral systems (which was the main point I made). Your assumption that things have to go to the very end is what seems like a ‘dodge’ to me.
To make something clear, how we get to a specific situation matters. When one side has intentionally provoked a conflict, they don’t get to act the same way they could reasonably act when they didn’t; this is true even if the side that engaged in it is morally correct to do so. It matters that the student chose this conflict. The teacher acts very badly, but is merely continuing things. When you choose conflict rather than cooperation in a shared endeavor, you have a stronger moral duty to use means that are clearly good to the extent possible. The student had better means available.
I made multiple points on alternatives to bare stopping which I endorse, all of which are clearly related to the further purposes you claim SOL has. In the sci-fi example, I advocated making an actual defense of sci-fi earlier in the string of events, preferably a calm and well-reasoned one, rather than intentionally violating expectations on an assignment to pick a fight. Then, when they’ve said their piece, they can stop. The ball is then in the teacher’s court, and they can choose how they will react. The student can then stop if there is no point in dialogue with the teacher, without having lost, nor having implemented a bad policy, or they can continue if it is worthwhile to do so.
In the Wikipedia case, making a real policy on how, when, and why engagement will happen is the correct approach. This is much more in keeping with the ideals of a community made encyclopedia than simply ignoring people whose viewpoints pattern-match ones that have been annoying before, and provides a good reason for why failure to respond is not an good proxy for losing. (Care must be taken so that it is not a despotic policy.)
Online harassment is a guaranteed thing. SOL gives more attention to the simple troll than it deserves as compared to simply ignoring it. More dedicated trolls can simply stalk you across the site, and SOL would encourage them, so unless you enjoy being trolled, it doesn’t seem worth using. You can continue to talk to other participants in the discussion while ignoring them, if you are still interested in the rest of the discussion.
The only place explicitly stopping that way has a use case is when you have a duty to be involved with all genuine participants in the conversation (this duty can be self-imposed), and need to explain why you think someone isn’t, but that is definitely a niche case.
Alternately, you can simply restrict the size and emotional tenor of your responses, and let the conversation die naturally in many cases. This doesn’t work if others are feeding the troll, but most trolls rely on the reactions of the people they are trolling directly.
If there is a whole pack of trolls, simply avoiding them seems clearly best (unless it rises to the level where you can and should remove them.).
You seem like a Kantian—searching for a universalizable law that makes society operate well. For Kant, it was never permissible to lie. In his view, behaviors were either permissible in all contexts, or permissible in no contexts. The moral code that society should follow was the set of rules that could be universally imposed, context-free, and still have society function well. He bit the bullet: if an axe murder was at the door, demanding you tell him where his intended victim was hiding, you were morally forbidden from lying to him—although I don’t know if it was required to tell him what he wanted to know.
Hence, when I offer a situation which (in my mind), the student was clearly the victim of a year-long campaign of degrading his literary talents and preferences by a teacher with an axe to grind, your response is to consider a different situation in which the student is rejecting sound advice, or at least advice worthy of consideration, by a teacher with a respectful tone.
If SOL helps in protecting one’s well-being the axe-grinding teacher, but also impairs our ability to receive useful feedback from constructive criticism, and if the common good depends more on receptivity to constructive criticism than to defense against destructive criticism, then we have to reject SOL entirely. It is not universalizable.
I’m a utilitarian, not a Kantian.
As a utilitarian, I allow that we shouldn’t always evaluate individual actions on their own merits. Instead, we sometimes need to create rules that are net utility enhancing. However, I think that it’s best when rules are as contextually-informed as possible, while Kant thought they should be minimally contextually informed, or really evaluated in a context-free manner, as in the axe murderer scenario.
Sometimes, we deal with the problem where contexts are misinterpreted, deliberately or accidentally. In situations like this, I think the right thing to do is lean toward more general, “outside-view,” less contextual rules. Sometimes, the problem of context interpretation is so huge that we have to impose a crude, context-free rule to deal with the problem.
For example, the vast majority of people who might like to bring sharp objects onto an airplane are probably people who want them for nonviolent purposes. We could consider a rule that it’s permissible to bring sharp objects onto planes, as long as you don’t intend to hijack the aircraft. However, the problem of terrorism is so important that we impose a blanket ban on sharp objects, entirely ignoring contexts like “this is an old lady with her knitting needles, she obviously wants to pass the time on the plane knitting a sweater.” This is the right thing to do to make rules about what you can bring on planes, in my view. It happens to align with the Kantian tendency to make blanket rules.
By contrast, in the school setting, I think that there exist both students who reject constructive criticism, and teachers who treat their students badly. I think that ultimately, both student and teacher, in collaboration with their social networks, must interpret context and decide what behaviors seem right and wrong in fielding conflicts. Hence, I think that the decision for students in these situations to SOL is neither obviously right nor obviously wrong. It would be contextual, and I think that the student and teacher have to be the interpreters of that context.
Likewise in internet comments. There is typically no outside authority to appeal to, and the aspects of the conversation that inform its overall context are ambiguous. Participants therefore must ultimately make contextual decisions for themselves, to decide whether or not SOL is appropriate.
Since I can see contexts where SOL would be both appropriate and inappropriate, I think it is basically morally neutral, and feels to me like a status-neutral move that is not inherently rude. The key, then, is to parse these contexts and try to generalize to identify when SOL is appropriate. If it is not a common/visible technique in situations where it would be appropriate and helpful, then the thing to do is to raise awareness of how to apply it in that context. This is why I wrote the post. I didn’t describe the context too elaborately, because I thought that to most readers, the problem was coming up with the SOL technique, not figuring out what sort of context I meant.
As a note, I engage with fight-related metaphors partly because I am trying to engage with previous LW-linked writings on the subject, and partly because it has taken a while to figure out a more appropriate metaphor that captures how I think about these issues. Now that I have, I would probably prefer to drop the fight metaphor, because I think that an “intimidation” and “context interpretation” metaphor captures better how I parse this whole issue.
Accusations of Kantianism, huh? Definitely not Kantian, but not utilitarian either. Kantian ethics are, frankly, stupid (though honorable in their own way), since they don’t take the actual circumstances into account. We can’t just escape the muddle by condensing every category of moral question into a single answer apiece. Utilitarianism is clearly incalculable in the vast majority of cases and thus usually a way to justify its users own prejudices (whether they are good ones or ill. Utilitarianism doesn’t actually care whether the person using it has good or ill intentions, since utility isn’t even defined.). In what way is it superior to just saying, use math when appropriate? In circumstances where either one really does work, they’re pretty simple, so sure, use them. Pragmatic use of simple solutions is a virtue. (Have I given enough evidence that I believe in virtue ethics yet?)
I believe your arguments for SOL use idealized settings for them since they only work at all in those circumstances, and it is easier to think about where your paradigm works even when arguing in good faith. I see easy arguments about why it’s clearly counterproductive to do SOL even in your analogy, but you believe that the math somehow works out in its favor there (perhaps because the semester is ending?) without clearly differentiating how the people involved will only do it then? That really doesn’t seem like human nature. Human nature doesn’t go away to make math easier. (If you want to be truly utilitarian about it, you need math, which needs a full study of the effects, which is completely impractical.)
SOL is not morally neutral for the obvious reason that it will have given results if introduced into the repertoire, and further results if encouraged, that will clearly lean away from neutrality. If a given intervention will reasonably have certain moral effects, it is not neutral. The color blue is not a moral issue, but outlawing it, or only allowing it, would both be clearly immoral. SOL itself likely does not have a huge effect, but it will definitely have one -we’re just arguing about which way it will go.
What actual rule do you have that would allow it to have the effects you want not clearly be less than the undesirable ones, even from a utilitarian standpoint? It is a generalized win-any-argument tool that contributes nothing to the argument itself. And no, you can’t just argue that people can use utilitarianism since they can’t calculate the result (especially in real time.) (and any calculations will clearly be biased by obvious self-justification features of human nature).
Under what circumstances do you know it is good to use? In which of those is it superior to other tools you could use? Under what circumstances should you not use it? None of those are supplied, and I believe it is because it is too difficult to know when using it would be appropriate; people naturally supply answers that we know are wrong (whenever someone won’t just admit your argument is better). That coupled with obvious and significant negative effects means we should lean very strongly toward other tools.
The problem with viewing things through “context interpretation” is that context is only shared within (relatively) very small sub-groups of humanity. It is vastly harder than you think. For example, (I would guess) the hardest parts of learning a new language aren’t grammar, meaning, and syntax, they are knowing what will be understood, what you will be expected to understand, and which things will be elided at a given point. Thus, in order to make things work as you expect outside of that sub-group (which may even just be outside of the one person), you have to supply the full context.
If this wasn’t the case, I could simply make my posts:
Point A
Point B
Point C
without further elaboration, and you could reply
X
Y
Z
and so on.
The easiest way would be to provide a rule for classifying contexts under your rule, but even that has been rather problematic, see deontology vs utilitarianism vs virtue ethics in the first place, where we can’t even share very sparse meta-contexts efficiently (though it is worth understanding the moral frameworks used by the vast majority of people who don’t use pure intuition, of course.). Deontology and utilitarianism both require a lot of explanation when told to college students, and virtue ethics only doesn’t because religious people talk of it so frequently (though many people who believe in virtue ethics are not religious, such as myself.).
You could probably come up with a first approximation, but then you’d have to figure out if said rule could even make sense across the four different moral frameworks (even if everyone was trying to be good.). (Ironically, it almost certainly wouldn’t work for deontology since you would formulate it as an approximation of utilitarianism.) If it didn’t you’d then have a duty to determine if that mattered, and then why not if you kept it.
You could come up with separate rules for each approach, but then all of them would have to still be good when interacting with each other.
I think your main issue with my critiques is that I think things can always get much worse, that this is much more likely than getting much better in the short term if we just do whatever sounds right at the moment, and when changing things, we need to be very careful about that. (Despite that, things do tend to get much better over time because people genuinely do try to improve our lives.)
Whereas you (seem to) think it is easy to make things better, that things are unlikely to get much worse, and marginal care will prevent things from getting worse, and so we should rush ahead and improve faster.
I’d like to try and orient this dialogue around the areas where I think we might make progress. There are two aspects of your response that I can’t agree with you on, which I’ll list without necessarily feeling excited about focusing further conversation on them (but feel free to pursue if you wish). IMO:
All moral schemes face profound calculability/evaluation challenges, and all of them deal with this with some practical heuristic.
I’ve done a fair bit of work to define specific contexts in which I think SOL is appropriate; I think that both of us have made quite a bit of reference to abstract and idealized scenarios. I don’t think we should pick on each other about that.
I agree with you that context interpretation is very challenging. This is why I advocate it as a key part of deciding when it’s appropriate to SOL, and have tried to spell out a couple such contexts here in some detail. We can suggest some rules of thumb that might generalize across contexts:
Anticipation of abusive or deliberately time-wasting or baiting responses from the other person.
Anonymity, questionable motives, and minimal investment to participate for debaters, which makes it difficult to build trust and employ other solutions.
Common good in sharing information, with little private benefit.
A conversation that has an important objective/scientific/mathematical aspect, so that the right answer isn’t purely subjective.
Openness of the conversational forum to all participants.
I actually agree with you that it’s easy to make things worse by taking ill-considered actions, and yet people typically put enough consideration and are responsive enough to the feedback they get that things move in a positive direction over time.
However, I think that in this case, the “ill-considered action” that seems “easy” is to stay silent in the face of hostility. This is widespread, common advice: block people on Facebook who are unpleasant, avoid zones on the internet that are populated by trolls, divert the conversation away from charged topics, avoid nasty people as much as possible.
The hard truth, to me, is that we actually have a social duty in some situations to enter hostile environments and confront people who are trying to suppress the truth with honesty and forthrightness. Yet it is too big an ask to require people to do this, while also shouldering large amounts of abuse and time-wasting. Hence, tools are required that balance these competing demands, and SOL is one of them. I think that it is intrinsically morally neutral, but when used in this way, SOL is virtuous relative to the alternative of avoiding the conversation or staying silent. There may be a better alternative in some contexts, and for some people, but not always.
I would find it most compelling if you engaged with one or the other of the specific scenarios I outlined (the sci-fi teacher, under the circumstances I was suggesting of a cruel teacher discouraging a young student over the teacher’s genre preferences; or the case of editing Wikipedia), and suggested an alternative approach that both allows engagement with the hostile environment while also protecting the person from abuse and time-wasting.
I don’t really think it will help, but even in your version of the student teacher interaction, it is still obviously negative.
1)Of minor but obvious importance, it is very confrontational and not beneficial. It in no way helps the student, it in no way helps the teacher, it doesn’t help any bystanders that hear about it. All it does is add a moment of satisfaction at telling off the teacher, and continues burning bridges (which the student obviously doesn’t care about, but isn’t good utilitarian thinking for a student, nor taking into account the feelings of the teacher for more universalist types.). (Telling off a person who is acting badly can be virtuous though.)
2)Crucially, the student knew exactly what they were doing by writing the science fiction for a class where the teacher was obviously telling them not to write science fiction. They picked this fight intentionally. (This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it needs to be justified too.)
The student could have also given a defense of sci-fi in class when the teacher kept saying negative things about it, that would have been more on point without being the one to actually escalate. (It would not necessarily have gone any better, of course.)
3)There is no internal difference for the student between the teacher mocking it for being science fiction, and making good points about typical failure modes of science fiction and then the student’s writing that said student didn’t want to hear, so there is no principled way to determine whether it really is this circumstance. The student can only see these things from the inside. It would be much more obvious if the student had previously asked the teacher their exact reasons for being so anti-sci-fi. (This is not an expected solution though since it runs counter to most people’s natures.)
Definitely not defending the teacher in this setup, of course. Taking the hypothetical as objective, it is an extremely unvirtuous way for a teacher to act. I don’t have a strong objection to telling off the teacher here, which this definitely is, but setting up things for it to go this way is clearly a bad thing, and the student did that at least semi-intentionally.
The defense of sci-fi being put this way makes it much less likely to be heard. Telling the other students why sci-fi is good has a much better chance of working. If everyone is persuaded about the incorrectness of the teacher’s bigotry against the genre, that pretty effectively neuters the effect of the teacher’s view without the negative side effects.
The Wikipedia example is harder to know how to interact with because I have little experience with being an editor of any kind, and only occasionally use Wikipedia more than for a moment, but it is well known that Wikipedia has some despotic editors too, that rule by fiat and keep pages wrong. It makes perfect sense for the people that when people want to fix something clearly wrong with a page, that they will be very frustrated when not allowed to do it. Many people will be wrong when thinking so, but so will many of the people assuming they don’t have a point just because it looks similar to a previous rejected point.
Better than SOL for Wikipedia would probably be to come up with a reasonable policy for the level of evidence required to change a particular controversial part of the page, along with a list of reasons why it is the way it is (this should also include self-reference on the level of evidence required to change the policy for when to change the policy on changing the part). This should be based on the current level of evidence that established it the way it is now (including both the evidence for and against). Also an explanation of what kinds of argument are given what kinds of weight, and an explanation of that (though this can be more general) would be good.
This is much more difficult in the short term than just stopping, but I don’t really see this as much different than what the policy should be even on parts where there is no disagreement on completely non-controversial pages. This should lead to higher quality pages. A reasonable policy on when things deserve a response would also be a good thing. (These all can obviously be abused too.)
Off-topic trolling can of course just be removed, but on topic trolling should just be treated by the strength of its (non)arguments. People are notoriously bad (because of normal human motivations) at telling the difference between good and bad versions of on topic engagement in places where there is intended to be mass use. Your job as an editor is to neutrally use good evidence, not just that which you agree with. (I expect based on our exchanges that you find this frustrating, but probably do a reasonable job.)
Does engaging in your exact examples really help bridge the gap between our positions or really increase comprehension? I think it is clear how things could be done better than SOL, by never letting it get to that point, by being thorough, and/or by simply side stepping it, and making the arguments to the other people.
(Side note: By this point in our many exchanges, I do think I’ve fairly effectively determined why I had an initial reaction that it was obviously wrong to endorse the technique, and I believe my reasons are clearly correct. There are simply better approaches, and even just being okay with bare stopping is still better in most circumstances.)
I agree with you that the student/teacher example can be interpreted as an unwise and unsympathetic decision on the part of the student. My view is that the student could have felt stifled for a year by his creative writing teacher. After taking a risk to show what sort of writing he’s really passionate about, the teacher dressed him down in an unnecessarily cruel way. The student could cultivate an ability to react dispassionately to such destructive criticism and simply walk away.
On the other hand, it seems like a valuable skill to me to reject stifling and to vocally stand up for oneself in such situations. After all, it’s not just the literary criticism that’s a factor in this situation, but also the power dynamic in the student/teacher relationship, which the teacher seems to be abusing. While it’s hard to predict the results for this particular student, his teacher, and the other students who this teacher will teach in the future, the student’s reaction to me would probably read as a benefit to himself and others, as well as pleasantly admirable irrespective of utility (I am not a perfect utility maximizer), if I observed it in real life.
I can therefore appreciate your contrasting viewpoint, but can’t agree that it is “obviously” negative. I think it is probably positive, but does have a chance of a negative result. While I’ve outlined some rules of thumb that would generalize across situations, I do think that the particularities of each case matter a lot, and we’ll never have enough detail from a hypothetical example to resolve it conclusively (and what would be the point of trying?).
I agree that it might be possible to design complex systems to structure the way argument and evidence get synthesized into Wikipedia changes. SOL, to me, is a tool to use when such structured systems do not exist, and will not for the foreseeable future.
I didn’t really follow this sentence, could you say it a different way?
This is an uncalled-for dig in the context of a pretty deep and friendly discussion. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t repeat this sort of move in the future, or I will terminate my side of the conversation.
Remember that half the purpose of SOL is to avoid being on the receiving end of verbal abuse in the context of a hostile environment. The hostile environment is assumed, so “never letting it get to that point” is kind of a dodge. Being thorough and side stepping may decrease the attack surface, and that is beneficial. However, none of these fully address the problem of verbal abuse online, and it’s not hard to find examples of very thorough arguments addressed to the audience resulting in verbal abuse in the comments anyway. Hence, I don’t see these as full solutions for the problem SOL is meant to address.
By contrast, “bare stopping” does not accomplish the other half of the purpose of SOL, which is to convey information to the audience.
So to me, none of your proposed solutions fully solve the problem that SOL does. They are not “better approaches” to the problem SOL is meant to solve, any more than a screwdriver is a “better approach” to nailing than a hammer. They are useful in related circumstances, they do similar things, and yet you cannot use them interchangeably.
I reject your claim that what I said about needing to neutrally use good evidence as an editor was a dig, since it was simply an explanation saying what the duties of an editor are (and I very clearly stated that I believed you were likely to do it well, unless you’re somehow objecting to me calling it frustrating, which is just obvious?), because it was necessary when talking about what the policy should be. This failure of communication is exactly what I was talking about with people being unable to tell good vs. bad engagement on a topic. You assumed I was making a dig when I was doing nothing of the sort. (It is, of course, possible someone else would say exactly that as a dig.) My arguments should be evaluated on their own merits, not on whether or not someone guesses they are made for good or bad reasons.
Your duties as an editor do, in fact, determine what you should be doing, for the most obvious of reasons. The neutral use of good evidence is vital to the official reasons for Wikipedia’s very existence. (It is very explicit that there should be neutrality, though that is often not true in practice since everyone involved is human.)
I’ll expand the sentence you said you wanted rephrased into an equivalent paragraph: I am advocating a difficult policy on how to deal with changing Wikipedia pages explicitly based on levels of evidence on controversial parts. It would be much easier to use the SOL approach than to do this. The levels of evidence policy, however is not significantly different than what I believe should be the policy on every page, not just on controversial ones. It does not simply seem like a burden (though it clearly is one), but a way to improve Wikipedia. (It is also very much in keeping with the intended spirit of Wikipedia).
I do agree that telling off a person acting badly in the sci-fi example can be a good thing, (and would note that the satisfaction it engenders is a positive under a utilitarianism), and I’m perfectly willing to accept that you want it to be that way as a reason for supporting it -we’ll simply disagree that it somehow makes up for all of the obvious negative effects. You don’t seem to have engaged at all with the idea that intentionally making it get to that point was a clearly bad thing under most moral systems (which was the main point I made). Your assumption that things have to go to the very end is what seems like a ‘dodge’ to me.
To make something clear, how we get to a specific situation matters. When one side has intentionally provoked a conflict, they don’t get to act the same way they could reasonably act when they didn’t; this is true even if the side that engaged in it is morally correct to do so. It matters that the student chose this conflict. The teacher acts very badly, but is merely continuing things. When you choose conflict rather than cooperation in a shared endeavor, you have a stronger moral duty to use means that are clearly good to the extent possible. The student had better means available.
I made multiple points on alternatives to bare stopping which I endorse, all of which are clearly related to the further purposes you claim SOL has. In the sci-fi example, I advocated making an actual defense of sci-fi earlier in the string of events, preferably a calm and well-reasoned one, rather than intentionally violating expectations on an assignment to pick a fight. Then, when they’ve said their piece, they can stop. The ball is then in the teacher’s court, and they can choose how they will react. The student can then stop if there is no point in dialogue with the teacher, without having lost, nor having implemented a bad policy, or they can continue if it is worthwhile to do so.
In the Wikipedia case, making a real policy on how, when, and why engagement will happen is the correct approach. This is much more in keeping with the ideals of a community made encyclopedia than simply ignoring people whose viewpoints pattern-match ones that have been annoying before, and provides a good reason for why failure to respond is not an good proxy for losing. (Care must be taken so that it is not a despotic policy.)
Online harassment is a guaranteed thing. SOL gives more attention to the simple troll than it deserves as compared to simply ignoring it. More dedicated trolls can simply stalk you across the site, and SOL would encourage them, so unless you enjoy being trolled, it doesn’t seem worth using. You can continue to talk to other participants in the discussion while ignoring them, if you are still interested in the rest of the discussion.
The only place explicitly stopping that way has a use case is when you have a duty to be involved with all genuine participants in the conversation (this duty can be self-imposed), and need to explain why you think someone isn’t, but that is definitely a niche case.
Alternately, you can simply restrict the size and emotional tenor of your responses, and let the conversation die naturally in many cases. This doesn’t work if others are feeding the troll, but most trolls rely on the reactions of the people they are trolling directly.
If there is a whole pack of trolls, simply avoiding them seems clearly best (unless it rises to the level where you can and should remove them.).