= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Agree, Retort, or Ignore? A Post From the Future - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (84)
I think that this is a great idea. I often find myself ending a debate with someone important and rational without the sense that our disagreement has been made explicit, and without a good reason for why we still disagree.
I suspect that if we imposed a norm on LW that said: every time two people disagree, they have to write down, at the end, why they disagree, we would do better.
Imposing a norm would add a lot to the effort involved in conversation. Every time you thought about engaging, you'd know you'd risk having to figure out a conclusion. This might or might not be a net win for signal to noise.
Sometimes it takes quite a while to figure out what the actual issues are when new ideas are being explored.
Instead of a norm requiring explicit conclusions, I recommend giving significant credit when they're achieved.