= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jack comments on Open Thread: January 2010 - 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 (725)
After pondering the adefinitemaybe case for a bit, I can't shake the feeling that we really screwed this one up in a systematic way, that Less Wrong's structure might be turning potential contributors off (or turning them into trolls). I have a few ideas for fixes, and I'll post them as replies to this comment.
Essentially, what it looks like to me is that adefmay checked out a few recent articles, was intrigued, and posted something they thought clever and provocative (as well as true). Now, there were two problems with adefmay's comment: first, they had an idea of the meaning of "evidence" that rules out almost everything short of a mathematical proof, and secondly, the comment looked like something that a troll could have written in bad faith.
But what happened next is crucial, it seems to me. A bunch of us downvoted the comment or (including me) wrote replies that look pretty dismissive and brusque. Thus adefmay immediately felt attacked from all sides, with nobody forming a substantive and calm reply (at best, we sent links to pages whose relevance was clear to us but not to adefmay). Is it any wonder that they weren't willing to reconsider their definition of evidence, and that they started relishing their assigned role?
It might be too late now to salvage this particular situation, but the general problem needs to be addressed. When somebody with rationalist potential first signs up for an account, I think the chances of this situation recurring are way too high if they just jump right into a current thread as seems natural, because we seem like people who talk in special jargon and dismiss the obvious counterarguments for obscure reasons. It's not clear from the outset that there are good reasons for the things we take for granted, or that we're answering in shorthand because the Big Idea the new person just presented is fully answered within an old argument we've had.
When it became clear that adefmay couldn't role with the punches there were quite a few sensitive comments with good advice and explanations for why he/she had been sent links. His/her response to those was basically to get rude, indignant and come up with as many counter-arguments as possible while not once trying to understand someone else's position or consider the possibility he/she was mistaken about something.
I don't know if adefmay was intentionally trolling but he/she was certainly deficient in rationalist virtue.
That said, I think we need to handle newcomers better anyway and an FAQ section is really important. I'd help with it.
It seems plausible that things could have turned out much differently, but that the initial response did irreparable damage to the conversation. Perhaps putting adefmay on the defensive so soon made it implicitly about status and not losing face. Or perhaps the exchange fell into a pattern where acting the troll started to feel too good.
Overall, I didn't find adefmay's tone and obstinacy at the start to be worse than some comments (elsewhere) by people who I consider valuable members of Less Wrong.
There have been several newcomers in the last few days -- maybe the mention in the Guardian drew them here.
Besides telling them what we're all about, a standing invitation for newcomers to introduce themselves might be useful, but there isn't a place for them to do so. How about another standard monthly thread?
We don't have personal profile pages here, do we?
There is this thread. But it needs to be linked to from some kind of faq page because right now it is too hidden from new users to be helpful.
I just noticed that I showed up around the same time as the Guardian Mention as well... However, I have been lurking (without registering) for two years now. I met Eliezer Yudowski at the First Singularity Summit, and became aware of OB as a result, and then became aware of this blog shortly after he split from OB.
However, I would like to say that a newcomers section in a FAQ or Wiki would have been most welcome.
I do have a little bit of a clue what I am doing here as well, as I have spent a lot of time on forums such as Richard Dawkins' and Sam Harris' and decided that I wanted to find some people who were a) more into AI and rational reasoning and b) closer to home.
I would second the suggestion for an introductory thread. And, some better guidelines for posting (what is likely to get downvoted, what is likely to get upvoted... although, from my vote count, I seem to have some clue of what works and what doesn't.. Still, I could use a few more definitive guidelines that just not making stupid posts - or trollish posts).