= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bgrah449 comments on Boo lights: groupthink edition - 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 (69)
EDIT: This comment does not apply to the current version of the post.
Considering the post to which you linked (about labeling the cryonics opinion on LW as groupthink) has no attempts at rebuttal, it seems like it merits an answer instead of merely dismissing it as an "attempt" - which is just saying, "This isn't sufficient" without any statement about what would be sufficient.
Consider the full facts about that comment. It starts thus: "I'm only posting this to play devils advocate" - which is a good reason (see ciphergoth's forthcoming list of phrases to never use) to not even attempt a rebuttal.
It suffices as an example of what I want an example of, which is someone who is at least trying, and acknowledging groupthink as a technical term. I don't have to set the bar at "trying and succeeding", not for cryonics: the debate on cryonics has enough evidence of being a debate, so we already know that groupthink isn't happening on that particular topic.
Don't demand particular proof that groupthink isn't happening, such as someone saying "groupthink!" with strong evidence plus rebuttals of their points.
(Hey, I'm agreeing with Eliezer, and linking to his post. Groupthink!)
I didn't accuse anyone of groupthink or demand any particular proof opposing or supporting claims of groupthink. I said it warranted a rebuttal before being dismissed as an attempt.
Calling it an attempt is no dismissal. Successful attempts are a subset of all attempts.
ADBOC - People refer to successful attempts as "successes," not as "attempts."
So conceded. Suggest an edit to the post?
I don't want to disrespect the graciousness of conceding this minor point, but I also don't have a great suggestion. Maybe something as simple as
becoming
? But up to you, I just wanted to point out that "attempt" was bringing in some probably-unintended judgments.
Edited, with strikethrough. I wish one could mark comments as applying to a past version of a post - just making the edit would make this exchange meaningless.
I can edit my comment, if that helps - "This comment does not apply to the current version of the post."
The fact that that post is presently at +5 karma is actually evidence against groupthink.
It seems dirty to say, "It raises a bunch of good points," and then, without answering any of them, say, "See? I just said it has good points. No groupthink here, thus disproving his points."
Maybe that's true, but still, given groupthink, you would have expected negative karma for the post.
It merits an answer the first time. After the tenth time it does not. There is sufficient discussion already available on both cryonics and accusations of groupthink regarding cryonics. Just downvoting the cry of a groupthinking wolf is adequate.
At the time I posted this comment (and at the time I post this one), the post to which I'm referring still has no rebuttals. I will be very disappointed if someone posts a very weak rebuttal which is subsequently held up as sufficient for no reason other than it exists.
In some sense, absence of rebuttals can be viewed as silent agreement, thus implying the presence of groupthink (both because it is an agreement with the accusation thereof, and more so because the agreement is silent). On the other hand, if there was a real groupthink, people would be trying hard to rebut all accusations, so the lack of the rebuttals may be interpreted as evidence against groupthink.
Which leads me to think that playing devil's advocate may not be the best way to detect groupthink. Perhaps the groupthink hypothesis is not testable, in the same way conspiracy theories aren't. Is it correct? If not, are there some reliable tests, some questions whose anwers (or lack of answers) would tell us whether there is groupthink present inside the group or not?