Morendil comments on Overcoming the mind-killer - Less Wrong

10 Post author: woozle 17 March 2010 12:56AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (126)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 22 March 2010 03:45:35PM 3 points [-]

How google translation works "n practice, languages are used to say the same things over and over again. "

How potentially informative conversations go redundant

There's a dynamic in conversations I'm noticing here, which is probably obvious to everyone else. I think for any given conversation, there are some "attractors"--directions the conversation could go which would be easy for many of the participants, but which would ultimately end all the interesting and useful parts of the conversation. And good moderation/guidance/curation involves steering the conversation away from those attractors.

For example, the talking heads shows I saw when the NYT ran the big story about massive, warrantless wiretapping by the NSA tended to quickly go from a potentially informative discussion about the specifics of the case, to a much easier-to-have discussion[1] about whether the NYT should have published the story, perhaps even about whether publishing it amounted to treason or should have gotten someone arrested.

These attractors happen both because they're easy conversation and because they're useful for propagandists to set up

I'm not sure that the karma system needs to be redesigned-- there's a limit to how much you can say with a number. It might help to have a "that was fun" category, but I think part of the point of karma is that it's easy to do, and having a bunch of karma categories might mean that people won't use it at all or will spend a lot of time fiddling with the categories.

We may have reached the point in this group where enough of us can recognize and defuse those conversations which merely wander around the usual flowchart and encourage people to add information.

Comment author: Morendil 22 March 2010 04:49:52PM 4 points [-]

enough of us can recognize and defuse those conversations which merely wander around the usual flowchart

Ahem.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 22 March 2010 05:00:46PM 1 point [-]

A fair example.

I may have overestimated the skill level of the group. Or maybe bringing up redundancy as a problem is the first move in developing that skill.

Comment author: RobinZ 22 March 2010 06:44:09PM 0 points [-]

One method for dealing with such would be to have designated posts for threads on observed attractors, indexed on the wiki, and fork tangents into those threads.

In keeping with General Order Six: other methods include, as suggested, downvoting any derail into a recognized attractor, with explanation; adding known attractors to a list of banned subjects ... it might be best to combine some of these, actually.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 22 March 2010 06:57:54PM *  2 points [-]

Atrractors aren't just subjects, they're subjects which are commonly discussed in a way that couldn't pass a Turing test.

If we can manage to bring out new material on one of those subjects, so much the better for us.

Comment author: RobinZ 22 March 2010 07:05:38PM 2 points [-]

That's a good reason to continue permitting such discussions, but given the continuing influx of new posters, I suspect there will still be repetition.

Comment author: mattnewport 22 March 2010 06:48:15PM 2 points [-]

Before we start planning solutions should we perhaps establish whether there is a consensus that we even have a problem? One vote for 'no problem' from me.

Comment author: RobinZ 22 March 2010 06:50:56PM 0 points [-]

Good question - let's watch for attractors for a month, and pay attention to how many turn up.