= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Narrow your answer space - 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 (111)
I don't want to model why the reactions are this way, but I feel capable of saying this much:
On average, a dismissive/confrontational/snarky tone will be less palatable to potential female readers than potential male readers (even within our usual demographics).
And on average, a policy of explicitly adopting a different tone with replies to females than replies to males will offend many people of both genders.
So unless there is a big gain to being dimissive/confrontational/snarky, the optimally social thing to do in the current situation is to drop that tone as far as possible (without sacrificing clarity of communication). Not that I do this well or always, but I'm aware of the problem.
Is there, in your opinion, a big gain to be had from (say) the original version of your critique over the amended version? Or is it an onerous requirement to come up with the amended version in the first place?
No, the amended version is better. But now I've moved on to a more general issue; and being able to solve the particular instance that began this, does not solve the more general problem.
Well, what I'm saying is that implementing the algorithm that produced that emendation would help more generally.