= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GabrielDuquette comments on Rationality and Relationships September 2011 - 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 (101)
I think this is a very bad idea, considering the record of past discussions about sex, gender, and related matters on LW. I've seen quite a few of those, and almost inevitably, the result is either an awful death spiral or, in case someone tries injecting a serious dose of reality, quarrels and internet drama. If the recent discussions superficially look better than usual, this is only because nobody has bothered much with trying to steer them closer to reality, and the death spirals have been able to drift away happily and undisturbedly.
For whatever reason, this forum has shown to be incapable of conducting rational discussions about these topics. This is a sad verdict, but I'm afraid it's realistic.
How is it a "verdict" and not an opinion?
Well, it's my own verdict, with which you're welcome to agree or disagree. But even without getting into any substantive issues from these discussions, consider this. In the past, these topics have many times led to a breakdown of rational discourse. If this no longer happens, what is the more plausible explanation: that LW has somehow suddenly and collectively figured out a way to discuss these topics rationally, or that people are simply tired of the same old unproductive clashes so that nobody even bothers to challenge the happy death spirals?
If any people think it's the former, I'd really be curious about their hypotheses on what caused this sudden change for the better.
Can you link to a "happy death spiral" that you consider particularly irrational or insubstantial?
I wouldn't want to point fingers at people this way even if we were talking about unambiguous and agreed-upon instances of errors, let alone in cases like this, where it would open whole cans of worms. It would look like I'm being confrontational against individuals, rather than pointing out a general problem.
On the other hand, I think it's reasonable to ask my above question in this context. Given the previous history of discussions about this topic, what is the reason to consider the first explanation as more probable than the second? (And what would be the cause of the change assumed by the first one?)
The third alternative is to try things differently. It's not helpful to make no effort and then ask "Have things magically changed, or will this fail?"
I like to, when possible, jump on unsubstantiated accusations and ask for evidence, rather than argue about opinions. We can make progress by better applying the norm that accusations against people on LW need evidence and examples of at least possible wrongdoing.
If the first explanation is even fairly likely, it's worth not suggesting suppressing a topic. Greater probability is not necessary.
Clashes about a non-quantitative issue are likely to feature both productive and unproductive elements. Is the occasional happy death spiral a flat-out bad thing? A tub of bathwater so dirty it's worth throwing out the baby?
Perhaps, if the baby is handed off to caring adopted parents and is freed from abusive, incompetent parents with dangerously substandard hygene practices.
(That's how the metaphor would represent the case in which individuals were saved from learning false lessons about human relationships here and were redirected elsewhere to learn lessons that were more useful. Not necessarily a position I am taking myself today, just describing.)
Let's wait and see.
In the sense that it is held by many who have expressed their verdict, declared their intent to avoid all future conversations on the topic then done so?
(I acknowledge 'many' as unsubstantiated, without caring enough to google for examples so acknowledge that those who haven't seen said many may not take my word for it. I'd be confident with troll many at least. Maybe even lots.)