= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on [META] Introduction thread attitudes and discussions - 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 (42)
Yes! When I read "being part of a unified policy" I interpreted that as "following the policy" rather than "creating the policy." It seemed odd to me that the existence of the policy would be enough to muzzle you, regardless of the policy's actual contents. And it should have seemed odd, because I had misinterpreted what you wrote.
I am also skeptical of the value of attempting to alter the local norms. But I think it's worthwhile to contemplate / articulate / discover this narrow subset of the norms, because there seem to be many small discussions / interactions about them that would benefit from being centralized.
Awesome. I love it when communication works. Thanks for asking.
Your point about norm discovery is well taken. I share your sense of that being worthwhile.
Thinking about it some more, it's clear to me that I'm assuming that the actual discussions would be so choked by people who have already written their bottom lines and merely wish to implement them that any actual discovery that took place would just not be worth the effort. If that assumption proved false, I'd likely find myself much more interested in the subject.
Just to be clear, I'm not implying that people ought not attempt to implement their preferred bottom lines, merely that I'm unlikely to be interested in participating in the process myself.