How can we get more and better LW contrarians?

Wei Dai

85 How can we get more and better LW contrarians?

18th Apr 2012

3 min read

85

I'm worried that LW doesn't have enough good contrarians and skeptics, people who disagree with us or like to find fault in every idea they see, but do so in a way that is often right and can change our minds when they are. I fear that when contrarians/skeptics join us but aren't "good enough", we tend to drive them away instead of improving them.

For example, I know a couple of people who occasionally had interesting ideas that were contrary to the local LW consensus, but were (or appeared to be) too confident in their ideas, both good and bad. Both people ended up being repeatedly downvoted and left our community a few months after they arrived. This must have happened more often than I have noticed (partly evidenced by the large number of comments/posts now marked as written by [deleted], sometimes with whole threads written entirely by deleted accounts). I feel that this is a waste that we should try to prevent (or at least think about how we might). So here are some ideas:

Try to "fix" them by telling them that they are overconfident and give them hints about how to get LW to take their ideas seriously. Unfortunately, from their perspective such advice must appear to come from someone who is themselves overconfident and wrong, so they're not likely to be very inclined to accept the advice.
Create a separate section with different social norms, where people are not expected to maintain the "proper" level of confidence and niceness (on pain of being downvoted), and direct overconfident newcomers to it. Perhaps through no-holds-barred debate we can convince them that we're not as crazy and wrong as they thought, and then give them the above-mentioned advice and move them to the main sections.
Give newcomers some sort of honeymoon period (marked by color-coding of their usernames or something like that), where we ignore their overconfidence and associated social transgressions (or just be extra nice and tolerant towards them), and take their ideas on their own merits. Maybe if they see us take their ideas seriously, that will cause them to reciprocate and take us more seriously when we point out that they may be wrong or overconfident.

I guess these ideas sounded better in my head than written down, but maybe they'll inspire other people to think of better ones. And it might help a bit just to keep this issue in the back of one's mind and occasionally think strategically about how to improve the person you're arguing against, instead of only trying to win the particular argument at hand or downvoting them into leaving.

P.S., after writing most of the above, I saw this post:

OTOH, I don’t think group think is a big problem. Criticism by folks like Will Newsome, Vladimir Slepnev and especially Wei Dai is often upvoted. (I upvote almost every comment of Dai or Newsome if I don’t forget it. Dai makes always very good points and Newsome is often wrong but also hilariously funny or just brilliant and right.) Of course, folks like this Dymytry guy are often downvoted, but IMO with good reason.

To be clear, I don't think "group think" is the problem. In other words, it's not that we're refusing to accept valid criticisms, but more like our group dynamics (and other factors) cause there to be fewer good contrarians in our community than is optimal. Of course what is optimal might be open to debate, but from my perspective, it can't be right that my own criticisms are valued so highly (especially since I've been moving closer to the SingInst "inner circle" and my critical tendencies have been decreasing). In the spirit of making oneself redundant, I'd feel much better if my occasional voice of dissent is just considered one amongst many.

Contrarianism

Frontpage

85

New Comment

Rendering 0/335 comments, sorted by

top scoring

(show more) Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 3:01 AM

Some comments are truncated due to high volume. (⌘F to expand all)Change truncation settings

Moderation Log

85 How can we get more and better LW contrarians?

by Wei Dai

18th Apr 2012

3 min read

335

85

Try to "fix" them by telling them that they are overconfident and give them hints about how to get LW to take their ideas seriously. Unfortunately, from their perspective such advice must appear to come from someone who is themselves overconfident and wrong, so they're not likely to be very inclined to accept the advice.
Create a separate section with different social norms, where people are not expected to maintain the "proper" level of confidence and niceness (on pain of being downvoted), and direct overconfident newcomers to it. Perhaps through no-holds-barred debate we can convince them that we're not as crazy and wrong as they thought, and then give them the above-mentioned advice and move them to the main sections.
Give newcomers some sort of honeymoon period (marked by color-coding of their usernames or something like that), where we ignore their overconfidence and associated social transgressions (or just be extra nice and tolerant towards them), and take their ideas on their own merits. Maybe if they see us take their ideas seriously, that will cause them to reciprocate and take us more seriously when we point out that they may be wrong or overconfident.

P.S., after writing most of the above, I saw this post:

OTOH, I don’t think group think is a big problem. Criticism by folks like Will Newsome, Vladimir Slepnev and especially Wei Dai is often upvoted. (I upvote almost every comment of Dai or Newsome if I don’t forget it. Dai makes always very good points and Newsome is often wrong but also hilariously funny or just brilliant and right.) Of course, folks like this Dymytry guy are often downvoted, but IMO with good reason.

Contrarianism

Frontpage

85

New Comment

Rendering 0/335 comments, sorted by

top scoring

(show more) Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 3:01 AM

Some comments are truncated due to high volume. (⌘F to expand all)Change truncation settings

Moderation Log

More from Wei Dai

Curated and popular this week

335Comments

335

Comment Permalink

wedrifid14y-70

If you still want to stand by your statement, then I think I deserve to see at least one example of what you are talking about.

I made my previous reply to you simply out of courtesy, and went out of my way to leave the option open for you to dismiss my objection as merely subjective - yet that was negatively received (by the metric of votes). I viscerally dislike it when I respond to questions in good faith and am penalized for doing so. I further assert (somewhat frequently) as a matter of general principle that nobody has the right to demand replies when making those replies can be expected to be detrimental for whatever reason - but almost always for some reason of social political nature. In this sense I oppose the sentiment and conclusion of your post from even more years back - Agree, retort or ignore. It introduces one more highly gamable social rule that would be a net detriment if adopted as a norm.

The above in mind I erased the draft reply I had - posting it would be an outright violation of my principles. I have no problem with accruing disapproval for expressing my own points, but actively provoking disapproval for the purpose of just answering a query of another when I would otherwise not have an interest in speaking on the subject? That's an entirely different matter!

If you still want to stand by your statement

I'll make no further stand here - and note that the stand I took here is against the position taken by your fanboy, not against you. In the unlikely event that David_Gerard or anyone else once again nominates Wei_Dai for an all-time "Turn The Other Cheek" award I will naturally take personal offense, sincerely, publicly and vocally.

Tyrrell_McAllister14y20

It introduces one more highly gamable social rule that would be a net detriment if adopted as a norm.

Isn't it probably a net detriment to have a norm against asking for concrete examples to back up vague critical claims when those vague criticisms are alleged to be offered in good faith?

See in context