Vaniver. Mate. I accept that you believe

It seeks to minimize arrogance and maximize doubt.

but I dispute that it achieves those. I believe instead that it maximises arrogance and maximises doubt in the others point of view, and in maximising doubt in the other persons view we minimize our doubt in our own view.

The belief that it's difficult to be completely right, encourages people to look for that gap that is "wrong" and then drive a wedge into it and expand it until it's all that's being talked about.

If 95% is correct and 5% is wrong, criticising the 5% is a means to hurting the person - they have after all gotten 95% correct. It's not rational to discount peoples feelings by focusing upon their error and ignoring their correctness. It's destructive, it breaks people. Sure some few thrive on that kind of struggle - most don't, again this is proven stuff. And I'm not going to post 10 freeking sources on that - all that's doing for me is wasting my time and providing more opportunity for others to confirm their bias by fighting against it. If someone wants to find that information it's out there.

When you (or anyone else) got a high distinction for a unit or assignment or exam, was that a moment to go, fuck - didn't remember that a pre ganglionic fibre doesn't look anything like a post gangleoic nerve (aka ds9), or was it a moment to leap for joy and go, you little ripper I got 95%!

I agree negativity has its uses, often it's about "piss off" and go away, leave me alone; sometimes that's useful, but you'll note that those fall on the arrogant side of emotions - that of self. (this will get a wedge driven in it too, heck I could drive one in, but it remains somewhat true).

Vaniver, I'd consider it a positive discussion to talk about negativity. Would you mind explaining to me where "negativity has its uses".

And to show that I consider the

It seeks to minimize arrogance and maximize doubt.

viewpoint.

Yeh, ok I get that, when we apply the concept to ourselves then we are minimizing our arrogance and maximizing our doubt. And that'll work. We'll second guess ourselves, we'll edit our posts, and re edit, and check our dictionaries and quote our sources and these are all useful things. They keep us honest. But what about when we apply those concepts to others - as is our tendency due to the self serving bias and the group serving bias?

For example, my first reaction to this comment was to pull out my dictionary and argue that my use of "impulsive" was right, because I knew what I meant when I wrote it and could find that meaning in a dictionary. Instead, I decided that it takes two to communicate, and that if you disagreed with the implications of the word, it was the wrong word to choose. So I abandoned the word in an attempt to become less wrong.

Kahneman wrote, in Thinking, Fast and Slow, that he wrote a book for gossips and critics — rather than a book for movers and shakers — because people are better at identifying other people's biases than their own. I took this as meaning that his intention was to make his readers better equipped to criticize others' biases correctly; and thus, to make people who wish to avoid being criticized need to debias themselves to accomplish this.

Presumably, part of the reason that a commenter would avoid making a dictionary argument on LW is if that commenter knows that LWers are unlikely to tolerate dictionary arguments. Teaching people about biases may lead them to be less tolerant of biases in others; and if we seek to avoid doing things that are odious to our fellows, we will be forced to check our own biases before someone else checks them for us.

Knowing about biases can hurt you chiefly if you're the only one who's sophisticated about biases and can argue fluently about them. But we should expect that in an environment with a raised sanity waterline, where everyone knows about biases and is prepared to point them out, people will perpetrate less egregious bias than in an environment where they can get away with it socially.

(OTOH, I don't take this to excuse people saying "Nah nah nah, I caught you in a conjunction fallacy, you're a poopy stupid head." We should be intolerant of biased arguments, not of people who make them — so long as they're learning.)