NancyLebovitz comments on Open thread, Oct. 27 - Nov. 2, 2014 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: MrMind 27 October 2014 08:58AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (400)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 30 October 2014 10:07:48PM *  7 points [-]

How communities Work, and What Wrecks Them

One of the first things I learned when I began researching discussion platforms two years ago is the importance of empathy as the fundamental basis of all stable long term communities. The goal of discussion software shouldn't be to teach you how to click the reply button, and how to make bold text, but how to engage in civilized online discussion with other human beings without that discussion inevitably breaking down into the collective howling of wolves.

Behavior patterns that grind communities down: endless contrarianism, axe-grinding, persistent negativity, ranting, and grudges.

Comment author: Nornagest 30 October 2014 10:21:22PM *  3 points [-]

I agree about all of that except for contrarianism (and yes, I'm aware of the irony). You want to have some amount of contrarianism in your ecosystem, because people sometimes aren't satisfied with the hivemind and they need a place to go when that happens. Sometimes they need solutions that work where the mainstream answers wouldn't, because they fall into a weird corner case or because they're invisible to the mainstream for some other reason. Sometimes they just want emotional support. And sometimes they want an argument, and there's a place for that too.

What you don't want is for the community's default response to be "find the soft bits of this statement, and then go after them like a pack of starving hyenas tearing into a pinata made entirely of ham". There need to be safe topics and safe stances, or people will just stop engaging -- no one's always in the mood for an argument.

On the other hand, too much agreeableness leads to another kind of failure mode -- and IMO a more sinister one.

Comment author: Adele_L 31 October 2014 12:31:57AM 2 points [-]

The article talked about endless contrarianism, where people disagree as a default reaction, instead of because of a pre-existing difference in models. I think that is a problem in the LW community.

Comment author: TrE 31 October 2014 03:47:08PM *  3 points [-]

On the contrary, from my experience it isn't.

Sorry, I could not resist the opportunity. But seriously, I don't often see people disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. More often, they'll point out different aspects, or their own perspective on a topic. To be honest, support and affirmation are perhaps a bit rarer than they should be, but I've rarely perceived disagreement to be hostile, as opposed to misunderstanding, or legitimate and resolvable via further discussion.

More datapoints, anyone?

Comment author: ChristianKl 01 November 2014 08:22:51PM *  2 points [-]

If other people disagree with what I write they usually do it for the sake of disagreeing. However if I disagree... ;)