= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on LW Women: LW Online - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (590)
I was the person who said going from "You're wrong" to "I disagree" was an important step. I'm glad it registered.
Becoming less thin-skinned takes time and sometimes a good bit of work. You don't know where any particular person is in that process.
You might be in a Pareto's Law situation-- it's not that you need to avoid offending the most fragile people, a small amount of effort might lead to not offending 85% of thin-skinned people.
Yes, but I didn't want to finger you as the culprit.
Indeed.
My concern is that some seem to consider it a crime to suggest that this would be a desirable thing, or to suggest that people adjust their inaccurate priors for hostility downwards when interpreting the actions of others.
The nicies want the meanies to try harder to be understood.OK, fine. But if the meanies suggest that the nicies try harder to understand, that's just one more thing for the nicies to get offended about.
I would note to all the nicies - if LW feels hostile to you, you've led a very sheltered existence. I'm from the HItchens party of debate, that prefers a sharp point be embellished with a barb. That's part of the fun, in the same way that a decleating hit in football is part of the fun. And that's not even hostility, that's just style. And that's a common style.
By my estimate, LW has a very "Just the Facts Ma'am" culture. Going beyond the facts and putting any relish into a debate is rarely done, and frowned on when it happens. Maybe there were nastier times in the long long ago that led to this culture. LW does seem relatively unique in the equal mix of LIbertarians and Progressives.
And you're right about Pareto's law too.
FWIW, one of the things that caught my attention about this community, and encouraged me to stick around, was the emphasis on valuing accuracy and precision (which I value) without the "barbs are part of the fun/putting relish into a debate" style you describe here (which I dislike intensely).
There are lots of "nice is more important than true" spaces on the net, and lots of "being unpleasant to people is part of the fun" spaces; and an astonishing number of spaces that are both. A space that manages to even approximate being neither is rare.
I can understand someone disliking the barbs.
Barbs are largely the part of the classical rhetoric that play on biases in the listener. That's probably true of niceness as well.
And I agree that the Lesswrong tone seems relatively unique, particularly given the broad and general nature of discussion topics, and the variety in political opinions.
One of the good things which contributes to the tone here is people reliably getting credit for saying they've changed their mind for some good reason. I can't think of any other site where that's in play.
Isn't it peculiar that most people are otherwise?
Way back when, I remember discussing exactly that point on the Extropians list. In many ways a similar group to here. But some very smart guys were arguing that it was a huge loss of face to admit you were wrong, and better to deny or evade (I'm sure they put it more convincingly than that).
When someone is wrong, graciously admitting and accepting it scores major points with me.
Thinking about it, maybe I can make a better argument for denial. There are two issues, being wrong, and whether one admits being wrong. If admitting being wrong is what largely determines whether you are perceived as being wrong, then denying the error maintains status.
For people driven by social truth, which is likely the majority, truth is scored on attitude, power, authority, popularity, solidarity, fealty, etc. The validity of the arguments don't matter much. For people driven by epistemic truth, the arguments are what matters, so denying the plain truth of them is seen as a personality defect, while admitting it a virtue.
The thing is, it's not that the deniers are aliens. I am. I and my kind. For us, in an argument, it's the facts that matter, and letting other considerations intrude on that is intruding the rules of the normals into the game. That's largely what this whole thread is about.
One side says we'll be more effective playing the normals game. It's a game my kind strongly prefers not to play. Having to behave as normals is ineffective for us, and the opportunity to play by our rules is extremely valuable to us.
Josh Waitzkin's book The Art of Learning describes his various encounters with unsporting conduct and cheating in chess tournaments and competitive tai chi. He wrote that he'd developed the approach to just work so hard at developing his own skill at the game that he was able to ignore the distractions the opponent was trying to pull and proceed to win anyway. He claimed that the opponents would generally become agitated and careless once they noticed that they couldn't get any sort of upset out of him.
Discussions aren't games with rules, but you might still get something out of the idea that social gamesmanship is basically just compensating poor skill with cheating, and you need to work hard enough on your epistemic skills that it won't stop you even when it does get thrown in your way.
Well, I'd say that social gamesmanship isn't cheating, it's playing a different game.
Being very good with your epistemic skills has mileage socially too, and importantly, mileage with people with personal properties you're more likely concerned about. And refraining from the usual types of social gamesmanship earns you points with those people as well.
I'm actually very fond of being told I was right. (I only figured that out when a friend mentioned that he's very fond of other people admitting they were wrong.)
It's true that there's currently a belief that it's very bad to tell people they should be less thin-skinned. People generally want a social environment which suits their preferences, and while it's not likely that anyone will get a total victory, it's certainly possible to push the balance towards your preferences.
Thin-skinned people are apt to hear a demand that they be thicker-skinned as "You shouldn't care about the way I keep hurting you." The more aggressive among them have started shoving back. Interesting times.
IMO when you write, you should be asking yourself: "What's the worst way someone could interpret this?", because surely, someone will interpret it that way. And when you read, you should ask yourself: "What's the nicest way I could interpret this?", because that's probably the way they meant it.
Postel's law FTW!
When dealing with people, habitually searching for only the worst that can happen is a very bad habit, in my experience. It's a habit I've been trying to break. Through availability bias, your world becomes a horrible place. Your priors are distorted toward the bad, and you miss opportunities. Too careful, too risk averse, too distrusting.
I think that's the right policy, even if it's not true. It will generally be the more productive assumption - particularly for online forums.
Just work out the cases. Search for everything that can happen. Either a person has basic good will towards you, or they don't.
If they do, the nice interpretation is likely right, and you understand someone with good will toward you. That makes for a good discussion. Further, if the guy meant it in a nasty way, your response as if he were nice might soften his mood, or not. If it softens, things have at least improved. If not, most observers will likely think him a schmuck, and he is just very unlikely to be a good discussion partner anyway.
If they do have good will, but you assume that it is bad, you're likely limiting the positive outcomes available with them. If they don't have good will and you assume they don't, you have maybe avoided some aggravation and saved yourself some time.
Having worked out the general case, you don't have to do a de novo analysis each time. Commit to the policy, and blithely move on. Sometimes someone won't like you. Ok, you knew that was going to happen.
This is what I've tried to do in general with my own defensiveness with people. Don't focus on the worst that a person might do. Try to have an accurate prior on intentions (most people are not con men or mass murderers, and they're not really out to get me - I'm not that important to them.) Pick a decision based on an analysis of of what their intent and attitudes might be, and the differing outcomes based on your actions.
Most of the analysis applies, except real world encounters carry more serious risks. I live in the Seattle are, which is pretty safe and so real world risks are limited, though I realize not everyone lives in such a safe place, so YMMV.
In general, the best strategy is to act assuming approval and good will, because those situations present the best opportunities.
I previously relayed an anecdote from a book on this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/s0/where_recursive_justification_hits_bottom/4wsn
Ah, but that wasn't what I meant. I just meant to say that you should be careful when writing, because even when 99%+ of people won't have any problems with what you write, someone is sure to misinterpret it, if it possibly can be. Communication is hard, and written communication even more so.
I'd say more briefly "someone is sure to misinterpret it", because it is always possible to do so. There's going to be a level of misinterpretation no mater how you agonize over what you write.
I agree with you that the underlying good will or lack of it is a crucial factor. I'm still trying to figure out what tends to build good will or damage it.
One problem is, what builds good will with one may erode good will in another. Life is full of trade offs.