I wasn't saying to commit to not breaking over the content of a text message, but to commit to not breaking up over the medium of texting.

Even in a two week old relationship, I think it's reasonable to say something like, "Hey, I enjoy hanging out with you, and it seems you feel the same. If you change your mind though, please don't tell me over text or e-mail, just give me a call."

How about requesting her to pre-commit to not breaking up with you in response to a text or e-mail, and to not delay her response because she is considering breaking up with you.

I think it'd be helpful to have a small textbox to add a short comment to a poster where I can put "I agree!" or "Fallacious reasoning" or "inappropriate discussion" that only shows up in the poster's view so there is some feedback besides Up/Down, yet doesn't clog up the thread.

I've never seen that function in a forum though, so perhaps the programming is simple.

I just don't understand the downvote/upvote thing, especially if the norm is/should be for broken thoughts.

When I get downvoted (or upvoted), I often don't get a comment explaining why. So it's unclear where I'm broken (or what I'm doing right). That's frustrating and doesn't help me increase my value to the community.

It'd be nice to have downvoters supply a reason why, in order to improve the original.

I believe the real issue that B. raised of LW being cold won't be effectively improved by posting "I agree!" replies, but requires some emotional involvement. A response that offers something to the OP, that gives something back.

Like, why do you agree? What are the implications of you agreeing? Or, what thoughts or emotions does the content of the post bring up for you? The response doesn't have to be long, but it should be personal and thoughtful.

A little bit more of that may go a long way towards developing community.

It feels like people are ten thousand times more likely to point out my flaws than to appreciate something I said. Also, there's >next to no emotional relating to one another.

I'm sorry, that sucks. I think you're right and hope this changes. I don't post very often, but when I do in the future, I'll be more aware of this.

You could start off by overtly letting the kids know that "guessing the password" is how their success in school is measured and you're not going to be able to change that reality, but you could introduce "alternative" ways of thinking.

How about a game where each student writes down their answer to a passwordy type question and scores a point for every other student with the same answer. Lowest score wins. But they have to justify their answer.

If a teacher asks the question: "Who discovered America?" The password is: "Christopher Columbus"

But there are many more answers that are also valid responses. ( Native Americans, Rodrigo de Triana, the Norse, Vespucci, a US Founding Father, etc) that are mostly based on what the words "discover" or "America" means.

Sometimes I still marvel about how in most time-travel stories nobody thinks of this

Characters in the novel Pastwatch by Orson Scott Card wrestle with this issue.

While reading the original post I thought of Kahneman's Ted Talk on happiness.

No, but I might exchange the lives of someone elses friends for a billion tons of paperclips.