If I’m reading you correctly, it sounds like there’s actually multiple disagreements you have here—a disagreement with Duncan, but also a disagreement with the current norms of LW.
My impression is primarily informed by these bits here:
I think that smart people can hack LW norms and propagandize / pointscore / accumulate power with relative ease. [...]
If people here really think you can’t propagandize or bad-faith accumulate points/power while adhering to LW norms, well, I think that’s bad for rationality.
Could you say more about this? In particular, assuming my reading is accurate, I’m interested in knowing (1) ways in which you think the existing norms are inadequate to the task of preventing bad-faith point-scoring, (2) whether you think it’s possible to patch those issues by introducing better norms. (Incidentally, if your answer to (2) is “yes”, then it’s actually possible your position and Duncan’s are less incompatible than it might first appear, since you might just have different solutions in mind for the same problem.)
(Of course, it’s also possible you think LW’s norms are irreparable, which is a fact that—if true—would still be worth drawing attention to, even if it is somewhat sad. Possibly this is all you were trying to do in the parent comment, in which case I could be reading more into what you said than is there. If that’s the case, though, I’d still like to see it confirmed.)
Maybe it is good to clarify: I’m not really convinced that LW norms are particularly conducive to bad faith or psychopathic behavior. Maybe there are some patches to apply. But mostly I am concerned about naivety. LW norms aren’t enough to make truth win and bullies / predators lose. If people think they are, that alone is a problem independent of possible improvements.
since you might just have different solutions in mind for the same problem.
I think that Duncan is concerned about prejudicial mobs being too effective and I am concerned about systematically preventing information about abuse from surfacing. To some extent I do just see this as a conflict based on interests—Duncan is concerned about the threat of being mobbed and advocating tradeoffs accordingly, I’m concerned about being abused / my friends being abused and advocating tradeoffs accordingly. But to me it doesn’t seem like LW is particularly afflicted by prejudicial mobs and is nonzero afflicted by abuse.
I don’t think Duncan acknowledges the presence of tradeoffs here but IMO there absolutely have to be tradeoffs. To me the generally upvoted and accepted responses to jessicata’s post are making a tradeoff to protect MIRI against mudslinging, disinformation, mobbing while also making it scarier to try to speak up about abuse. Maybe the right tradeoff is being made and we have to really come down on jessicata for being too vague and equivocating too much, or being a fake victim of some kind. But I also think we should not take advocacy regarding these tradeoffs at face value, which yeah LW norms seem to really encourage.
I like this highlighting of the tradeoffs, and have upvoted it. But:
But to me it doesn’t seem like LW is particularly afflicted by prejudicial mobs and is nonzero afflicted by abuse.
… I think this is easier to say when one has never been the target of a prejudicial mob on LessWrong, and/or when one agrees with the mob and therefore doesn’t think of it as prejudicial.
I’ve been the target of prejudicial mobbing on LessWrong. Direct experience. And yes, it impacted work and funding and life and friendships outside of the site.
I was not aware of any examples of anything anyone would refer to as prejudicial mobbing with consequences. I’d be curious to hear about your prejudicial mobbing experience.
I think it’s better (for the moment at least) to let Oliver speak to the most salient one, and I can say more later if need be. I suspect Oliver would provide a more neutral POV.
If I’m reading you correctly, it sounds like there’s actually multiple disagreements you have here—a disagreement with Duncan, but also a disagreement with the current norms of LW.
My impression is primarily informed by these bits here:
Could you say more about this? In particular, assuming my reading is accurate, I’m interested in knowing (1) ways in which you think the existing norms are inadequate to the task of preventing bad-faith point-scoring, (2) whether you think it’s possible to patch those issues by introducing better norms. (Incidentally, if your answer to (2) is “yes”, then it’s actually possible your position and Duncan’s are less incompatible than it might first appear, since you might just have different solutions in mind for the same problem.)
(Of course, it’s also possible you think LW’s norms are irreparable, which is a fact that—if true—would still be worth drawing attention to, even if it is somewhat sad. Possibly this is all you were trying to do in the parent comment, in which case I could be reading more into what you said than is there. If that’s the case, though, I’d still like to see it confirmed.)
Maybe it is good to clarify: I’m not really convinced that LW norms are particularly conducive to bad faith or psychopathic behavior. Maybe there are some patches to apply. But mostly I am concerned about naivety. LW norms aren’t enough to make truth win and bullies / predators lose. If people think they are, that alone is a problem independent of possible improvements.
I think that Duncan is concerned about prejudicial mobs being too effective and I am concerned about systematically preventing information about abuse from surfacing. To some extent I do just see this as a conflict based on interests—Duncan is concerned about the threat of being mobbed and advocating tradeoffs accordingly, I’m concerned about being abused / my friends being abused and advocating tradeoffs accordingly. But to me it doesn’t seem like LW is particularly afflicted by prejudicial mobs and is nonzero afflicted by abuse.
I don’t think Duncan acknowledges the presence of tradeoffs here but IMO there absolutely have to be tradeoffs. To me the generally upvoted and accepted responses to jessicata’s post are making a tradeoff to protect MIRI against mudslinging, disinformation, mobbing while also making it scarier to try to speak up about abuse. Maybe the right tradeoff is being made and we have to really come down on jessicata for being too vague and equivocating too much, or being a fake victim of some kind. But I also think we should not take advocacy regarding these tradeoffs at face value, which yeah LW norms seem to really encourage.
I like this highlighting of the tradeoffs, and have upvoted it. But:
… I think this is easier to say when one has never been the target of a prejudicial mob on LessWrong, and/or when one agrees with the mob and therefore doesn’t think of it as prejudicial.
I’ve been the target of prejudicial mobbing on LessWrong. Direct experience. And yes, it impacted work and funding and life and friendships outside of the site.
I was not aware of any examples of anything anyone would refer to as prejudicial mobbing with consequences. I’d be curious to hear about your prejudicial mobbing experience.
I think it’s better (for the moment at least) to let Oliver speak to the most salient one, and I can say more later if need be. I suspect Oliver would provide a more neutral POV.