If Bob goes … and a lot of people are allocating resources on the back of that confidence, he should debate!
Or those people should reconsider listening to Bob, maybe there should be an Alice that informs them about issues with Bob’s claims. In your proposal, the menacing possibility of an external (public) belief-rewriting is still there, and even the lesser inconvenience of debating is distortionary. Some claims won’t be made as much, depending of what the proponents expect to happen as a consequence.
That’s the sense in which friction has a general use, the filtering effects. What Alices say is also friction that affects what Bobs will say based on the expected consequences, but at least it doesn’t make it directly more difficult for Bobs to say things. Only reputation and the effectiveness of the claims is on the line, depending on what the claims are.
What Alices say is also friction that affects what Bobs will say based on the expected consequences, but at least it doesn’t make it directly more difficult for Bobs to say things. Only reputation and the effectiveness of the claims is on the line, depending on what the claims are.
I don’t understand, I’m proposing a particular variety of this—a variety of “Bob might lose some reputation and effectiveness if he doesn’t debate.”. What’s on the line with the debate norm that isn’t on the line with Alices going around saying stuff? (TBC, I don’t endorse “debate or update”; I might come to endorse something in the genre of my proposed norm.)
Then it’s “debate or don’t”, not “debate or update”, which is completely different. You didn’t operationalize the penalty for refusing to debate even when you “have to” under your norm, so I was defaulting to “update” from the maxim you opened with. Both the menacing penalty of “update” and the baseline inconvenience of “debate” can be worse than taking the reputational damage (provided the Alices are allowed to speak, which isn’t truly a given), depending on the claim.
Ok. (From my POV that’s a rather uninteresting way to engage with what I wrote, as it is a butterfly idea and the stag you’re hunting seems to be different from the stag I’m hunting here.)
Or those people should reconsider listening to Bob, maybe there should be an Alice that informs them about issues with Bob’s claims. In your proposal, the menacing possibility of an external (public) belief-rewriting is still there, and even the lesser inconvenience of debating is distortionary. Some claims won’t be made as much, depending of what the proponents expect to happen as a consequence.
That’s the sense in which friction has a general use, the filtering effects. What Alices say is also friction that affects what Bobs will say based on the expected consequences, but at least it doesn’t make it directly more difficult for Bobs to say things. Only reputation and the effectiveness of the claims is on the line, depending on what the claims are.
I don’t understand, I’m proposing a particular variety of this—a variety of “Bob might lose some reputation and effectiveness if he doesn’t debate.”. What’s on the line with the debate norm that isn’t on the line with Alices going around saying stuff? (TBC, I don’t endorse “debate or update”; I might come to endorse something in the genre of my proposed norm.)
Then it’s “debate or don’t”, not “debate or update”, which is completely different. You didn’t operationalize the penalty for refusing to debate even when you “have to” under your norm, so I was defaulting to “update” from the maxim you opened with. Both the menacing penalty of “update” and the baseline inconvenience of “debate” can be worse than taking the reputational damage (provided the Alices are allowed to speak, which isn’t truly a given), depending on the claim.
Ok. (From my POV that’s a rather uninteresting way to engage with what I wrote, as it is a butterfly idea and the stag you’re hunting seems to be different from the stag I’m hunting here.)