I want to be on record as someone who severely disagrees with OP’s standards. I want that statement to be visible from my LessWrong profile.
Here are N of my own standards which I feel are contrary to the standards of OP’s post:
I aim to ensure every discussion leaves both parties happier that it happened than not, and I do hope you will reciprocate this
I’ll go through the motions with you if you’re invested in what I think; preset guidelines are great, but I’ll always be happier if you ignore them and talk to me instead of saying nothing; I’ll negotiate adequate guidelines if necessary
Tell me what you’re thinking and feeling as fast as you want; I love impulsive responses! The worst thing you can do on impulse is to permanently end all discussion.
Leadingness (the opposite of misleadingness) is more important than truth, though truth is important. If a map is supposed by many to adequately reflect the territory, and yet it does not mark any CEV-threats or CEV-treasures that are in the territory, then that map is not going to help me much!
Hold me accountable to the twelfth rationalist virtue. If I think you’re an exceptionally virtuous person, your input will interest me no matter how poorly you substantiate yourself at first. Be daringly fallacious and dramatic. Wrench me from my delusions. Keep me sharp.
I’m not like those other pretenders to open-mindedness! I’m kakistocurious!
Thanks for taking the time to register specific disagreement!
My reactions to this small sampling of your standards:
I think that 1 is quite important, and valuable, but subordinate to the above in the context of discourse specifically trying to be rational (so we do have disagreement but probably less than you would expect).
I think that characterizing this stuff as “going through the motions” is a key and important mistake; this is analogous to people finding language requests tedious and onerous specifically because they’re thinking in one way and feel like they’re being asked to uselessly and effortfully apply a cosmetic translation filter; I think that applying cosmetic translation filters is usually bad.
I just straightforwardly agree with you on 3, and I don’t think 3 is actually in conflict with any of the things in the post.
4 is the place where I feel closest to “Maybe this should supplant something in the list.” It feels to me like my post is about very basic kicks and blocks and punches, and 4 is about “why do we practice martial arts?” and it’s plausible that those should go in the other order.
5 feels to me as if it’s pretty clearly endorsed by the post, with the caveat that being daringly fallacious and dramatic works in my culture when signposted (which, as Ray points out under Logan’s thread, does not have to be explicit).
6 seems to be more like a … mood? … rather than a standard; it feels different from the other elements of your list. I am for sure kakistocurious, though probably less than you by a good bit if you consider it central to your personality.
I agree in some sense that for the purpose of my learning/interest, I would rather people err on the side of engaging with less effort than not engaging at all. However, I think community norms need to be more opinionated/shaped because it influences the direction of growth.
The culture I’ve enjoyed the most is one where high standards is considered desirable by the community as a whole, especially core members, but it is acceptable if members do not commit to living up to those standards (you gain respect for working like a professional, but it is acceptable if you just dabble like an amateur):
You are only penalised for failing to fulfill your responsibilities/not meeting the basic standards (e.g. being consistently late, not doing your work) and not for e.g. failing to put in extra effort. You have the freedom to be a hobbyist, but you are still expected to respect other people’s time and work.
Good norms are modelled and highlighted so new members can learn them over time
You need to work at the higher standards to be among the successful/respected within the group (the community values high quality work)
People who want to work at the higher standards have the space to do so (e.g. they work on a specific project where people who join are expected to work at higher standards or only people who are more serious are selected)
I like it because it feels like you are encouraged or supported or nudged to aim higher, but at the same time, the culture welcomes new people who may just be looking to explore (and may end up becoming core members!). It was for a smaller group that met in person, where new people are the minority, and the skill is perhaps more legible, so I’m not sure how that translates to the online world.
It’s also fun being in groups that enforce higher standards, but the purpose of those groups tend to be producing good work rather than reaching out to people and growing the community.
I want to be on record as someone who severely disagrees with OP’s standards. I want that statement to be visible from my LessWrong profile.
Here are N of my own standards which I feel are contrary to the standards of OP’s post:
I aim to ensure every discussion leaves both parties happier that it happened than not, and I do hope you will reciprocate this
I’ll go through the motions with you if you’re invested in what I think; preset guidelines are great, but I’ll always be happier if you ignore them and talk to me instead of saying nothing; I’ll negotiate adequate guidelines if necessary
Tell me what you’re thinking and feeling as fast as you want; I love impulsive responses! The worst thing you can do on impulse is to permanently end all discussion.
Leadingness (the opposite of misleadingness) is more important than truth, though truth is important. If a map is supposed by many to adequately reflect the territory, and yet it does not mark any CEV-threats or CEV-treasures that are in the territory, then that map is not going to help me much!
Hold me accountable to the twelfth rationalist virtue. If I think you’re an exceptionally virtuous person, your input will interest me no matter how poorly you substantiate yourself at first. Be daringly fallacious and dramatic. Wrench me from my delusions. Keep me sharp.
I’m not like those other pretenders to open-mindedness! I’m kakistocurious!
I quite like your list, but also don’t feel like it’s hugely in conflict with the OP.
Thanks for taking the time to register specific disagreement!
My reactions to this small sampling of your standards:
I think that 1 is quite important, and valuable, but subordinate to the above in the context of discourse specifically trying to be rational (so we do have disagreement but probably less than you would expect).
I think that characterizing this stuff as “going through the motions” is a key and important mistake; this is analogous to people finding language requests tedious and onerous specifically because they’re thinking in one way and feel like they’re being asked to uselessly and effortfully apply a cosmetic translation filter; I think that applying cosmetic translation filters is usually bad.
I just straightforwardly agree with you on 3, and I don’t think 3 is actually in conflict with any of the things in the post.
4 is the place where I feel closest to “Maybe this should supplant something in the list.” It feels to me like my post is about very basic kicks and blocks and punches, and 4 is about “why do we practice martial arts?” and it’s plausible that those should go in the other order.
5 feels to me as if it’s pretty clearly endorsed by the post, with the caveat that being daringly fallacious and dramatic works in my culture when signposted (which, as Ray points out under Logan’s thread, does not have to be explicit).
6 seems to be more like a … mood? … rather than a standard; it feels different from the other elements of your list. I am for sure kakistocurious, though probably less than you by a good bit if you consider it central to your personality.
I agree in some sense that for the purpose of my learning/interest, I would rather people err on the side of engaging with less effort than not engaging at all. However, I think community norms need to be more opinionated/shaped because it influences the direction of growth.
The culture I’ve enjoyed the most is one where high standards is considered desirable by the community as a whole, especially core members, but it is acceptable if members do not commit to living up to those standards (you gain respect for working like a professional, but it is acceptable if you just dabble like an amateur):
You are only penalised for failing to fulfill your responsibilities/not meeting the basic standards (e.g. being consistently late, not doing your work) and not for e.g. failing to put in extra effort. You have the freedom to be a hobbyist, but you are still expected to respect other people’s time and work.
Good norms are modelled and highlighted so new members can learn them over time
You need to work at the higher standards to be among the successful/respected within the group (the community values high quality work)
People who want to work at the higher standards have the space to do so (e.g. they work on a specific project where people who join are expected to work at higher standards or only people who are more serious are selected)
I like it because it feels like you are encouraged or supported or nudged to aim higher, but at the same time, the culture welcomes new people who may just be looking to explore (and may end up becoming core members!). It was for a smaller group that met in person, where new people are the minority, and the skill is perhaps more legible, so I’m not sure how that translates to the online world.
It’s also fun being in groups that enforce higher standards, but the purpose of those groups tend to be producing good work rather than reaching out to people and growing the community.