I think the main factor you seem to me to be leaving out is emotional tone?
This is generally true but doesn’t seem applicable to Said-in-particular. Said’s tone doesn’t usually seem emotional to me, and the patterns you’re mentioning (such as all-caps or vulgarity) don’t seem obviously applicable to his commenting style either, at least not in general.
Nonetheless, I think the issue isn’t too complex to identify. Authors want comments, even critical comments, to come from users with the following mindset: “I believe the author has something worthwhile to say, something I can learn from regardless of my previous beliefs. While I think he is wrong/unclear on something specific in his post, it could be I’m missing something important. So I’ll write my comment in a way that invites collaboration (in the Sabien sense) and signal that engaging with me will be personally and emotionally beneficial to the author.”
And indeed, most critical comments by users on this site indeed flow from this mindset. I suspect this is not just because they think this consequentially leads to better discourse outcomes, but also in large part because most LW users are fundamentally and dispositionally pro-social and conflict-averse (illustrative example).
“Conflict-averse”… is not a description I’ve ever seen Said Achmiz receive. His mindset seems to me more like: “The vast majority of what is written online, including what is written on LW by high-karma users, is abject nonsense filled with selective evidence, failure to comprehend the basics of the Sequences, and applause lights masquerading as actual insight. Their failure to illustrate why this isn’t so, in an environment where they nonetheless have 100% control over what words they get to use, is their own problem and illustrates they are fundamentally wrong/confused about foundational matters. It shows they probably have nothing useful to contribute to my understanding that I don’t know already. Sabien-style collaboration is not how LW is meant to function; instead, my job is to write the quiet part out loud and say The Emperor Has No Clothes, lest the comment section collapse into a happy death spiral over how insightful the post is.”
From the perspective of authors, Said’s comment style signals that he thinks the post is worthless and that he considers his job to illustrate this as opposed to working collaboratively, in a nice, soothing and pro-social tone (think of the fake positivity in every EA Forum comment where almost every disagreement starts with “Thank you so much for writing this insightful post! I have just a few quibbles with it [inserts fundamental disagreements tearing apart the entirety of OP’s worldview]”). And authors correctly (IMO) conclude this is unlikely to change over the course of a few back-and-forth comments, because Said is challenging them for the sake of the audience as opposed to engaging with them 1-on-1 like they were friends.
Perhaps I’ve presented this matter in a way that gives off the impression Said is behaving anti-socially. So let me be clear: I believe Said is factually right about LW’s epistemic standards, as revealed by the behavior of high-status users, being way too low, I believe he is right in the vast majority of major disagreements he has had in comment sections with authors, and I believe his commenting style is excellent for LW (even though I prefer writing more long-winded comments myself).
This is generally true but doesn’t seem applicable to Said-in-particular. Said’s tone doesn’t usually seem emotional to me, and the patterns you’re mentioning (such as all-caps or vulgarity) don’t seem obviously applicable to his commenting style either, at least not in general.
Nonetheless, I think the issue isn’t too complex to identify. Authors want comments, even critical comments, to come from users with the following mindset: “I believe the author has something worthwhile to say, something I can learn from regardless of my previous beliefs. While I think he is wrong/unclear on something specific in his post, it could be I’m missing something important. So I’ll write my comment in a way that invites collaboration (in the Sabien sense) and signal that engaging with me will be personally and emotionally beneficial to the author.”
And indeed, most critical comments by users on this site indeed flow from this mindset. I suspect this is not just because they think this consequentially leads to better discourse outcomes, but also in large part because most LW users are fundamentally and dispositionally pro-social and conflict-averse (illustrative example).
“Conflict-averse”… is not a description I’ve ever seen Said Achmiz receive. His mindset seems to me more like: “The vast majority of what is written online, including what is written on LW by high-karma users, is abject nonsense filled with selective evidence, failure to comprehend the basics of the Sequences, and applause lights masquerading as actual insight. Their failure to illustrate why this isn’t so, in an environment where they nonetheless have 100% control over what words they get to use, is their own problem and illustrates they are fundamentally wrong/confused about foundational matters. It shows they probably have nothing useful to contribute to my understanding that I don’t know already. Sabien-style collaboration is not how LW is meant to function; instead, my job is to write the quiet part out loud and say The Emperor Has No Clothes, lest the comment section collapse into a happy death spiral over how insightful the post is.”
From the perspective of authors, Said’s comment style signals that he thinks the post is worthless and that he considers his job to illustrate this as opposed to working collaboratively, in a nice, soothing and pro-social tone (think of the fake positivity in every EA Forum comment where almost every disagreement starts with “Thank you so much for writing this insightful post! I have just a few quibbles with it [inserts fundamental disagreements tearing apart the entirety of OP’s worldview]”). And authors correctly (IMO) conclude this is unlikely to change over the course of a few back-and-forth comments, because Said is challenging them for the sake of the audience as opposed to engaging with them 1-on-1 like they were friends.
Perhaps I’ve presented this matter in a way that gives off the impression Said is behaving anti-socially. So let me be clear: I believe Said is factually right about LW’s epistemic standards, as revealed by the behavior of high-status users, being way too low, I believe he is right in the vast majority of major disagreements he has had in comment sections with authors, and I believe his commenting style is excellent for LW (even though I prefer writing more long-winded comments myself).