The argument he’s making, and the argument I am making, is not actually very hard to understand, and, to confirm your suspicion: it does not in fact come from a lack of awareness that the same text can be posted as either a comment or post.
Just… this is so very, very obviously a mostly-arbitrary technical distinction that is imposed by this specific design of forum software.
No, this technical distinction was deliberately created, and forum software was deliberately selected as opposed to, say, an IRC chat or a discord server. It is not arbitrary at all. You might as well say that the distinction between opening statements and rebuttals in an Oxford debate is arbitrary since both of them are basically open form in practice and you can say the exact same words in either segment (you won’t be arrested or anything). The point, however, is that there are clear patterns that differ between opening statements and rebuttals. The LessWrong distinction between posts and commnets is not an arbitrary distinction that stems from technological limitations and can be traced no further back, it stems ultimately from a psychological desire. I see no indication that you have even attempted to understand the psychological angle.
By no means! Producing value deserves credit. Trying to produce value does not deserve credit. (I trust that the incentive-based argument for this is obvious?)
True, but trying in ways that will likely lead to value down the line, even if the first few posts are a miss, does deserve credit, or at least a level of courtesy which you seem hellbent on opposing. But even then, it is in fact possible to write deeply critical comments without taking on a smug tone or coming across as being on a high horse. Have you examined the psychological mechanisms underlying your apparent insistence on hostility to people who make posts which you, in your capacity as epistemic arbiter or some such, deem to be unmeritorious? Again, I see not the slightest indication.
https://www.lesswrong.com/s/zpCiuR4T343j9WkcK
The argument he’s making, and the argument I am making, is not actually very hard to understand, and, to confirm your suspicion: it does not in fact come from a lack of awareness that the same text can be posted as either a comment or post.
No, this technical distinction was deliberately created, and forum software was deliberately selected as opposed to, say, an IRC chat or a discord server. It is not arbitrary at all. You might as well say that the distinction between opening statements and rebuttals in an Oxford debate is arbitrary since both of them are basically open form in practice and you can say the exact same words in either segment (you won’t be arrested or anything). The point, however, is that there are clear patterns that differ between opening statements and rebuttals. The LessWrong distinction between posts and commnets is not an arbitrary distinction that stems from technological limitations and can be traced no further back, it stems ultimately from a psychological desire. I see no indication that you have even attempted to understand the psychological angle.
True, but trying in ways that will likely lead to value down the line, even if the first few posts are a miss, does deserve credit, or at least a level of courtesy which you seem hellbent on opposing. But even then, it is in fact possible to write deeply critical comments without taking on a smug tone or coming across as being on a high horse. Have you examined the psychological mechanisms underlying your apparent insistence on hostility to people who make posts which you, in your capacity as epistemic arbiter or some such, deem to be unmeritorious? Again, I see not the slightest indication.