This shortform is a bit of a question/suggestion for anyone that might happen to read it.
It seems to me that public discussion has an obvious disadvantage of the added “signaling” one is doing when speaking to a public.
I wouldn’t blame the vast majority of LW I read articles from or interacted with of this, as in, I think most people go to great length not to aim their arguments towards social signaling. But on the other hand, social signaling is so ingrained in the brain it’s almost impossible **not** to do it. I have a high prior on the idea that even when thinking to yourself, “yourself” is partially the closest interpretation you have of a section of the outside world you are explaining your actions/ideas to.
However, it seems that there’s a lot of things that can reduce your tendency to socially signal, the 4 main ones I’ve observed are:
MDAM
Load of ethanol
Anonymity
Privacy (i.e. the one between a small group of people)
The problem with option 1 and 2 is that they are poisonous with frequent exposure, plus the fact that ethanol makes me think about sex and politics, and MDMA makes me think about how I could ever enjoy sex and politics more than I currently enjoy the myriad of tactile sensations I feel when gently caressing this patch of dirt. I assume most people have problems along these same lines with any drug-induced states of open communication.
Anonymity works, but it works in that it showcases just how vile human thoughts are when they are inconsequentially shouting over one another into a void (see 4chan, kiwifarm, reddit front page...etc).
Privacy seems to work best, I’ve had many interesting discussions with friends that I could have hardly replicate on the internet. However, I doubt that I’m alone in not having a friend that would be knowledgeable/opinionated/interested enough in any subject I’d fancy discussing.
So I’d argue it might be worth-while to try something like an internet discussion-topic form with an entry barrier, where people can get paired up to discuss two different sides of a topic (with certain restrictions, e.g. no discussing politics, so that it doesn’t automatically turn into a cesspool no matter what)
The question would be what the entry barrier should be. I.e. if LW opened such a form, and the entry barrier would just be “you must type the url into your search bar”, it might work for a bit, but it would have the potential of degenerating pretty fast (see anonymity issue).
I could see several solutions to this issue, which one could mix and match, each with their own specific downsides:
Use some sort of internet-points that denote someone’s positive involvement in the community as the entry barrier (e.g. karma one something like LW or reddit)
Use a significant but not outrageous amount of money (e.g. 100$), that are held in escrow by a moderator or an algorithm. The money is awarded to the other person if they discuss the topic with you at some length and provide satisfactory arguments, lost in the void (e.g. donated to an EA-picked charity) if this is arguably not the case or refunded if your counterpart was obviously discussing in bad faith or lacking relevant knowledge.
Use some sort of real-life identification, that is not public to anyone but the database and the people you are discussing with, but is used a verification and as a “threat” that vile conduct could be punished by the moderators making said identity public.
Use some sort of real-life credentials (e.g. PhD, proof of compensation received to work in a certain field, endorsements from members of a field almost everyone would consider respectable, history of work published in relevant journals and/or citation count… etc). This would lend itself well if you segment the discussion-search form into different fields of interest.
Have the tow parties meet IRL, or send physical letters, or some other thing which has a high cost of entry because the means of communication is inefficient and expensive.
I’m curios if something similar to this already exist, as in, something where one can find a quality of discussion similar to a place like LW, or a private chat with a research colleague, not something like reddit CMV.
Alternatively I wonder what the potential templates and downsides for this kind of environment might be and why one doesn’t exist yet.
This line of thinking links up (in my mind) with something slightly different that I’ve thought about before, which is how do you create a community where people aren’t afraid to be themselves, risk saying wrong things, and are willing to listen to others. I think there is some convergence with the signaling concern, because there much of signaling can come from trying to present a view to others that signals something that might not quite be true or authentic, or even if it is true emphasizes certain things more than others differently than the poster naturally would, creating a kind of mask or facade where the focus is on signaling well rather than being oneself, saying wrong things, etc..
I think the solution is generally what I would call “safety” or “psychological safety”: people often feel unsafe in a wide variety of situations, don’t always realize they have deep, hidden fear powering their actions, and don’t know how to ask for more safety without risking giving up the little bit they are already creating for themselves by signaling, being defensive, and otherwise not being themselves to protect themselves from threats real or merely perceived.
I’ve seen the amazing benefits of creating safety in organizations and the kind of collaboration and happiness it can enable, but I’m less sure about how to do it in a large, online community. I like this kind of exploration of potential mechanism for, as I think of it, creating enough safety to enable doing the things we really care about (being heard, collaborating, feeling happy to talk to others about our ideas, etc.).
This shortform is a bit of a question/suggestion for anyone that might happen to read it.
It seems to me that public discussion has an obvious disadvantage of the added “signaling” one is doing when speaking to a public.
I wouldn’t blame the vast majority of LW I read articles from or interacted with of this, as in, I think most people go to great length not to aim their arguments towards social signaling. But on the other hand, social signaling is so ingrained in the brain it’s almost impossible **not** to do it. I have a high prior on the idea that even when thinking to yourself, “yourself” is partially the closest interpretation you have of a section of the outside world you are explaining your actions/ideas to.
However, it seems that there’s a lot of things that can reduce your tendency to socially signal, the 4 main ones I’ve observed are:
MDAM
Load of ethanol
Anonymity
Privacy (i.e. the one between a small group of people)
The problem with option 1 and 2 is that they are poisonous with frequent exposure, plus the fact that ethanol makes me think about sex and politics, and MDMA makes me think about how I could ever enjoy sex and politics more than I currently enjoy the myriad of tactile sensations I feel when gently caressing this patch of dirt. I assume most people have problems along these same lines with any drug-induced states of open communication.
Anonymity works, but it works in that it showcases just how vile human thoughts are when they are inconsequentially shouting over one another into a void (see 4chan, kiwifarm, reddit front page...etc).
Privacy seems to work best, I’ve had many interesting discussions with friends that I could have hardly replicate on the internet. However, I doubt that I’m alone in not having a friend that would be knowledgeable/opinionated/interested enough in any subject I’d fancy discussing.
So I’d argue it might be worth-while to try something like an internet discussion-topic form with an entry barrier, where people can get paired up to discuss two different sides of a topic (with certain restrictions, e.g. no discussing politics, so that it doesn’t automatically turn into a cesspool no matter what)
The question would be what the entry barrier should be. I.e. if LW opened such a form, and the entry barrier would just be “you must type the url into your search bar”, it might work for a bit, but it would have the potential of degenerating pretty fast (see anonymity issue).
I could see several solutions to this issue, which one could mix and match, each with their own specific downsides:
Use some sort of internet-points that denote someone’s positive involvement in the community as the entry barrier (e.g. karma one something like LW or reddit)
Use a significant but not outrageous amount of money (e.g. 100$), that are held in escrow by a moderator or an algorithm. The money is awarded to the other person if they discuss the topic with you at some length and provide satisfactory arguments, lost in the void (e.g. donated to an EA-picked charity) if this is arguably not the case or refunded if your counterpart was obviously discussing in bad faith or lacking relevant knowledge.
Use some sort of real-life identification, that is not public to anyone but the database and the people you are discussing with, but is used a verification and as a “threat” that vile conduct could be punished by the moderators making said identity public.
Use some sort of real-life credentials (e.g. PhD, proof of compensation received to work in a certain field, endorsements from members of a field almost everyone would consider respectable, history of work published in relevant journals and/or citation count… etc). This would lend itself well if you segment the discussion-search form into different fields of interest.
Have the tow parties meet IRL, or send physical letters, or some other thing which has a high cost of entry because the means of communication is inefficient and expensive.
I’m curios if something similar to this already exist, as in, something where one can find a quality of discussion similar to a place like LW, or a private chat with a research colleague, not something like reddit CMV.
Alternatively I wonder what the potential templates and downsides for this kind of environment might be and why one doesn’t exist yet.
This line of thinking links up (in my mind) with something slightly different that I’ve thought about before, which is how do you create a community where people aren’t afraid to be themselves, risk saying wrong things, and are willing to listen to others. I think there is some convergence with the signaling concern, because there much of signaling can come from trying to present a view to others that signals something that might not quite be true or authentic, or even if it is true emphasizes certain things more than others differently than the poster naturally would, creating a kind of mask or facade where the focus is on signaling well rather than being oneself, saying wrong things, etc..
I think the solution is generally what I would call “safety” or “psychological safety”: people often feel unsafe in a wide variety of situations, don’t always realize they have deep, hidden fear powering their actions, and don’t know how to ask for more safety without risking giving up the little bit they are already creating for themselves by signaling, being defensive, and otherwise not being themselves to protect themselves from threats real or merely perceived.
I’ve seen the amazing benefits of creating safety in organizations and the kind of collaboration and happiness it can enable, but I’m less sure about how to do it in a large, online community. I like this kind of exploration of potential mechanism for, as I think of it, creating enough safety to enable doing the things we really care about (being heard, collaborating, feeling happy to talk to others about our ideas, etc.).