I see that you’re trying to enforce civility norms. Personally, I prefer the equilibrium where authors develop a slightly thicker skin to arguably-abrasively-phrased substantive criticisms, rather than the one where we all have to tiptoe on eggshells around each other and expend effort trying to figure out how to rephrase criticisms in a way that doesn’t threaten anyone’s ego.
I claim that abrasiveness-tolerant “thick skin” norms are more effcient for intellectual progress. Think of it from an AI design perspective: if you design a reinforcement learner that can only except positive feedback, or only small-magnitude negative feedback, that AI is going to be a less efficient learner than one that can take proportionately larger punishments when it makes proportionately larger mistakes. So too with human discourse norms. If you’re only allowed to say “Personally I prefer … you might consider”, then you have been deprived of the expressive language that you could have used to communicate the distinction between cases where “Personally you prefer” and cases where your interlocutor’s idea is actually stupid and an insult to the good version of whatever they were trying to do.
(Additionally, I think the “thick skin” norms also have the potential to be more fun, but that’s more subjective and harder to establish.)
It’s interesting that your template example of a good comment includes reasons for the stated opinion (“it has the benefits of Y and Z”), but your examples of bad comments don’t: someone who just read your comment out of context might walk away with the impression that you were reacting to content-free abrasiveness.
But I think Said is actually being pretty specific as well as consise (which could read as brusque, which could be read as abrasive). “If you’re stooping to Unicode pseudo-drop-caps, there’s no reason not to use Unicode small caps” is an appeal to argumentative local validity: the point is that the same rationale supports Unicode blackboard bold pseudo-drop-caps and Unicode small caps, so that the choice of one over the other (or, as Said would prefer, neither) should be made on typographical grounds; it’s not consistent to appeal to technical limitations only in the case of small caps.
As I see it, Said is helping you out by offering you this argument (and possibly informing or reminding you of the existence of Unicode small caps). Are you going to reject his gift because you don’t like the word “stooped”? Isn’t that kind of rude and ungrateful of you?!
Obviously Turntrout gets to decide whether he wants to host this subthread on his post.
But, noting: part of the point of having author moderation norms is that authors get to enforce them without having to defend their right to every single time. I do think there’s plenty worth discussing here but suspect it makes more sense to do so on a separate thread directly addressing the meta-norm, which wasn’t Turntrout’s decision.
I see that you’re trying to enforce civility norms.
Very clever.
You’re right that Said’s criticism was substantive, and I didn’t mean to downplay that in my comment. I do, in fact, think that Said is right: my formatting messes with archiving and search, and there are better alternatives. He has successfully persuaded me of this. In fact, I’ll update the post after writing this comment!
The reason I made that comment is that I notice his tone makes it harder for me to update on and accept his argumentation. Although an ideal reasoner might not mind, I do. The additional difficulty of updating is a real cost, and the tone just seemed consistently unreasonable for the situation.
I don’t think we should just prioritize authors’ simply getting thicker skin, although I agree it’s good for authors to strive for individually. Here is some of my reasoning.
Suppose I were a newcomer to the site, I wrote a post about my research habits, and then I recieved this comment thread in return. Would I write more posts? 2017-me would not have done so. Suppose I even saw this happening on someone else’s post. Would I write posts? No. I, like many people I have anecdotally heard of, was already intimidated by the percieved harshness of this site’s comments. I think you might not currently be appreciating how brutal this site can look at first. If there are tradeoffs we can make along the lines of saying “if you’re resorting to X” instead of “if you’re stooping to X”, tradeoffs that don’t really lose much informational content but do significantly reduce potential for abrasion, it seems sensible to make them.
Truly thickening one’s skin seems pretty difficult. Maybe I can just sit down and Internal Double Crux this, but even if so, do we just expect authors to do this in general?
Microhedonics. If one has reasonably but imperfectly thick skin, then the author might be slightly discouraged from engaging with the community. Obviously there is a balance to be struck here, but the line I drew does not seem unreasonable to me.
ETA: My comment also wasn’t saying that people have to specifically follow the scripted example. They don’t need to say they just prefer X, or whatever. The “good” example is probably overly flowery. Just avoid being needlessly abrasive.
a newcomer to the site [...] engaging with the community
Recruiting newcomers and maximizing engagement have costs (in the form of making it harder to maintain the culture that made the community valuable in the first place) as well as benefits. See Ben Hoffman’s “On the Construction of Beacons” for a longer argument along these lines.
the tone just seemed consistently unreasonable for the situation.
I see how it could be read as unreasonably hostile, but I read it as unreasonably passionate about typography. The principle of charity recommends the latter reading.
If there are tradeoffs we can make along the lines of saying “if you’re resorting to X” instead of “if you’re stooping to X”, tradeoffs that don’t really lose much informational content but do significantly reduce potential for abrasion
I can think of two ways to reply to this.
The first reply. While individual writers would do well to carefully weigh the the shades of meaning between “stoop” and “resort” when composing their comments, I fear such fine distinctions aren’t well suited for intersubjectively applicable norms, which need to be robust over the vagaries of many authors’ goals, talents, and writing styles. A key feature that makes “No direct personal attacks” a great norm is that it’s a stable Schelling point: it’s not hard to get broad agreement, and therefore common knowledge, that “You’re stupid” is a personal attack, and “The idea that you expressed in this post is wrong and harmful” is not. Common knowledge makes norm-enforcement a lot easier by circumventing the possibility of plausible-deniability games: if I know that “You’re stupid” is a forbidden personal attack, and the mods know that I know, &c. then the elephant in my brain won’t be tempted to say it and then plead ignorance of the law, because no one’s going to buy that. When we get into the weeds of litigating which of various near-synonyms have which effects on reader microhedonics, this is no longer true.
The second reply. Don’t lose “much” informational content? Alex, you’re a goddamned alignment researcher. The human species is facing an impossible problem.1029 lives per second depend on you thinking more clearly than the heroes of scientific legend, seeing more deeply into the true secrets of mind and cognition than all who have come before you! Ten years from now, a fellow researcher finds a flaw in your proof that the AI your institute is deploying next week is low-impact. Do you want them to spend time fretting about exactly how to phrase their comment so as to not hurt your feelings? Or do you want them to tell you about the flaw as soon as possible and as clearly as possible so that you can not destroy the world?! This “backslide from [philosophy club] norms towards more diplomatic norms” will be the death of us all!
Don’t lose “much” informational content? Alex, you’re a goddamned alignment researcher… Do you want them to spend time fretting about exactly how to phrase their comment so as to not hurt your feelings?
This is a straw interpretation of what I’m trying to communicate. This argument isn’t addressing the actual norm I plan on enforcing, and seems to instead cast me as walling myself off from anything I might not like.
The norm I’m actually proposing is that if you see an easy way to make an abrasive thing less abrasive, you take it. If the thing still has to be abrasive, that’s fine. Remember, I said
needlessly abrasive
Am I to believe that if people can’t say the thing that first comes to mind in the heat of the moment, there isn’t any way to express the same information? What am I plausibly losing out on by not hearing “stooping to X” instead of “resorting to X”? That Said first thought of “stooping”? That he’s passionate about typography?
I don’t see many reasonable situations where this kind of statement
The thing you’re doing really doesn’t work, because [reason X]. You should do [alternative] because [reason Y].
doesn’t suffice (again, this isn’t a “template”; it’s just an example of a reasonable level of frankness).
I’ve been actively engaged with LW for a good while, and this issue hasn’t come up until now (which makes me think it’s uncommon, thankfully). Additionally, I’ve worked with people in the alignment research community. No one has seemed to have trouble communicating efficiently in a minimally abrasive fashion, and I don’t see why that will change.
I don’t currently plan on commenting further on this thread, although I thank both you and Said for your contributions and certainly hope you keep commenting on my posts!
The principle of charity recommends the latter reading.
If someone has a thin skin, that almost by definition means that their subconscious is running on something opposite to the principle of charity: the principle of erring-on-the-side-of-assuming-that-people-who-say-potentially-hostile-things-are-in-fact-hostile. You can’t just tell someone to apply the principle of charity in that case; that’s applying a counteractive strategy to a deeply felt emotional experience, and as such ineffective.
I see that you’re trying to enforce civility norms. Personally, I prefer the equilibrium where authors develop a slightly thicker skin to arguably-abrasively-phrased substantive criticisms, rather than the one where we all have to tiptoe on eggshells around each other and expend effort trying to figure out how to rephrase criticisms in a way that doesn’t threaten anyone’s ego.
I claim that abrasiveness-tolerant “thick skin” norms are more effcient for intellectual progress. Think of it from an AI design perspective: if you design a reinforcement learner that can only except positive feedback, or only small-magnitude negative feedback, that AI is going to be a less efficient learner than one that can take proportionately larger punishments when it makes proportionately larger mistakes. So too with human discourse norms. If you’re only allowed to say “Personally I prefer … you might consider”, then you have been deprived of the expressive language that you could have used to communicate the distinction between cases where “Personally you prefer” and cases where your interlocutor’s idea is actually stupid and an insult to the good version of whatever they were trying to do.
(Additionally, I think the “thick skin” norms also have the potential to be more fun, but that’s more subjective and harder to establish.)
It’s interesting that your template example of a good comment includes reasons for the stated opinion (“it has the benefits of Y and Z”), but your examples of bad comments don’t: someone who just read your comment out of context might walk away with the impression that you were reacting to content-free abrasiveness.
But I think Said is actually being pretty specific as well as consise (which could read as brusque, which could be read as abrasive). “If you’re stooping to Unicode pseudo-drop-caps, there’s no reason not to use Unicode small caps” is an appeal to argumentative local validity: the point is that the same rationale supports Unicode blackboard bold pseudo-drop-caps and Unicode small caps, so that the choice of one over the other (or, as Said would prefer, neither) should be made on typographical grounds; it’s not consistent to appeal to technical limitations only in the case of small caps.
As I see it, Said is helping you out by offering you this argument (and possibly informing or reminding you of the existence of Unicode small caps). Are you going to reject his gift because you don’t like the word “stooped”? Isn’t that kind of rude and ungrateful of you?!
Obviously Turntrout gets to decide whether he wants to host this subthread on his post.
But, noting: part of the point of having author moderation norms is that authors get to enforce them without having to defend their right to every single time. I do think there’s plenty worth discussing here but suspect it makes more sense to do so on a separate thread directly addressing the meta-norm, which wasn’t Turntrout’s decision.
Very clever.
You’re right that Said’s criticism was substantive, and I didn’t mean to downplay that in my comment. I do, in fact, think that Said is right: my formatting messes with archiving and search, and there are better alternatives. He has successfully persuaded me of this. In fact, I’ll update the post after writing this comment!
The reason I made that comment is that I notice his tone makes it harder for me to update on and accept his argumentation. Although an ideal reasoner might not mind, I do. The additional difficulty of updating is a real cost, and the tone just seemed consistently unreasonable for the situation.
I don’t think we should just prioritize authors’ simply getting thicker skin, although I agree it’s good for authors to strive for individually. Here is some of my reasoning.
Suppose I were a newcomer to the site, I wrote a post about my research habits, and then I recieved this comment thread in return. Would I write more posts? 2017-me would not have done so. Suppose I even saw this happening on someone else’s post. Would I write posts? No. I, like many people I have anecdotally heard of, was already intimidated by the percieved harshness of this site’s comments. I think you might not currently be appreciating how brutal this site can look at first. If there are tradeoffs we can make along the lines of saying “if you’re resorting to X” instead of “if you’re stooping to X”, tradeoffs that don’t really lose much informational content but do significantly reduce potential for abrasion, it seems sensible to make them.
Truly thickening one’s skin seems pretty difficult. Maybe I can just sit down and Internal Double Crux this, but even if so, do we just expect authors to do this in general?
Microhedonics. If one has reasonably but imperfectly thick skin, then the author might be slightly discouraged from engaging with the community. Obviously there is a balance to be struck here, but the line I drew does not seem unreasonable to me.
ETA: My comment also wasn’t saying that people have to specifically follow the scripted example. They don’t need to say they just prefer X, or whatever. The “good” example is probably overly flowery. Just avoid being needlessly abrasive.
Recruiting newcomers and maximizing engagement have costs (in the form of making it harder to maintain the culture that made the community valuable in the first place) as well as benefits. See Ben Hoffman’s “On the Construction of Beacons” for a longer argument along these lines.
I see how it could be read as unreasonably hostile, but I read it as unreasonably passionate about typography. The principle of charity recommends the latter reading.
I can think of two ways to reply to this.
The first reply. While individual writers would do well to carefully weigh the the shades of meaning between “stoop” and “resort” when composing their comments, I fear such fine distinctions aren’t well suited for intersubjectively applicable norms, which need to be robust over the vagaries of many authors’ goals, talents, and writing styles. A key feature that makes “No direct personal attacks” a great norm is that it’s a stable Schelling point: it’s not hard to get broad agreement, and therefore common knowledge, that “You’re stupid” is a personal attack, and “The idea that you expressed in this post is wrong and harmful” is not. Common knowledge makes norm-enforcement a lot easier by circumventing the possibility of plausible-deniability games: if I know that “You’re stupid” is a forbidden personal attack, and the mods know that I know, &c. then the elephant in my brain won’t be tempted to say it and then plead ignorance of the law, because no one’s going to buy that. When we get into the weeds of litigating which of various near-synonyms have which effects on reader microhedonics, this is no longer true.
The second reply. Don’t lose “much” informational content? Alex, you’re a goddamned alignment researcher. The human species is facing an impossible problem.1029 lives per second depend on you thinking more clearly than the heroes of scientific legend, seeing more deeply into the true secrets of mind and cognition than all who have come before you! Ten years from now, a fellow researcher finds a flaw in your proof that the AI your institute is deploying next week is low-impact. Do you want them to spend time fretting about exactly how to phrase their comment so as to not hurt your feelings? Or do you want them to tell you about the flaw as soon as possible and as clearly as possible so that you can not destroy the world?! This “backslide from [philosophy club] norms towards more diplomatic norms” will be the death of us all!
This is a straw interpretation of what I’m trying to communicate. This argument isn’t addressing the actual norm I plan on enforcing, and seems to instead cast me as walling myself off from anything I might not like.
The norm I’m actually proposing is that if you see an easy way to make an abrasive thing less abrasive, you take it. If the thing still has to be abrasive, that’s fine. Remember, I said
Am I to believe that if people can’t say the thing that first comes to mind in the heat of the moment, there isn’t any way to express the same information? What am I plausibly losing out on by not hearing “stooping to X” instead of “resorting to X”? That Said first thought of “stooping”? That he’s passionate about typography?
I don’t see many reasonable situations where this kind of statement
doesn’t suffice (again, this isn’t a “template”; it’s just an example of a reasonable level of frankness).
I’ve been actively engaged with LW for a good while, and this issue hasn’t come up until now (which makes me think it’s uncommon, thankfully). Additionally, I’ve worked with people in the alignment research community. No one has seemed to have trouble communicating efficiently in a minimally abrasive fashion, and I don’t see why that will change.
I don’t currently plan on commenting further on this thread, although I thank both you and Said for your contributions and certainly hope you keep commenting on my posts!
If someone has a thin skin, that almost by definition means that their subconscious is running on something opposite to the principle of charity: the principle of erring-on-the-side-of-assuming-that-people-who-say-potentially-hostile-things-are-in-fact-hostile. You can’t just tell someone to apply the principle of charity in that case; that’s applying a counteractive strategy to a deeply felt emotional experience, and as such ineffective.