Plausible deniability all over again. If you don’t reply, it can always be seen as if you’ve forgot/left on vacation/got eaten by a giant squid. If you do reply, you signal with the quality of your reply, and so if you don’t do your best in the context of the conversation at that point, it’s a negative signal based on what’s expected. A sloppy reply or a “this is what I believe if not why and I won’t continue this conversation” will even signal that you don’t respect your interlocutor enough to give a proper response and explain your disagreement, an inference worse than if you didn’t reply at all. Deciding to reply carries a sentence of having to reply well and also to probably have to reply to the follow-ups. Not replying at all is the only way out.
We need a norm not for stating your last position, which is a burden on the person who has to reply, but for accepting irresponsible declarations, as last words in a conversation (and some way of signaling that this comment is in the “last word” mode). This is somewhat in conflict with mental hygiene: you shouldn’t normally expose yourself to statements you can’t sufficiently verify for yourself, but for this particular problem the balance seems to be in the other direction.
A sloppy reply or a “this is what I believe if not why and I won’t continue this conversation” will even signal that you don’t respect your interlocutor enough to give a proper response and explain your disagreement, an inference worse than if you didn’t reply at all.
I tend to non-reply for this reason often.
We need a norm not for stating your last position, which is a burden on the person who has to reply, but for accepting irresponsible declarations, as last words in a conversation (and some way of signaling that this comment is in the “last word” mode).
I agree completely with your first paragraph. This is what I meant by the ease of ignoring an argument being a distorting effect of online or academic (i.e. paper publishing) conversation. In a real-time conversation or debate, this kind of plausible deniability doesn’t exist as an option. I think my suggestion would help remove this plausible deniability and moves the online conversation form closer to real-time conversation.
We need a norm not for stating your last position, which is a burden on the person who has to reply, but for accepting irresponsible declarations
I think this is a good idea. Perhaps it can be implemented by allowing each commenter to set a status with the following options:
I request a reply.
No reply is necessary.
And having a norm that encourages selecting the second option when appropriate.
This is somewhat in conflict with mental hygiene: you shouldn’t normally expose yourself to statements you can’t sufficiently verify for yourself, but for this particular problem the balance seems to be in the other direction.
I can’t make much sense out of this sentence. I expose myself to statements that I can’t verify all the time, just by browsing the web for news and ideas. Do you want to try to restate this… (or not, it doesn’t seem central to the issue at hand).
In a real-time conversation or debate, this kind of plausible deniability doesn’t exist as an option.
It does: you can often change the subject, give a non-answer or even be silent for a few moments and then try to continue the conversation without giving the answer.
I request a reply.
No reply is necessary.
Not just a reply, but a bare position statement (that’s the right term, should also work as a signal for this mode: “My position [statement]: …”), possibly without explanation.
I can’t make much sense out of this sentence.
Does the link to epistemic hygiene (sorry for using a nonstandard term) resolve this misunderstanding? The point is that knowledge about assertions leaks through, biasing intuition about facts (blog:”do we believe everything we’re told?”, wiki:”Dangerous knowledge”), so it’s a bad idea to fill your mind with hypotheses that you have no reason to believe—it’s knowably miscalibrated availability. As a result, observing unexplained assertions is a pointless or sometimes even harmful activity, but in this case it’s exactly what is asked of the last-worder.
Does the link to epistemic hygiene (sorry for using a nonstandard term) resolve this misunderstanding? The point is that knowledge about assertions leaks through, biasing intuition about facts
No, the link does not help at all. The second quoted sentence is clear, but it doesn’t seem remotely like the wiki. If that is what you (and others) mean by the phrase, then you should change the wiki. One difference is that the wiki is written as if it is about specific procedures (hand-washing), while the point here is the problem (hygiene).
It does: you can often change the subject, give a non-answer or even be silent for a few moments and then try to continue the conversation without giving the answer.
Yes, you’re right. My statement was too strong. It still seems to me that its easier to ignore arguments online. In a real-time conversation you can remind someone that he hasn’t responded to your argument, in which case he loses much of his plausible deniability. Online, such reminders seem to work very poorly, in my experience, to the extent that almost nobody even bothers to try them.
Not just a reply, but a bare position statement (that’s the right term, should also work as a signal for this mode: “My position [statement]: …”), possibly without explanation.
I’m not sure what exactly you are proposing here. Can you describe how you think the feature should work?
Does the link to epistemic hygiene (sorry for using a nonstandard term) resolve this misunderstanding?
Actually, no. Thanks for asking.
so it’s a bad idea to fill your mind with hypotheses that you have no reason to believe
Isn’t the fact that someone else believes in it strong enough to have stated it in public sufficient reason for me to put some weight into that hypotheses?
observing unexplained assertions is a pointless or sometimes even harmful activity
I can understand this if you mean random assertions, but I think that observing unexplained assertions made by others in good faith would be beneficial on average, even if sometimes harmful. Do you disagree?
I don’t think “I request a reply” and “No reply is necessary” is enough statuses. A lot of comment replies invite perfectly reasonable interjection from third parties—does requesting a reply mean you want the parent to answer, or that you’re trying to collect lots of data points, or anybody who can answer the question is welcome to do so?
I think anybody who can answer the question or point out a flaw in the argument should always be welcome to do so, regardless, but “I request a reply” means the author of the parent should at least set a disagreement status indicator (perhaps with “someone already answered it for me” as an additional option).
“I’m trying to collect lots of data points” seems to be rare enough, that it doesn’t need to be an option. You can just say that in the comment.
Plausible deniability all over again. If you don’t reply, it can always be seen as if you’ve forgot/left on vacation/got eaten by a giant squid. If you do reply, you signal with the quality of your reply, and so if you don’t do your best in the context of the conversation at that point, it’s a negative signal based on what’s expected. A sloppy reply or a “this is what I believe if not why and I won’t continue this conversation” will even signal that you don’t respect your interlocutor enough to give a proper response and explain your disagreement, an inference worse than if you didn’t reply at all. Deciding to reply carries a sentence of having to reply well and also to probably have to reply to the follow-ups. Not replying at all is the only way out.
We need a norm not for stating your last position, which is a burden on the person who has to reply, but for accepting irresponsible declarations, as last words in a conversation (and some way of signaling that this comment is in the “last word” mode). This is somewhat in conflict with mental hygiene: you shouldn’t normally expose yourself to statements you can’t sufficiently verify for yourself, but for this particular problem the balance seems to be in the other direction.
I tend to non-reply for this reason often.
So I appreciate this insight.
I agree completely with your first paragraph. This is what I meant by the ease of ignoring an argument being a distorting effect of online or academic (i.e. paper publishing) conversation. In a real-time conversation or debate, this kind of plausible deniability doesn’t exist as an option. I think my suggestion would help remove this plausible deniability and moves the online conversation form closer to real-time conversation.
I think this is a good idea. Perhaps it can be implemented by allowing each commenter to set a status with the following options:
I request a reply.
No reply is necessary.
And having a norm that encourages selecting the second option when appropriate.
I can’t make much sense out of this sentence. I expose myself to statements that I can’t verify all the time, just by browsing the web for news and ideas. Do you want to try to restate this… (or not, it doesn’t seem central to the issue at hand).
ETA2: Found a link for http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Epistemic_hygiene
It does: you can often change the subject, give a non-answer or even be silent for a few moments and then try to continue the conversation without giving the answer.
Not just a reply, but a bare position statement (that’s the right term, should also work as a signal for this mode: “My position [statement]: …”), possibly without explanation.
Does the link to epistemic hygiene (sorry for using a nonstandard term) resolve this misunderstanding? The point is that knowledge about assertions leaks through, biasing intuition about facts (blog:”do we believe everything we’re told?”, wiki:”Dangerous knowledge”), so it’s a bad idea to fill your mind with hypotheses that you have no reason to believe—it’s knowably miscalibrated availability. As a result, observing unexplained assertions is a pointless or sometimes even harmful activity, but in this case it’s exactly what is asked of the last-worder.
No, the link does not help at all. The second quoted sentence is clear, but it doesn’t seem remotely like the wiki. If that is what you (and others) mean by the phrase, then you should change the wiki. One difference is that the wiki is written as if it is about specific procedures (hand-washing), while the point here is the problem (hygiene).
Yes, you’re right. My statement was too strong. It still seems to me that its easier to ignore arguments online. In a real-time conversation you can remind someone that he hasn’t responded to your argument, in which case he loses much of his plausible deniability. Online, such reminders seem to work very poorly, in my experience, to the extent that almost nobody even bothers to try them.
I’m not sure what exactly you are proposing here. Can you describe how you think the feature should work?
Actually, no. Thanks for asking.
Isn’t the fact that someone else believes in it strong enough to have stated it in public sufficient reason for me to put some weight into that hypotheses?
I can understand this if you mean random assertions, but I think that observing unexplained assertions made by others in good faith would be beneficial on average, even if sometimes harmful. Do you disagree?
I don’t think “I request a reply” and “No reply is necessary” is enough statuses. A lot of comment replies invite perfectly reasonable interjection from third parties—does requesting a reply mean you want the parent to answer, or that you’re trying to collect lots of data points, or anybody who can answer the question is welcome to do so?
I think anybody who can answer the question or point out a flaw in the argument should always be welcome to do so, regardless, but “I request a reply” means the author of the parent should at least set a disagreement status indicator (perhaps with “someone already answered it for me” as an additional option).
“I’m trying to collect lots of data points” seems to be rare enough, that it doesn’t need to be an option. You can just say that in the comment.