What is the advantage of nice communication in a rationalist forum? Isn’t the content of the message the only important thing?
Imagine a situation where many people, even highly intelligent, make the same mistake talking about some topic, because… well, I guess I shouldn’t have to explain on this website what “cognitive bias” means… everyone here has read the Sequences, right? ;)
But one person happens to be a domain expert in an unusual domain, or happened to talk with a domain expert, or happened to read a book by a domain expert… and something clicked and they realized the mistake.
I think that at this moment the communication style on the website has a big impact on whether the person will come and share their insight with the rest of the website. Because it predicts the response they get. On a forum with a “snarky” debating culture, the predictable reaction is everyone making fun and not even considering the issue seriously, because that’s simply how the debate is done there. Of course, predicting this reaction, the person is more likely to just avoid the whole topic, and discuss something else.
Of course—yes, I can already predict the reactions this comment will inevitably get—this has to be balanced against people saying stupid things, etc. Of course. I know already, okay? Thanks.
Speaking as somebody who frequently engages in non-nice methodologies:
Niceness is more convincing. Way more convincing. And if you can get somebody to be mean enough to you, while you’re being nice, that somebody feels like they should defend you, cognitive dissonance will push them to believe in your beliefs a little bit more.
If some people are nice, and some people are mean, we’re injecting some very subtle irrationality into people reading our discourse.
So there is an advantage in picking one and sticking to it. (Or my policy, which is to match the tone of my opponent as well as I can.) And niceness is probably an easier schelling point that meanness.
Yep. I’ll try to make a short summary of some arguments in the article and comments:
Why people want to be mean:
it signals strength (in the ancient environment it shows you are not afraid of being hit in return);
it signals intellectual superiority e.g. in the form of sarcasm;
if you already have a reputation, you can win debates quickly;
it helps you put distance towards people you want to avoid.
What are the negative impacts of meanness:
you may be wrong, but you have already proposed a solution (“the other person is stupid”);
if there is a misunderstanding, hostile reaction lowers the chance of explaining or increases the time needed, compared with a polite request for clarification;
people will different experience will seem especially wrong to you, so this effect will be even stronger there;
you spread bad mood, which harms curiosity and exploration;
you signal that you are bad at cooperation, bad at managing your emotions, not caring about other people;
people stop listening to you and start avoiding you;
Isn’t the content of the message the only important thing?
Content is multi-level. A chunk of text often means more than the literal reading of the words.
People use forums for many things. Sometimes it’s to inform, sometimes it’s to set out a position, sometimes it’s to vent and bitch, sometimes it’s to just wave a dick around, sometimes it’s to play social games, etc. It helps to figure out quickly to which category a message belongs and the style or tone of the message (here: nice or mean) is important. Think of it as a fuzzy tag, an email header line, a hint at how this message should be interpreted.
It’s not simple, of course, and there is a lot of misdirection and false flags and signaling and counter signaling… basically, it’s humans communicating :-)
Probably saying the obvious, but anyway:
What is the advantage of nice communication in a rationalist forum? Isn’t the content of the message the only important thing?
Imagine a situation where many people, even highly intelligent, make the same mistake talking about some topic, because… well, I guess I shouldn’t have to explain on this website what “cognitive bias” means… everyone here has read the Sequences, right? ;)
But one person happens to be a domain expert in an unusual domain, or happened to talk with a domain expert, or happened to read a book by a domain expert… and something clicked and they realized the mistake.
I think that at this moment the communication style on the website has a big impact on whether the person will come and share their insight with the rest of the website. Because it predicts the response they get. On a forum with a “snarky” debating culture, the predictable reaction is everyone making fun and not even considering the issue seriously, because that’s simply how the debate is done there. Of course, predicting this reaction, the person is more likely to just avoid the whole topic, and discuss something else.
Of course—yes, I can already predict the reactions this comment will inevitably get—this has to be balanced against people saying stupid things, etc. Of course. I know already, okay? Thanks.
Speaking as somebody who frequently engages in non-nice methodologies:
Niceness is more convincing. Way more convincing. And if you can get somebody to be mean enough to you, while you’re being nice, that somebody feels like they should defend you, cognitive dissonance will push them to believe in your beliefs a little bit more.
If some people are nice, and some people are mean, we’re injecting some very subtle irrationality into people reading our discourse.
So there is an advantage in picking one and sticking to it. (Or my policy, which is to match the tone of my opponent as well as I can.) And niceness is probably an easier schelling point that meanness.
A Suite of Pragmatic Considerations in Favor of Niceness
Yep. I’ll try to make a short summary of some arguments in the article and comments:
Why people want to be mean:
it signals strength (in the ancient environment it shows you are not afraid of being hit in return);
it signals intellectual superiority e.g. in the form of sarcasm;
if you already have a reputation, you can win debates quickly;
it helps you put distance towards people you want to avoid.
What are the negative impacts of meanness:
you may be wrong, but you have already proposed a solution (“the other person is stupid”);
if there is a misunderstanding, hostile reaction lowers the chance of explaining or increases the time needed, compared with a polite request for clarification;
people will different experience will seem especially wrong to you, so this effect will be even stronger there;
you spread bad mood, which harms curiosity and exploration;
you signal that you are bad at cooperation, bad at managing your emotions, not caring about other people;
people stop listening to you and start avoiding you;
you lose possible allies.
Content is multi-level. A chunk of text often means more than the literal reading of the words.
People use forums for many things. Sometimes it’s to inform, sometimes it’s to set out a position, sometimes it’s to vent and bitch, sometimes it’s to just wave a dick around, sometimes it’s to play social games, etc. It helps to figure out quickly to which category a message belongs and the style or tone of the message (here: nice or mean) is important. Think of it as a fuzzy tag, an email header line, a hint at how this message should be interpreted.
It’s not simple, of course, and there is a lot of misdirection and false flags and signaling and counter signaling… basically, it’s humans communicating :-)
Is there anything in your post where you think that a likely reader doesn’t already know what you are arguing?
That seems like arguing against a strawman.