10 ms·

The rationalist community has a kind of meta-rule that contributions to a debate should be at least two of {true, necessary, kind}. For necessary you can often

The rationalist community has a kind of meta-rule that contributions to a debate should be at least two of {true, necessary, kind}. For necessary you can often also read useful. Once you're out of high school debate club, it's a good principle that if the only thing in favour of a statement is "it's true", err on the side of not saying it.

mehrdadn 7y ago
Interesting that truth isn't a requirement, especially given we're talking about rationalists. In what situations do they welcome false contributions?
- mjw1007 7y ago
  I think the idea is that it's forgivable to make mistakes, as long as you aren't also being unpleasant.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    Edit: Sorry, I just realized I misread something. What I was pondering was what "necessary" meant in this case, but I think my brain is tired right now!
    - adamisom 7y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by 'mistaken unpleasantness', but getting at the truth, however unpleasant, is a far higher and more widespread norm in the rationalist community.
    - red_admiral 7y ago
      From https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/02/the-comment-policy-is-victorian-sufi-buddha-lite/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/02/the-comment-policy-is-... : {necessary, kind}: > Recognizing that nobody can be totally sure what is or isn’t true, if you want to say something that might not be true – anything controversial, speculative, or highly opinionated – then you had better make sure it is both kind and necessary. Kind, in that you don’t rush to insult people who disagree with you. Necessary in that it’s on topic, and not only contributes something to the discussion but contributes more to the discussion than it’s likely to take away through starting a fight. {true, kind}: > Annnnnnd sometimes you might want to share something that’s not especially relevant, not the most important thing in the world – but if you do that it had better be both true and kind. No random interjection of toxic opinions that are going to cause World War III. No unprovoked attacks. (personal comment - the recent HN thread on castle Guedelon, where a bunch of experimental archaeologists are building a medieval-style castle, was perhaps not "necessary" or "relevant" on a tech forum, but it was kind in that I very much enjoyed the half hour I was reading about it. Since there were no false claims about castles on that page, I'd count that as "true and kind".) For good measure, {true, necessary}: > Nobody can be kind all the time, but if you are going to be angry or sarcastic, what you say had better be both true and necessary. You had better be delivering a very well-deserved smackdown against someone who is uncontroversially and obviously wrong, in a way you can back up with universally agreed-upon statistics.
- yoz-y 7y ago
  My guess would be when you are stating opinions.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  A statement like "I am happy to see you!" should fit the description of necessary, kind and untrue.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  Well because I can imagine a lot of things that are true but not necessary nor kind. Likewise, I don't know how you would classify opinions as true or false.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > In what situations do they welcome false contributions? I think the point was more that being quiet is an option.
- TremendousJudge 7y ago
  Quoting from the SSC policy: >Recognizing that nobody can be totally sure what is or isn’t true, if you want to say something that might not be true – anything controversial, speculative, or highly opinionated – then you had better make sure it is both kind and necessary. Kind, in that you don’t rush to insult people who disagree with you. Necessary in that it’s on topic, and not only contributes something to the discussion but contributes more to the discussion than it’s likely to take away through starting a fight.
- JohnBooty 7y ago
  Just a guess, but - 1. Good-faith efforts at contribution where a person happens to be wrong? (happens to the most conscientious of us) 2. Instances where the speaker has made their confidence level explicitly known? ("Just a guess...", "I am not a lawyer, but...", "I'm not certain, but my understanding is that..." etc)
jkoudys 7y ago
True!
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
> at least two of {true, necessary, kind} Are "necessary" and "kind" lies acceptable?
- C4stor 7y ago
  Since they are necessary, there's no option to avoid them anyway ? (otherwise they wouldn't be necessary). So you'd rather accept them.
kroltan 7y ago
That is true, but I suppose the issue arises from people who cannot make an accurate assessment on the "necessary" front.
JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Not an Engineer? Because I used to find myself in meetings, trying to express why its a colossal mistake to introduce application runtime libraries into a kernel, driver or critical engine. I was on the other side of this argument at times like that - expressing the obvious and true, perhaps unkindly. And getting nowhere as I could be dismissed as a pedant or as naive (by newly graduated 20-somethings).
- cwillu 7y ago
  That would be "true" and "necessary", no?
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Thanks, yes, but it it was also thankless. You get marked as a 'pendant' and 'uncooperative'. Being patronized by the OP was neither true, kind nor necessary. It is another misdirection of the sort they describe, this one attacking the (imaginary) opponent with a strawman or false dichotomy? Anyway, I'll shut up now.
    - beckingz 7y ago
      "Not a team player"
specialist 7y ago
This is terrific. Any chance you have a link to such a meta-rule? Is LessWrong one of these rationalist communities? Here's their relevant FAQ: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/FAQ#Site_Etiquette_and_Social_Norms https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/FAQ#Site_Etiquette_and_Socia... The reason I ask: My local political party recently adopted a geek-style Code of Conduct. Huge help. But as you can imagine, our policy debates remain suboptimal, sometimes getting rather acrimonious. Neither our bylaws or Robert's Rules of Order say much about playing nicely. Maybe some experience, advice from rationalists would help. (HN's guidelines would also be a good start for my purposes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
- Double_Cast 7y ago
  https://slatestarcodex.com/comments/ https://slatestarcodex.com/comments/
- red_admiral 7y ago
  https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/02/the-comment-policy-is-victorian-sufi-buddha-lite/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/02/the-comment-policy-is-... LessWrong is one of those sites, but for sheer elegance of writing (in my very personal opinion) you can't go much better than Scott Alexander.

mehrdadn 7y ago

Interesting that truth isn't a requirement, especially given we're talking about rationalists. In what situations do they welcome false contributions?

mjw1007 7y ago
I think the idea is that it's forgivable to make mistakes, as long as you aren't also being unpleasant.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  Edit: Sorry, I just realized I misread something. What I was pondering was what "necessary" meant in this case, but I think my brain is tired right now!
  - adamisom 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by 'mistaken unpleasantness', but getting at the truth, however unpleasant, is a far higher and more widespread norm in the rationalist community.
  - red_admiral 7y ago
    From https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/02/the-comment-policy-is-victorian-sufi-buddha-lite/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/02/the-comment-policy-is-... : {necessary, kind}: > Recognizing that nobody can be totally sure what is or isn’t true, if you want to say something that might not be true – anything controversial, speculative, or highly opinionated – then you had better make sure it is both kind and necessary. Kind, in that you don’t rush to insult people who disagree with you. Necessary in that it’s on topic, and not only contributes something to the discussion but contributes more to the discussion than it’s likely to take away through starting a fight. {true, kind}: > Annnnnnd sometimes you might want to share something that’s not especially relevant, not the most important thing in the world – but if you do that it had better be both true and kind. No random interjection of toxic opinions that are going to cause World War III. No unprovoked attacks. (personal comment - the recent HN thread on castle Guedelon, where a bunch of experimental archaeologists are building a medieval-style castle, was perhaps not "necessary" or "relevant" on a tech forum, but it was kind in that I very much enjoyed the half hour I was reading about it. Since there were no false claims about castles on that page, I'd count that as "true and kind".) For good measure, {true, necessary}: > Nobody can be kind all the time, but if you are going to be angry or sarcastic, what you say had better be both true and necessary. You had better be delivering a very well-deserved smackdown against someone who is uncontroversially and obviously wrong, in a way you can back up with universally agreed-upon statistics.
yoz-y 7y ago
My guess would be when you are stating opinions.
gridlockd 7y ago
A statement like "I am happy to see you!" should fit the description of necessary, kind and untrue.
nkrisc 7y ago
Well because I can imagine a lot of things that are true but not necessary nor kind. Likewise, I don't know how you would classify opinions as true or false.
ceejayoz 7y ago
> In what situations do they welcome false contributions? I think the point was more that being quiet is an option.
TremendousJudge 7y ago
Quoting from the SSC policy: >Recognizing that nobody can be totally sure what is or isn’t true, if you want to say something that might not be true – anything controversial, speculative, or highly opinionated – then you had better make sure it is both kind and necessary. Kind, in that you don’t rush to insult people who disagree with you. Necessary in that it’s on topic, and not only contributes something to the discussion but contributes more to the discussion than it’s likely to take away through starting a fight.
JohnBooty 7y ago
Just a guess, but - 1. Good-faith efforts at contribution where a person happens to be wrong? (happens to the most conscientious of us) 2. Instances where the speaker has made their confidence level explicitly known? ("Just a guess...", "I am not a lawyer, but...", "I'm not certain, but my understanding is that..." etc)

jkoudys 7y ago

True!

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

> at least two of {true, necessary, kind} Are "necessary" and "kind" lies acceptable?

C4stor 7y ago
Since they are necessary, there's no option to avoid them anyway ? (otherwise they wouldn't be necessary). So you'd rather accept them.

kroltan 7y ago

That is true, but I suppose the issue arises from people who cannot make an accurate assessment on the "necessary" front.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Not an Engineer? Because I used to find myself in meetings, trying to express why its a colossal mistake to introduce application runtime libraries into a kernel, driver or critical engine. I was on the other side of this argument at times like that - expressing the obvious and true, perhaps unkindly. And getting nowhere as I could be dismissed as a pedant or as naive (by newly graduated 20-somethings).

cwillu 7y ago
That would be "true" and "necessary", no?
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Thanks, yes, but it it was also thankless. You get marked as a 'pendant' and 'uncooperative'. Being patronized by the OP was neither true, kind nor necessary. It is another misdirection of the sort they describe, this one attacking the (imaginary) opponent with a strawman or false dichotomy? Anyway, I'll shut up now.
  - beckingz 7y ago
    "Not a team player"

specialist 7y ago

This is terrific. Any chance you have a link to such a meta-rule? Is LessWrong one of these rationalist communities? Here's their relevant FAQ: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/FAQ#Site_Etiquette_and_Social_Norms https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/FAQ#Site_Etiquette_and_Socia... The reason I ask: My local political party recently adopted a geek-style Code of Conduct. Huge help. But as you can imagine, our policy debates remain suboptimal, sometimes getting rather acrimonious. Neither our bylaws or Robert's Rules of Order say much about playing nicely. Maybe some experience, advice from rationalists would help. (HN's guidelines would also be a good start for my purposes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Double_Cast 7y ago
https://slatestarcodex.com/comments/ https://slatestarcodex.com/comments/
red_admiral 7y ago
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/02/the-comment-policy-is-victorian-sufi-buddha-lite/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/02/the-comment-policy-is-... LessWrong is one of those sites, but for sheer elegance of writing (in my very personal opinion) you can't go much better than Scott Alexander.