3 ms·

You're right that at least large parts of this can be tested and answered with data. Obviously short of a magical classifier for questions like "is this a produ

You're right that at least large parts of this can be tested and answered with data. Obviously short of a magical classifier for questions like "is this a productive debate" and "is this ideological fighting or a search for truth?" then we're going to need someone to hand classify a bunch of things which is expensive, slow and only as accurate as the person making the judgement call. In other words, we'd just be making ad hoc judgements again, but calling them something else because we made those ad hoc judgements in a csv instead of a comment. The other issue is that communities are dynamic, and behaviors trend. You're probably not going to see a flat correlation, you're going to see something that resembles a wave function.

mistermann 7y ago
> then we're going to need someone to hand classify a bunch of things which is expensive, slow True. But not impossible. And I would recommend comparing effort to potential reward. Imagine, just for fun, the possibility that HN could find a way to discuss climate change[1] in a disciplined, truthful, and non-heuristic manner. What might the value of that discovery be? And if we could find a way do it, perhaps others could as well? > and only as accurate as the person making the judgement call How deeply have you thought about that? Like, say it was an engineering problem you've been asked to solve - have you put as much effort into thinking about it as you would if it was a paid assignment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws > In other words, we'd just be making ad hoc judgements again, but calling them something else because we made those ad hoc judgements in a csv instead of a comment. Do you realize you are: a) predicting the future b) making several assumptions c) utilizing loaded terms (which is harmful not only to others, but sometimes also to oneself) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language > The other issue is that communities are dynamic, and behaviors trend. This is true. > You're probably not going to see a flat correlation, you're going to see something that resembles a wave function. Your prediction may be correct. But it also may be incorrect. [1] A topic we seem to loooooove to talk about as if it only involves climate science, and has no psychological aspect whatsoever.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  You should double check your definition for loaded language as I agree with the article you linked but not your usage of it. To quote from your source: > Loaded words and phrases have significant emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning. I hope 'ad hoc', 'judgements', 'csv' and 'comment' don't carry any strongly positive or negative reactions, nor stereotypes or implications. (Though I have known a few people to have negative reactions to the idea of csv files...)
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > I hope 'ad hoc', 'judgements', 'csv' and 'comment' don't carry any strongly positive or negative reactions, nor stereotypes or implications. I would very much like for us to have a written language that has the same bandwidth as a long form, in-person discussion. But we have to play the hand we've been dealt, not the hand we wish we'd been dealt. And to be clear, I don't object to your complaint, or consider it unreasonable - quite the contrary: this is the type of conversation I think we need more of. My comment above could have been improved by adding some disclaimers to make it explicit that I am not intending to speak in an "accusatory" manner, but I reckon the vast majority of people would have read it that way, and for good reason. So, apologies for that. The ideas I had in mind are somewhat (again, limited by the fundamental shortcomings in our written language) captured in here: > Loaded language (also known as loaded terms, emotive language, high-inference language and language-persuasive techniques) is rhetoric used to influence an audience by using words and phrases with strong connotations associated with them in order to invoke an emotional response and/or exploit stereotypes.[1][2][3] Loaded words and phrases have significant emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning. (The intent, emotional, and exploit parts I do not consider at all relevant to this discussion). The larger, more abstract point that I'd like to make is: reality is infinitely complex, and we as individuals reason upon it with far from infinitely powerful minds. Now, start layering on all the other complexities, like collective reasoning (hampered by language and a variety of other things), necessities of being forced to make incredibly imprecise/coarse group decisions on a strict timeline (our political systems), complex and imperfect incentive systems, asymmetry and inaccuracy of information, advances in some domains (science, technology, industrialization) without corresponding advances in complementary domains (psychology, consciousness, etc), and so forth...and before too long you've got a bit of a mess on your hands.

mistermann 7y ago

> then we're going to need someone to hand classify a bunch of things which is expensive, slow True. But not impossible. And I would recommend comparing effort to potential reward. Imagine, just for fun, the possibility that HN could find a way to discuss climate change[1] in a disciplined, truthful, and non-heuristic manner. What might the value of that discovery be? And if we could find a way do it, perhaps others could as well? > and only as accurate as the person making the judgement call How deeply have you thought about that? Like, say it was an engineering problem you've been asked to solve - have you put as much effort into thinking about it as you would if it was a paid assignment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws > In other words, we'd just be making ad hoc judgements again, but calling them something else because we made those ad hoc judgements in a csv instead of a comment. Do you realize you are: a) predicting the future b) making several assumptions c) utilizing loaded terms (which is harmful not only to others, but sometimes also to oneself) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language > The other issue is that communities are dynamic, and behaviors trend. This is true. > You're probably not going to see a flat correlation, you're going to see something that resembles a wave function. Your prediction may be correct. But it also may be incorrect. [1] A topic we seem to loooooove to talk about as if it only involves climate science, and has no psychological aspect whatsoever.

vorpalhex 7y ago
You should double check your definition for loaded language as I agree with the article you linked but not your usage of it. To quote from your source: > Loaded words and phrases have significant emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning. I hope 'ad hoc', 'judgements', 'csv' and 'comment' don't carry any strongly positive or negative reactions, nor stereotypes or implications. (Though I have known a few people to have negative reactions to the idea of csv files...)
- mistermann 7y ago
  > I hope 'ad hoc', 'judgements', 'csv' and 'comment' don't carry any strongly positive or negative reactions, nor stereotypes or implications. I would very much like for us to have a written language that has the same bandwidth as a long form, in-person discussion. But we have to play the hand we've been dealt, not the hand we wish we'd been dealt. And to be clear, I don't object to your complaint, or consider it unreasonable - quite the contrary: this is the type of conversation I think we need more of. My comment above could have been improved by adding some disclaimers to make it explicit that I am not intending to speak in an "accusatory" manner, but I reckon the vast majority of people would have read it that way, and for good reason. So, apologies for that. The ideas I had in mind are somewhat (again, limited by the fundamental shortcomings in our written language) captured in here: > Loaded language (also known as loaded terms, emotive language, high-inference language and language-persuasive techniques) is rhetoric used to influence an audience by using words and phrases with strong connotations associated with them in order to invoke an emotional response and/or exploit stereotypes.[1][2][3] Loaded words and phrases have significant emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning. (The intent, emotional, and exploit parts I do not consider at all relevant to this discussion). The larger, more abstract point that I'd like to make is: reality is infinitely complex, and we as individuals reason upon it with far from infinitely powerful minds. Now, start layering on all the other complexities, like collective reasoning (hampered by language and a variety of other things), necessities of being forced to make incredibly imprecise/coarse group decisions on a strict timeline (our political systems), complex and imperfect incentive systems, asymmetry and inaccuracy of information, advances in some domains (science, technology, industrialization) without corresponding advances in complementary domains (psychology, consciousness, etc), and so forth...and before too long you've got a bit of a mess on your hands.