6 ms·

I admire anyone who makes an effort to improve things and this is no exception. In this particular case the author would be well served to review Aristotle's Rh

by User23 6y ago

I admire anyone who makes an effort to improve things and this is no exception. In this particular case the author would be well served to review Aristotle's Rhetoric[1] to understand why this particular effort is doomed to fail. The short version is that Twitter is by design an absurdly rhetorical platform, and any attempt to inject dialectic into it is, well, pissing into the ocean as it were. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/

platz 6y ago
> Twitter is by design an absurdly rhetorical platform Interesting claim but you don't explain your case for why this is so - I doubt Aristotle would say much about twitter either.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Twitter was never designed for back and forth communication. It was intended for people to broadcast their current thoughts (in 140 chars or less) to the world, and expect nothing back. It is only recently that threads, and DMs have been retro-fitted to the platform. But these have never felt to me, like native parts of the platform. And the styling and way in which the feed works doesn't seem to encourage debate as much as it simple encourages isolated "soundbites". I think there could be an interest market-gap for an experimental social network that does encourage active dialogue. I think the key part to reform would be the feed. Maybe instead of seeing the top level post as you scroll, you scroll past a tag cloud? Or an AI generate summary of the thread so far. Or the 3 latest comments are shown rather than the first one (so it would be more like walking past a group conversation and deciding if at that moment it was worth joining). That last idea could be interesting to explore.
wenc 6y ago
As a peripheral point, I have witnessed an improved quality in conversations where certain ground rules are applied, and that the participants accept in good faith. There's a performative aspect to rhetoric that a well-developed system can disincentivize. For instance, on Twitter, there's always the peanut gallery cheering one side or another, which distorts participants' incentives completely. They cannot be honest with themselves because of the need to "perform", i.e. to say clever/snarky things. This is why people who are truly interested in learning from others on Twitter open up their DMs -- one-on-one conversations produce much higher signal-to-noise because the performative aspect of a tweetstorm is removed and there's more of a desire to slow down and really address each other rather than the mob. (DMs aren't perfect -- trolls will DM too -- but OTOH you can get DMs that are in good faith). I think it is possible to "design" a good conversation. To some extent many of the rules are self-evident and intuitive to most adults. The problem is that in the heat of debate, we forget them and need third party moderation as a form of accountability. One of the main ways to improve adversarial conversations is to apply techniques to move conversations from the lower brain (which governs fight/flight responses) to the upper brain (executive functioning, neocortex). Books like Difficult Conversations, Nonviolent Communication, Imago technique, etc. all start from different priors but mostly converge to this prescription due to the commonality of human psychology. Most people just want to be heard and to be validated (as smart, socially "woke", etc.) -- some will resort to manipulation to get there, but if these things can be achieved without manipulation, then the desire for deploying rhetoric is reduced. Having a system helps create a platform for civil discourse by allowing oneself to guided by a system, which frees one up from decisions and nudges one toward higher-order executive functioning.
- tptacek 6y ago
  My brain shut down completely reading this, before I could really evaluate whether it had any validity, when I read "This is why people who are truly interested in learning from others on Twitter open up their DMs". Lots of people can't have their DMs open, lest they be flooded with abuse.
  - wenc 6y ago
    Let me invite you to think through that position. Is this necessarily the case in all situations? Are there situations where one could conceivably have a different outcome than abuse? Would it be a function of your popularity and the kind of of people who would DM? Might there be a different psychology at work for DMs than public tweets? I’m not being snarky or presupposing answers, but just wanted to advance the conversation.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      It's a function of the power dynamic. Being female and being lefty increases your chances of getting death threats. Recent lowlights of this I've seen were "eating an icecream in a park while female" and "being the voice actor for The Last Of Us 2".
    - jmcqk6 6y ago
      >Are there situations where one could conceivably have a different outcome than abuse? That is missing the point. I'm not the GP, but I don't think anyone is denying that there are people with DMs open that do not get abused. I am one such person, for example. The point is that unless you're willing to say that people who get abused in DMs don't matter, then arguing that leaving DMs open is broadly useful is just plain false.
      - wenc 6y ago
        > The point is that unless you're willing to say that people who get abused in DMs don't matter, then arguing that leaving DMs open is broadly useful is just plain false. I appreciate the nuanced response. I think it's possible to argue for the contrary position of the second clause of your statement without entailing the first clause. I do think that leaving DMs open is broadly useful for getting feedback, especially from people who just want to discuss or provide links or private support without making the conversation public. There are folks (like me) out there who just don't like interacting publicly on hot button issues but want the option to quietly express support or provide context on disagreements. It's not just really Twitter DMs that I refer to but really any one-on-one channel where someone can provide feedback in a respectful civil way -- e.g. a Contact Me button on a blog, or something similar. That said, I do acknowledge it is not a one-size-fits-all prescription -- I merely propose it as something that does work and could work for folks, but it does depend on a variety of factors like power dynamics (as another commenter noted), who you are, your mental health, the topics you discuss, your attractiveness to trolls, etc. I'm not naive to the ugliness of people on the Internet (hey, I'm on Twitter -- such ugliness is publicly on display every single day). In order to open oneself up to private communications, the recipient naturally needs to have a mental distance to delete/report any discussion that is uncivil or abusive -- not everyone can do this, and even people who can sometimes have to shut off that channel temporarily when things get out of hand. But there are a number of people on Twitter who do allow DMs and who temporarily turn it off and then turn it back on when they feel they're ready. At the end of the day, what I'm saying is that I feel there's value in removing the performative aspect of Twitter if one's goal is to achieve higher quality discussions. Opening up DMs? One can take it or leave it -- it's as optional as exposing contact info on one's HN profile.

by User23 6y ago

platz 6y ago

> Twitter is by design an absurdly rhetorical platform Interesting claim but you don't explain your case for why this is so - I doubt Aristotle would say much about twitter either.

Thorentis 6y ago
Twitter was never designed for back and forth communication. It was intended for people to broadcast their current thoughts (in 140 chars or less) to the world, and expect nothing back. It is only recently that threads, and DMs have been retro-fitted to the platform. But these have never felt to me, like native parts of the platform. And the styling and way in which the feed works doesn't seem to encourage debate as much as it simple encourages isolated "soundbites". I think there could be an interest market-gap for an experimental social network that does encourage active dialogue. I think the key part to reform would be the feed. Maybe instead of seeing the top level post as you scroll, you scroll past a tag cloud? Or an AI generate summary of the thread so far. Or the 3 latest comments are shown rather than the first one (so it would be more like walking past a group conversation and deciding if at that moment it was worth joining). That last idea could be interesting to explore.

wenc 6y ago

As a peripheral point, I have witnessed an improved quality in conversations where certain ground rules are applied, and that the participants accept in good faith. There's a performative aspect to rhetoric that a well-developed system can disincentivize. For instance, on Twitter, there's always the peanut gallery cheering one side or another, which distorts participants' incentives completely. They cannot be honest with themselves because of the need to "perform", i.e. to say clever/snarky things. This is why people who are truly interested in learning from others on Twitter open up their DMs -- one-on-one conversations produce much higher signal-to-noise because the performative aspect of a tweetstorm is removed and there's more of a desire to slow down and really address each other rather than the mob. (DMs aren't perfect -- trolls will DM too -- but OTOH you can get DMs that are in good faith). I think it is possible to "design" a good conversation. To some extent many of the rules are self-evident and intuitive to most adults. The problem is that in the heat of debate, we forget them and need third party moderation as a form of accountability. One of the main ways to improve adversarial conversations is to apply techniques to move conversations from the lower brain (which governs fight/flight responses) to the upper brain (executive functioning, neocortex). Books like Difficult Conversations, Nonviolent Communication, Imago technique, etc. all start from different priors but mostly converge to this prescription due to the commonality of human psychology. Most people just want to be heard and to be validated (as smart, socially "woke", etc.) -- some will resort to manipulation to get there, but if these things can be achieved without manipulation, then the desire for deploying rhetoric is reduced. Having a system helps create a platform for civil discourse by allowing oneself to guided by a system, which frees one up from decisions and nudges one toward higher-order executive functioning.

tptacek 6y ago
My brain shut down completely reading this, before I could really evaluate whether it had any validity, when I read "This is why people who are truly interested in learning from others on Twitter open up their DMs". Lots of people can't have their DMs open, lest they be flooded with abuse.
- wenc 6y ago
  Let me invite you to think through that position. Is this necessarily the case in all situations? Are there situations where one could conceivably have a different outcome than abuse? Would it be a function of your popularity and the kind of of people who would DM? Might there be a different psychology at work for DMs than public tweets? I’m not being snarky or presupposing answers, but just wanted to advance the conversation.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    It's a function of the power dynamic. Being female and being lefty increases your chances of getting death threats. Recent lowlights of this I've seen were "eating an icecream in a park while female" and "being the voice actor for The Last Of Us 2".
  - jmcqk6 6y ago
    >Are there situations where one could conceivably have a different outcome than abuse? That is missing the point. I'm not the GP, but I don't think anyone is denying that there are people with DMs open that do not get abused. I am one such person, for example. The point is that unless you're willing to say that people who get abused in DMs don't matter, then arguing that leaving DMs open is broadly useful is just plain false.
    - wenc 6y ago
      > The point is that unless you're willing to say that people who get abused in DMs don't matter, then arguing that leaving DMs open is broadly useful is just plain false. I appreciate the nuanced response. I think it's possible to argue for the contrary position of the second clause of your statement without entailing the first clause. I do think that leaving DMs open is broadly useful for getting feedback, especially from people who just want to discuss or provide links or private support without making the conversation public. There are folks (like me) out there who just don't like interacting publicly on hot button issues but want the option to quietly express support or provide context on disagreements. It's not just really Twitter DMs that I refer to but really any one-on-one channel where someone can provide feedback in a respectful civil way -- e.g. a Contact Me button on a blog, or something similar. That said, I do acknowledge it is not a one-size-fits-all prescription -- I merely propose it as something that does work and could work for folks, but it does depend on a variety of factors like power dynamics (as another commenter noted), who you are, your mental health, the topics you discuss, your attractiveness to trolls, etc. I'm not naive to the ugliness of people on the Internet (hey, I'm on Twitter -- such ugliness is publicly on display every single day). In order to open oneself up to private communications, the recipient naturally needs to have a mental distance to delete/report any discussion that is uncivil or abusive -- not everyone can do this, and even people who can sometimes have to shut off that channel temporarily when things get out of hand. But there are a number of people on Twitter who do allow DMs and who temporarily turn it off and then turn it back on when they feel they're ready. At the end of the day, what I'm saying is that I feel there's value in removing the performative aspect of Twitter if one's goal is to achieve higher quality discussions. Opening up DMs? One can take it or leave it -- it's as optional as exposing contact info on one's HN profile.