A few issues with this: > The mistake here is seeing a counter-argument as being against a person, rather than as against a particular artifact. What matters i

A few issues with this: > The mistake here is seeing a counter-argument as being against a person, rather than as against a particular artifact. What matters is what’s out there. This is not how it works in most of real life. There are political impacts within a community or organization depending on how an argument goes down. Potentially permanent schisms. > So, if the critiques of an article find only “moderately bad flaws”, that often increases my trust because my prior was that the flaws would be even worse. If the claim that some types of watermelon taste bad to certain people at some times of the year survives the skeptics, then that might be an above-average outcome. This is empirically not how most people operate. > We need to design our norms around the unfortunate reality that most people are not helpful when criticized. No, design norms around getting the best possible world. That unfortunate reality is only one of many factors to take into account. --- I'll hold judgement on the conclusion overall; I think it may make sense for arguments when nothing political is on the line and everyone is a psuedorationlist. Beyond that...unsure.