3 ms·

How about this: in swinger communities, they have safe words that they can use to transcend the playtime aspect of reality - how about we develop something simi

How about this: in swinger communities, they have safe words that they can use to transcend the playtime aspect of reality - how about we develop something similar for internet arguments, a term that is mutually agreed upon in advance, and when uttered by a participant it kicks off a well documented (and agreed upon) protocol where all participants downgrade System 1 thinking to zero and upgrade System 2 thinking to 11...and, all participants carefully monitor each other to ensure that people are executing the agreed upon plan successfully? This general approach works quite well (with practice) in many other domains, maybe it would also work for arguments/beliefs.

gruez 4y ago
Wouldn't this devolve into name calling almost immediately? On internet arguments it's already implied that you're bringing forth logical points and not just spouting off what you feel in the heat of the moment. Invoking the safe word is basically a thinly veiled attempt at calling the other party irrational and emotional.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Wouldn't this devolve into name calling almost immediately? If it did, 1 week ban. Do it again: 2 week ban. All according to the well explained and agreed upon on a point by point basis in the terms of service that the user agreed to...except in this case, the TOS are actually serious, and not the colloquial meaning of "serious" that people have grown accustomed to. This would create substantial gnashing of teeth, but I anticipate before too long a few people would be able to figure it out (perhaps by RTFM), demonstrate how to speak and think properly, and a new norm would be established. Besides: if 95% of people simply cannot cut it, I don't see this as a major problem. Cream is valuable, milk is more trouble than it's worth. Two things that should never be underestimated: - the stupidity of humans - the ability of humans to learn > On internet arguments it's already implied that you're bringing forth logical points and not just spouting off what you feel in the heat of the moment. It's even worse: it is perceived as such! This is the problem though: people have never been taught how to reliably distinguish between opinions, "facts", facts, and the unknown (the latter is typically what catches genuinely smart people). So: offer an educational component, maybe integrated into the onboarding process. Too big of a hassle? Best of luck to you elsewhere (provide links to Reddit, Facebook, Hacker News, etc). > Invoking the safe word is basically a thinly veiled attempt at calling the other party irrational and emotional. Take a wild guess what response a comment of this epistemic quality (in the form that it is currently presented) would elicit under the standards I describe above. Besides: I doubt any unemotional, rational people exist on the planet. It is not a question of "if" someone has these shortcomings, it is a question of "to what degree" they suffer from them. And should we expect any different from people? We don't try to create any of these people, and it's not like they have anyone to emulate.
naasking 4y ago
> how about we develop something similar for internet arguments, a term that is mutually agreed upon in advance, and when uttered by a participant it kicks off a well documented (and agreed upon) protocol where all participants downgrade System 1 thinking to zero and upgrade System 2 thinking to 11 This used to be Godwin's law. Except by the time that's triggered, your System 2 thinking dialed you to 11 almost always tells everyone it's time to leave that discussion.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > This used to be Godwin's law. Hmmm, let's see: "Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies,[1] is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1.[2]" "a term that is mutually agreed upon in advance, and when uttered by a participant it kicks off a well documented (and agreed upon) protocol where all participants downgrade System 1 thinking to zero and upgrade System 2 thinking to 11" I see very little similarity between these two things. > Except by the time that's triggered, your System 2 thinking dialed you to 11 almost always tells everyone it's time to leave that discussion. From my other comment: "if 95% of people simply cannot cut it, I don't see this as a major problem. Cream is valuable, milk is more trouble than it's worth." Lots of people will leave, but there will be some who remain. It's a similar principle to quality standards when joining various organizations, or any other process that involves targeted selection.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > I see very little similarity between these two things. I'm not sure what isn't clear: the trigger condition you're looking for is the first comparison to Nazis is made. Except as I said, by the time that point is reached I'm not sure productive discussion is possible.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > I'm not sure what isn't clear: the trigger condition you're looking for is the first comparison to Nazis is made. I'm baffled, what are you referring to here? Why am I looking for a trigger of a comparison to Nazis?

gruez 4y ago

Wouldn't this devolve into name calling almost immediately? On internet arguments it's already implied that you're bringing forth logical points and not just spouting off what you feel in the heat of the moment. Invoking the safe word is basically a thinly veiled attempt at calling the other party irrational and emotional.

mistermann 4y ago
> Wouldn't this devolve into name calling almost immediately? If it did, 1 week ban. Do it again: 2 week ban. All according to the well explained and agreed upon on a point by point basis in the terms of service that the user agreed to...except in this case, the TOS are actually serious, and not the colloquial meaning of "serious" that people have grown accustomed to. This would create substantial gnashing of teeth, but I anticipate before too long a few people would be able to figure it out (perhaps by RTFM), demonstrate how to speak and think properly, and a new norm would be established. Besides: if 95% of people simply cannot cut it, I don't see this as a major problem. Cream is valuable, milk is more trouble than it's worth. Two things that should never be underestimated: - the stupidity of humans - the ability of humans to learn > On internet arguments it's already implied that you're bringing forth logical points and not just spouting off what you feel in the heat of the moment. It's even worse: it is perceived as such! This is the problem though: people have never been taught how to reliably distinguish between opinions, "facts", facts, and the unknown (the latter is typically what catches genuinely smart people). So: offer an educational component, maybe integrated into the onboarding process. Too big of a hassle? Best of luck to you elsewhere (provide links to Reddit, Facebook, Hacker News, etc). > Invoking the safe word is basically a thinly veiled attempt at calling the other party irrational and emotional. Take a wild guess what response a comment of this epistemic quality (in the form that it is currently presented) would elicit under the standards I describe above. Besides: I doubt any unemotional, rational people exist on the planet. It is not a question of "if" someone has these shortcomings, it is a question of "to what degree" they suffer from them. And should we expect any different from people? We don't try to create any of these people, and it's not like they have anyone to emulate.

naasking 4y ago

> how about we develop something similar for internet arguments, a term that is mutually agreed upon in advance, and when uttered by a participant it kicks off a well documented (and agreed upon) protocol where all participants downgrade System 1 thinking to zero and upgrade System 2 thinking to 11 This used to be Godwin's law. Except by the time that's triggered, your System 2 thinking dialed you to 11 almost always tells everyone it's time to leave that discussion.

mistermann 4y ago
> This used to be Godwin's law. Hmmm, let's see: "Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies,[1] is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1.[2]" "a term that is mutually agreed upon in advance, and when uttered by a participant it kicks off a well documented (and agreed upon) protocol where all participants downgrade System 1 thinking to zero and upgrade System 2 thinking to 11" I see very little similarity between these two things. > Except by the time that's triggered, your System 2 thinking dialed you to 11 almost always tells everyone it's time to leave that discussion. From my other comment: "if 95% of people simply cannot cut it, I don't see this as a major problem. Cream is valuable, milk is more trouble than it's worth." Lots of people will leave, but there will be some who remain. It's a similar principle to quality standards when joining various organizations, or any other process that involves targeted selection.
- naasking 4y ago
  > I see very little similarity between these two things. I'm not sure what isn't clear: the trigger condition you're looking for is the first comparison to Nazis is made. Except as I said, by the time that point is reached I'm not sure productive discussion is possible.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > I'm not sure what isn't clear: the trigger condition you're looking for is the first comparison to Nazis is made. I'm baffled, what are you referring to here? Why am I looking for a trigger of a comparison to Nazis?