3 ms·

>That said, I can’t imagine a successful adversarial collaboration with the psychologists who published some of the horrible unreplicable stuff from the 2005-20

>That said, I can’t imagine a successful adversarial collaboration with the psychologists who published some of the horrible unreplicable stuff from the 2005-2020 era. They just seem too invested in their claims, also they achieved professional success with that work and have no particular motivation to lend their reputations to any work that might shoot it down. So my takeaway is that working with people that disagree with you is beneficial, provided they're not so invested in their opinions that it becomes a social issue. It feels like that's the obvious goal of collaboration in general... People of differing views coming together to make a more complete view. Is that wrong?

stronglikedan 3y ago
> Is that wrong? Ideally, no. Realistically, it usually devolves into people trying to convince each other why they're right, instead of being open to being wrong, which is ultimately not productive.
godelski 3y ago
> It feels like that's the obvious goal of collaboration in general... People of differing views coming together to make a more complete view. Is that wrong? This is how I see it and how I've always seen those "diversity improves success" works. I mean no one (serious) is suggesting it is a genetic difference but rather cultural, and thus different points of view. But per your quote, the way I see to implement this is rather to have lower stakes. Competition happens no matter what. You get competitive with your friends when playing videogames, sports, or even stupid shit like a literal pissing contest. That's all fun and you can see people get creative and explore strategies in those situations. But there's one thing notable, there isn't any real cheating and when it does happen it's more done jokingly and not hidden. Often a jab at some exploitation of the rules (which helps update rule sets). On the other hand, when the stakes are high (say in situations like grades, job applications/leet code, money, etc) then you're actively incentivized to cheat. But people are not going to be open here about that cheating. (It also seems to lead to a lot of fighting and bad outcomes like the squeaky wheel getting the grease -- complaining loudly gets action while doing work quiet doesn't, unfortunately) Idk if we can really get away from these high stakes games until we reach a post scarce society, but certainly there are frameworks we have now where this can be done. In academics, jobs, and such. We just need to reframe our thinking, which is far easier said than done.
- mcmoor 3y ago
  > But per your quote, the way I see to implement this is rather to have lower stakes On the other hand, there is this law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law .
ReactiveJelly 3y ago
That reminds me, this thread should link to the yes/no debate: https://yesnodebate.org/ https://yesnodebate.org/ It only works with 2 people / parties at a time, and it only works if you both respect each other to obey the format. I think if both people don't respect each other, they were never going to have a productive debate in the first place.
- zro 3y ago
  This is a super interesting concept and I'd never heard of it. Thanks for linking!
- brutusborn 3y ago
  That debate format is great, it would be even better if it had some tooling to convert the debates into knowledge graphs. The Yes/No format is essentially producing a tree of idea nodes, where a branch is created to investigate disagreements. You could colour code the nodes to show agreement/disagreement between parties, and publish graphs to be a starting point for further debate.

stronglikedan 3y ago

> Is that wrong? Ideally, no. Realistically, it usually devolves into people trying to convince each other why they're right, instead of being open to being wrong, which is ultimately not productive.

godelski 3y ago

> It feels like that's the obvious goal of collaboration in general... People of differing views coming together to make a more complete view. Is that wrong? This is how I see it and how I've always seen those "diversity improves success" works. I mean no one (serious) is suggesting it is a genetic difference but rather cultural, and thus different points of view. But per your quote, the way I see to implement this is rather to have lower stakes. Competition happens no matter what. You get competitive with your friends when playing videogames, sports, or even stupid shit like a literal pissing contest. That's all fun and you can see people get creative and explore strategies in those situations. But there's one thing notable, there isn't any real cheating and when it does happen it's more done jokingly and not hidden. Often a jab at some exploitation of the rules (which helps update rule sets). On the other hand, when the stakes are high (say in situations like grades, job applications/leet code, money, etc) then you're actively incentivized to cheat. But people are not going to be open here about that cheating. (It also seems to lead to a lot of fighting and bad outcomes like the squeaky wheel getting the grease -- complaining loudly gets action while doing work quiet doesn't, unfortunately) Idk if we can really get away from these high stakes games until we reach a post scarce society, but certainly there are frameworks we have now where this can be done. In academics, jobs, and such. We just need to reframe our thinking, which is far easier said than done.

mcmoor 3y ago
> But per your quote, the way I see to implement this is rather to have lower stakes On the other hand, there is this law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law .

ReactiveJelly 3y ago

That reminds me, this thread should link to the yes/no debate: https://yesnodebate.org/ https://yesnodebate.org/ It only works with 2 people / parties at a time, and it only works if you both respect each other to obey the format. I think if both people don't respect each other, they were never going to have a productive debate in the first place.

zro 3y ago
This is a super interesting concept and I'd never heard of it. Thanks for linking!
brutusborn 3y ago
That debate format is great, it would be even better if it had some tooling to convert the debates into knowledge graphs. The Yes/No format is essentially producing a tree of idea nodes, where a branch is created to investigate disagreements. You could colour code the nodes to show agreement/disagreement between parties, and publish graphs to be a starting point for further debate.