2 ms·

Please avoid being political like that in this thread as it could derail the discussion. It might be worthwhile to look at ways that some people fit your two c

by gumby 3y ago

Please avoid being political like that in this thread as it could derail the discussion. It might be worthwhile to look at ways that some people fit your two criteria might head to contributing (e.g. writing Wikipedia pages or answering questions on the web site of the local national park) rather than tearing down. 4chan is a good example of user creation though! Didn't think of that.

munificent 3y ago
> Please avoid being political like that I don't think you can talk about group behavior without being political. Whether discuss politics is partisan is sort of a different point, which I accept. > It might be worthwhile to look at ways that some people fit your two criteria might head to contributing (e.g. writing Wikipedia pages or answering questions on the web site of the local national park) rather than tearing down. I think by definition, that doesn't fit my two criteria. If someone feels they have meaningful ways to contribute to collective enterprises like Wikipedia or their local national park, then they aren't falling prey to my second point. It's when people have energy but no perceived outlet that trouble brews. I think the positive way to spin my observation is to say, "OK, there are people that are falling into this trap. How can we help them avoid that?" How can we give people productive avenues to reach meaning and social esteem? But it's very hard to do that because it is often perceived as reducing their agency when you try to help them.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  Meaningful and rewarding seem awfully easy compared to socially esteemed. (the Brave New World approach was to condition everyone to esteem their station, which —although we do do this currently via targeted advertising— is ... problematic) I guess we could —slightly less problematically— provide generative AI claques?

by gumby 3y ago

munificent 3y ago

> Please avoid being political like that I don't think you can talk about group behavior without being political. Whether discuss politics is partisan is sort of a different point, which I accept. > It might be worthwhile to look at ways that some people fit your two criteria might head to contributing (e.g. writing Wikipedia pages or answering questions on the web site of the local national park) rather than tearing down. I think by definition, that doesn't fit my two criteria. If someone feels they have meaningful ways to contribute to collective enterprises like Wikipedia or their local national park, then they aren't falling prey to my second point. It's when people have energy but no perceived outlet that trouble brews. I think the positive way to spin my observation is to say, "OK, there are people that are falling into this trap. How can we help them avoid that?" How can we give people productive avenues to reach meaning and social esteem? But it's very hard to do that because it is often perceived as reducing their agency when you try to help them.

082349872349872 3y ago
Meaningful and rewarding seem awfully easy compared to socially esteemed. (the Brave New World approach was to condition everyone to esteem their station, which —although we do do this currently via targeted advertising— is ... problematic) I guess we could —slightly less problematically— provide generative AI claques?