Thanks for your thoughtful reply. > "Every contributor is dangerous" is spectacularly toxic type of attitude. I view this from the lens of "How well can peopl

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. > "Every contributor is dangerous" is spectacularly toxic type of attitude. I view this from the lens of "How well can people reason about probabilities?" and research has shown, more or less, "not very well". In the short term, therefore, it is wise to tailor communications so as to avoid predictable irrational reactions. In the medium term, we need to _show_ people how to think about these questions rationally, meaning probabilistically. For what it is worth, I prefer to avoid using the phrase "common sense", as it invites so many failure modes of thinking. My current attitude is, more or less, "let's put aside generalizations and start talking about probabilities and threat models". This will give us a model that makes _probabilistic predictions_. Models, done well, serve as concrete artifacts we can critique and improve _together_. I hope to see some responses to my other comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40271146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40271146 but I admit it takes more effort to share a model. It is well outside the usual interaction pattern here on HN to make a comment with a testable prediction, much less a model for them! Happily, there are online fora that support such norms and expectations, such as LessWrong. But I haven't given up hope on HN, as it seems like many people have the mindset. I think the social interaction pattern here squanders a lot of that individual intelligence, unfortunately... but that pattern can change in a bottom-up fashion as people (more or less) demand, at the very least, clearer explanations.