3 ms·

The first example is basically saying you have to insult yourself first to prevent the other side from insulting you further. I won't call this good faith, let

The first example is basically saying you have to insult yourself first to prevent the other side from insulting you further. I won't call this good faith, let alone a productive discussion. The second example is just wishful thinking. I bet even if KJ had responded with the author's way, axial would have still blocked them after several exchanges. Of course I might be wrong. Perhaps I'm just not as good at argumenting as the author.

amadeuspagel 2y ago
I see the first example as self-deprecating humor.
- TZubiri 2y ago
  It felt a bit two faced, like making fun of OP for being pretentious, but playing the fool so they won't notice
DrammBA 2y ago
I feel the same way, replying "I'm too dumb!" to being essentially asked "Are you dumb?" is not even having a discussion anymore The second example is just a guy moving the goalpost, he went from "Where's the money?" to "Ok, that's where the money is, but are they using it?", and then gets mad when someone answered with sources. But according to the author KJ completely misunderstood the goalposts.
layer8 2y ago
You can’t generally de-escalate without doing some over-conceding. Giving the other side more space to change their stance than they strictly need has a way higher chance of them actually doing it. If you focus on keeping score, it’s less likely to work out.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  I don't think over-conceding achieves anything on the Internet though. You might get a polite message back from the other side, but that's it. It seems like more validation seeking than convincing or trying to figure out the truth.
OmarShehata 2y ago
> The second example is just wishful thinking. I bet even if KJ had responded with the author's way, axial would have still blocked them after several exchanges. Not true! I'm trying to collect "success stories" here because I've done this dozens of times, even with the most troll-like internet strangers. It's very consistent. Nobody believes that it generalizes. What I'm working on now is writing down these techniques so that people can empirically try it for themselves. I want people to challenge this, prove me wrong. Because the techniques get more robust with every challenge. https://github.com/DefenderOfBasic/in-good-faith-handbook/issues/4#issuecomment-2357782010 https://github.com/DefenderOfBasic/in-good-faith-handbook/is...
- Teever 2y ago
  Have you thought about training a language model with these kinds of examples and then use a bot farm to win arguments?
- Self-Perfection 2y ago
  Ideas and attitude from original post reminds of Street Epistemology discussion techniques but adapted to internet discussion. Have you seen SE method? Do you use it as inspiration?

amadeuspagel 2y ago

I see the first example as self-deprecating humor.

TZubiri 2y ago
It felt a bit two faced, like making fun of OP for being pretentious, but playing the fool so they won't notice

DrammBA 2y ago

I feel the same way, replying "I'm too dumb!" to being essentially asked "Are you dumb?" is not even having a discussion anymore The second example is just a guy moving the goalpost, he went from "Where's the money?" to "Ok, that's where the money is, but are they using it?", and then gets mad when someone answered with sources. But according to the author KJ completely misunderstood the goalposts.

layer8 2y ago

You can’t generally de-escalate without doing some over-conceding. Giving the other side more space to change their stance than they strictly need has a way higher chance of them actually doing it. If you focus on keeping score, it’s less likely to work out.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
I don't think over-conceding achieves anything on the Internet though. You might get a polite message back from the other side, but that's it. It seems like more validation seeking than convincing or trying to figure out the truth.

OmarShehata 2y ago

> The second example is just wishful thinking. I bet even if KJ had responded with the author's way, axial would have still blocked them after several exchanges. Not true! I'm trying to collect "success stories" here because I've done this dozens of times, even with the most troll-like internet strangers. It's very consistent. Nobody believes that it generalizes. What I'm working on now is writing down these techniques so that people can empirically try it for themselves. I want people to challenge this, prove me wrong. Because the techniques get more robust with every challenge. https://github.com/DefenderOfBasic/in-good-faith-handbook/issues/4#issuecomment-2357782010 https://github.com/DefenderOfBasic/in-good-faith-handbook/is...

Teever 2y ago
Have you thought about training a language model with these kinds of examples and then use a bot farm to win arguments?
Self-Perfection 2y ago
Ideas and attitude from original post reminds of Street Epistemology discussion techniques but adapted to internet discussion. Have you seen SE method? Do you use it as inspiration?