Earlier quoted context omitted.
are you a computer?
What do your eyes indicate? Do I look more like a person or more like a computer?
You look like qualia to me
Anatomy of an internet argument
111–120 of 125 posts
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#112The 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 argumenti…
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.
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.
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#113Lot of good points in there, and I really appreciate the author's aspired outlook on the world. However, I disagree with some of the core tenets involved. > There’s a misconception that good faith discussion only happens in close-knit communities like LessWrong or HackerNews. In my experience, discussions about more controversial topics here are exactly as disgusting as they are on any other forum. Which makes sense,…
> In my experience, discussions about more controversial topics here are exactly as disgusting as they are on any other forum. Which makes sense, because technologically, this place is exactly like any other forum.
I don't know - in my experience Hackernews seems most best faith I've seen anywhere. If I have controversial opinions on Reddit I easily get downvoted hard (even though it's against the Reddiquette), but here I might even get few plus points and a civil non hivemind response.
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#114The 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 argumenti…
> 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 techniqu…
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?
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#115Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. In that case offering a submissive message may mollify the interlocutor in exchange for a response, but at the cost of signalling to other readers that their position is sensible. My grandma used to say that arguing something is the greatest concession. Consider A: -Earth is flat - it is not, earth is round - ya it is, john doe proved it - ok sorry for not understanding could you please explain what john…
> Who here thinks twitter is a platform for rational discourse? That's the elephant in the room here. The site formerly known as Twitter is optimised to maximise engagement, and conflict typically generates much more engagement than co-operation. It'd be like trying to have a friendly discussion to work out your differences with your opponent in a boxing ring, surrounded by large crowd who have been whipped up by the…
Shiri's Scissor https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Sort-By-Controversial
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there’s a point to Internet arguments, convincing the person you’re arguing with isn’t it.
People in general don't really want to be convinced. The default is to communicate your POV, and maybe listen to the story the other person is telling. But thats about it. The case where you end up thinking "This guy is right, I was always wrong these many years, I need to rethink my approach" is the exception, not the norm. Nobody wants to realize they have been deceived, either by themselves or by others. Given tha…
> "I was always wrong these many years, I need to rethink my approach" is the exception, not the norm
Indeed, however the exception among a huge audience is a fair amount of people. Who, in turn, may convince other (cascading effect).
Moreover by debating one solidify his arguments and prepares re-usable answers (as a sort of FAQ), thus alleviating Brandolini's law ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law ).
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. In that case offering a submissive message may mollify the interlocutor in exchange for a response, but at the cost of signalling to other readers that their position is sensible. My grandma used to say that arguing something is the greatest concession. Consider A: -Earth is flat - it is not, earth is round - ya it is, john doe proved it - ok sorry for not understanding could you please explain what john…
> Who here thinks twitter is a platform for rational discourse? That's the elephant in the room here. The site formerly known as Twitter is optimised to maximise engagement, and conflict typically generates much more engagement than co-operation. It'd be like trying to have a friendly discussion to work out your differences with your opponent in a boxing ring, surrounded by large crowd who have been whipped up by the…
It's possible to build the platform you describe but not possible to make significant progress. Joe User won't visit that site, boring! They'll visit the exciting dramasite for all the sweet gossip.
These site - twitter, facebook, etc... they aren't dividing humans per se by way of intent. They are black mirrors to human nature. The algorithms say, "human, what entices your attention?" "Drama!" "Fights" "Polarizing topics that people 50/50 disagree/agree on" . And so the algorithms delivered what the humans attention recommends - polarizing topics. And so we are now more polarized.
Because this is rooted in human nature, and you can't change human nature, the solution is something needs to be legislated. You can't ban free speech. You can't ban how long people spend online, also freedom, any more than you can ban gambling or alcohol or drug addiction. So then it comes down to something like recommendation algorithm ethics (hah! can you imagine? But why is that not a thing?!? we have an intense AI ethics community but that other AI that is the recommendation AIs that powers sites, it's all crickets as far as rules and ethics). Well, we all know why, money. But "medical ethics" while being a field is also legislated as to unethical medical practices lead to severe consequences, perhaps a "tech ethics" type field would help improve such algorithms, or "tethics" for short. Congress grilled Mark Cuckerburg for all the suicides his tech stack causing, I figure if we're talking literal deaths here maybe have a bit more regulation>?
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#119Why does winning matter? Isn’t it emotionally more work and less gratifying than insulting? I think that’s why things are the way they are. People know this stuff, they just choose to press the insult button.
[deleted]
Re: Anatomy of an internet argument
#120This is a great way to win battles and lose wars. I came to this realization after getting good at climate science arguments. I could take a denialist "did you consider" argument, go to the IPCC reports, find labs, find papers, and return with summaries and citations in relatively short order, and after delivering them with kid gloves I could move people off one denialist argument... and onto another. If I repeated t…
I disagree. I think it's a tall order but it should always be the ideal. Trying to justify shitty behavior in the name of greater good is just another way to lose. Instead, I admire people who go far and beyond for the lesser good.