We don’t want to dismiss how frustrating it can be to see people being wrong without it being sufficiently challenged, but we also believe that people are generally capable of overcoming these challenges and learning to adopt a broader perspective from where they can see that it usually isn’t actually very important if someone is wrong on the internet.
People typically have the choice of many different communities they could become a part of. So if one community seems consistently wrong about something in a frustrating way, it’s not surprising if someone chooses to move on to a different community which lacks this problem. Yes, I could overcome my frustrations with Scientologists, learn to adopt a broader perspective, and join the Scientology community, but why bother?
Even though certain rules may seem quite mild and reasonable by themselves, their mere existence creates a reasonable fear that those with certain viewpoints will eventually be completely pushed out.
How does this version sound? “Even though certain heterodox beliefs may seem quite mild and reasonable by themselves, their mere existence creates a reasonable fear that those with certain extreme viewpoints will eventually come to dominate.”
I wonder where this fear of extreme viewpoints comes from. It seems to be a crux.
I personally don’t have an alief that there is a slippery slope here. It seems to me that there are some meta rules for discussion in place that will keep this from happening.
For example, it seems to me that EA’s are very keen to change their minds, take criticism and data very seriously, bring up contrarian viewpoints, and epistemics humility, to name a few things. I would like to call this Epistemic Honor.
Do you think that our culture of epistemic honor is insufficient for preventing extreme viewpoints, to the point that we need drastic measures like banning topics? My impression is that it’s more than enough, but please prove me wrong!
In the Christians in EA group, someone (who had AFAIK never posted before) posted a 60-page document. This document outlined his theory that the best EA cause was to support the propogation of Mormonism, because any civilization based on the equality of men and women was doomed to fail (he saw Islam as another viable civilization, but inferior to Mormonism).
He wanted me to debate him point by point in his argument. I was not willing to argue with him, because it was a waste of my time.
What do you think is the best way to handle this from an ‘epistemic honour’ approach?
As with all ideas, the best way to handle it is to go over it if you have time or interest in doing so; if not, then say that you do not have time or interest in justifying your opinion. I don’t see what the dilemma is. I don’t think toonalfrink was saying “you should spend a lot of time debating everyone you disagree with,” nor were they saying “you shouldn’t have an opinion about something unless you spend a lot of time debating it;” those aren’t implied by that conception of Epistemic Honor.
Growing the Mormon church is not an extreme viewpoint.
My intent was to point out that you can make the slippery slope argument in either direction. I wasn’t trying to claim it was more compelling in one direction or the other.
If you believe EA has Epistemic Honor, that argument works in both directions too: “Because EA has Epistemic Honor, any rules we make will be reasonable, and we won’t push people out just for having an unfashionable viewpoint.”
I do think slippery slope arguments have some merit, and group tendencies can be self-reinforcing. Birds of feather flock together. Because Scientology has a kooky reputation, it will tend to attract more kooks. See also Schelling’s model of segregation and this essay on evaporative cooling.
Perhaps it’s valuable to brainstorm compromise positions which guard against slipping in either direction. (Example: “Discussion that could be alienating should be allowed in EA Facebook groups if and only if the person who starts the discussion is able to convince a moderator that the topic is important enough to outweigh the costs of alienation.” That idea has flaws, but maybe you can think of a better one.)
and we won’t push people out for having an unfashionable viewpoint
But you think pushing them out is the right thing to do, correct?
Let me just make sure I understand the gears of your model.
Do you think one person with an unfashionable viewpoint would inherently be a problem? Or will it only become a problem when this becomes a majority position? Or perhaps, is the boundary the point where this viewpoint starts to influence decisions?
Do you think any tendency exists for the consensus view to drift towards something reasonable and considerate, or do you think that it is mostly random, or perhaps there is some sort of moral decay that we have to actively fight with moderation?
Surely, well kept gardens die by pacifism, and so you want to have some measures in place to keep the quality of discussion high, both in the inclusivity/consideration sense and in the truth sense. I just hope that this is possible without banning topics. For most of the reasons stated by the OP. Before we start banning topics, I would want to look for ways that are less intrusive.
Case in point: it seems like we’re doing just fine right now. Maybe this isn’t a coincidence (or maybe I’m overlooking some problems, or maybe it’s because we already ignore some topics)
So if one community seems consistently wrong about something in a frustrating way, it’s not surprising if someone chooses to move on to a different community which lacks this problem.
Indeed, however people will generally accept a certain level of frustration if you are providing sufficient value. As an example, couples often start picking up on the minor annoyances after they fall out of love. Continuing the analogy, focusing on these issues is the obvious thing to do, but it often won’t be what is needed to fix the relationship.
How does this version sound? “Even though certain heterodox beliefs may seem quite mild and reasonable by themselves, their mere existence creates a reasonable fear that those with certain extreme viewpoints will eventually come to dominate.”
Yes, the argument does cut both ways, but it’s worth noting that we made this argument in response to arguments very similar to this.
People typically have the choice of many different communities they could become a part of. So if one community seems consistently wrong about something in a frustrating way, it’s not surprising if someone chooses to move on to a different community which lacks this problem. Yes, I could overcome my frustrations with Scientologists, learn to adopt a broader perspective, and join the Scientology community, but why bother?
How does this version sound? “Even though certain heterodox beliefs may seem quite mild and reasonable by themselves, their mere existence creates a reasonable fear that those with certain extreme viewpoints will eventually come to dominate.”
I wonder where this fear of extreme viewpoints comes from. It seems to be a crux.
I personally don’t have an alief that there is a slippery slope here. It seems to me that there are some meta rules for discussion in place that will keep this from happening.
For example, it seems to me that EA’s are very keen to change their minds, take criticism and data very seriously, bring up contrarian viewpoints, and epistemics humility, to name a few things. I would like to call this Epistemic Honor.
Do you think that our culture of epistemic honor is insufficient for preventing extreme viewpoints, to the point that we need drastic measures like banning topics? My impression is that it’s more than enough, but please prove me wrong!
In the Christians in EA group, someone (who had AFAIK never posted before) posted a 60-page document. This document outlined his theory that the best EA cause was to support the propogation of Mormonism, because any civilization based on the equality of men and women was doomed to fail (he saw Islam as another viable civilization, but inferior to Mormonism).
He wanted me to debate him point by point in his argument. I was not willing to argue with him, because it was a waste of my time.
What do you think is the best way to handle this from an ‘epistemic honour’ approach?
As with all ideas, the best way to handle it is to go over it if you have time or interest in doing so; if not, then say that you do not have time or interest in justifying your opinion. I don’t see what the dilemma is. I don’t think toonalfrink was saying “you should spend a lot of time debating everyone you disagree with,” nor were they saying “you shouldn’t have an opinion about something unless you spend a lot of time debating it;” those aren’t implied by that conception of Epistemic Honor.
Growing the Mormon church is not an extreme viewpoint.
My intent was to point out that you can make the slippery slope argument in either direction. I wasn’t trying to claim it was more compelling in one direction or the other.
If you believe EA has Epistemic Honor, that argument works in both directions too: “Because EA has Epistemic Honor, any rules we make will be reasonable, and we won’t push people out just for having an unfashionable viewpoint.”
I do think slippery slope arguments have some merit, and group tendencies can be self-reinforcing. Birds of feather flock together. Because Scientology has a kooky reputation, it will tend to attract more kooks. See also Schelling’s model of segregation and this essay on evaporative cooling.
Perhaps it’s valuable to brainstorm compromise positions which guard against slipping in either direction. (Example: “Discussion that could be alienating should be allowed in EA Facebook groups if and only if the person who starts the discussion is able to convince a moderator that the topic is important enough to outweigh the costs of alienation.” That idea has flaws, but maybe you can think of a better one.)
Nah, it does apply to itself :)
But you think pushing them out is the right thing to do, correct?
Let me just make sure I understand the gears of your model.
Do you think one person with an unfashionable viewpoint would inherently be a problem? Or will it only become a problem when this becomes a majority position? Or perhaps, is the boundary the point where this viewpoint starts to influence decisions?
Do you think any tendency exists for the consensus view to drift towards something reasonable and considerate, or do you think that it is mostly random, or perhaps there is some sort of moral decay that we have to actively fight with moderation?
Surely, well kept gardens die by pacifism, and so you want to have some measures in place to keep the quality of discussion high, both in the inclusivity/consideration sense and in the truth sense. I just hope that this is possible without banning topics. For most of the reasons stated by the OP. Before we start banning topics, I would want to look for ways that are less intrusive.
Case in point: it seems like we’re doing just fine right now. Maybe this isn’t a coincidence (or maybe I’m overlooking some problems, or maybe it’s because we already ignore some topics)
Indeed, however people will generally accept a certain level of frustration if you are providing sufficient value. As an example, couples often start picking up on the minor annoyances after they fall out of love. Continuing the analogy, focusing on these issues is the obvious thing to do, but it often won’t be what is needed to fix the relationship.
Yes, the argument does cut both ways, but it’s worth noting that we made this argument in response to arguments very similar to this.