For example, I’m hugely in favour of collaborative discussions over combative discussions, but I find it very helpful to have discussions that stylistically appear combative while actually being collaborative. For example: frequent, direct criticism of ideas put forward by other people is a hallmark of combative discussion, but can be fine so long as everyone is on an even footing and “you are not your ideas” is common knowledge.
Yeah, we have already gone too far with condemning combaticism on the EA forum in my opinion. Demanding that everyone stop and rephrase their language in careful flowery terms is pretty alienating and marginalizing to people who aren’t accustomed to that kind of communication, so you’re not going to be able to please everyone.
I’m confused, you mean people should be expected to explicitly signal that they are being collaborative?
In my view the basic structure of a “combative” debate need not entail any negative connotation of hostility or interpersonal trouble. Point/counterpoint is just a standard, default, acceptable mode of discussion. So ideally, when you see people talking like that, as long as things are reasonably civil then you don’t feel a need to worry about it. It’s a problem that some people don’t see “combative” discussions in this way, but I don’t think there is any better solution in the long run. If you try to evolve norms to avoid the uncertainty and negative perceptions then you run along a treadmill—like the story with politically correct terminology. It’s okay to have a combative structure as long as you stick within the mainstream window of professional and academic discourse, and I think EA is mostly fine at that.
Whether a discussion proceeds as collaborative or combative depends on how the participants interpret what the other parties say. This is all heavily contextual, but as with many things involving conversational implicature, you can often spend some effort to clarify your implicature.
The internet is notoriously bad for conveying the unconscious signals that we usually use to pick up on implicature, and I think this is one of the reasons that internet discussions often turn hostile and combative.
So it’s worth putting in more signals of your intent into the text itself, since that’s all you have.
The right approach is to only look at actual points being made, and not try to infer implications in the first place.
When someone reacts to an implication, the appropriate response is to say “but I/they didn’t say anything about that,” ignore their complaints and move on.
You only have control over your own actions: you can’t control whether your interlocutor over-interprets you or not.
Your “right approach”, which is about how to behave as a listener, is compatible with Michael_PJ’s, which is about how to behave as a speaker: I don’t see why we can’t do both.
But I can control whether I am priming people to get accustomed to over-interpreting.
That sounds potentially important. Could you give an example of a failure mode?
Because my approach is not merely about how to behave as a listener. It’s about speaking without throwing in unnecessary disclaimers.
Consider how my question “Could you give an example...?” reads if I didn’t precede it with the following signal of collaborativeness: “That sounds potentially important.” At least to me (YMMV), I would be like 15% less likely to feel defensive in the case where I precede it with such a signal, instead of leaping into the question—which I would be likely (on a System 1y day) to read as “Oh yeah? Give me ONE example.” Same applies to the phrase “At least to me (YMMV)”: I’m chucking in a signal that I’m willing to listen to your point of view.
Those are examples of disclaimers. I argue these kinds of signals are helpful for promoting a productive atomsphere; do they fall into the category you’re calling “unnecessary disclaimers”? Or is it only something more overt that you’d find counterproductive?
I take the point that different people have different needs with regards to this concern. I hope we can both steer clear of typical-minding everyone else. I think I might be particularly oversensitive to anything resembling conflict, and you are over on the other side of the bell curve in that respect.
That sounds potentially important. Could you give an example of a failure mode?
The failure mode where people over-interpret things that other people say, and then come up with wrong interpretations.
I argue these kinds of signals are helpful for promoting a productive atomsphere; do they fall into the category you’re calling “unnecessary disclaimers”?
Well you should probably signal however friendly you are actually feeling, but I’m not really talking about showing how friendly you are, I’m talking about going out of your way to say “of course I don’t mean X” and so on.
I’m not really talking about showing how friendly you are
It looks like we were talking at cross purposes. I was picking up on the admittedly months-old conversation about “signalling collaborativeness” and [anti-]”combaticism”, which is a separate conversation to the one on value signals. (Value signals are probably a means of signalling collaborativeness though.)
you should probably signal however friendly you are actually feeling
I think politeness serves a useful function (within moderation, of course). ‘Forcing’ people to behave more friendly than they feel saves time and energy.
I think EA has a problem with undervaluing social skills such as basic friendliness. If a community such as EA wants to keep people coming back and contributing their insights, the personal benefits of taking part need to outweigh the personal costs.
I think EA has a problem with undervaluing social skills such as basic friendliness. If a community such as EA wants to keep people coming back and contributing their insights, the personal benefits of taking part need to outweigh the personal costs.
Not if people aren’t attracted to such friendliness. Lots of successful social movements and communities are less friendly than EA.
Yeah, we have already gone too far with condemning combaticism on the EA forum in my opinion. Demanding that everyone stop and rephrase their language in careful flowery terms is pretty alienating and marginalizing to people who aren’t accustomed to that kind of communication, so you’re not going to be able to please everyone.
I do think that there should be higher bars for overtly signalling collaborativeness online, because so many other cues are missing.
I’m confused, you mean people should be expected to explicitly signal that they are being collaborative?
In my view the basic structure of a “combative” debate need not entail any negative connotation of hostility or interpersonal trouble. Point/counterpoint is just a standard, default, acceptable mode of discussion. So ideally, when you see people talking like that, as long as things are reasonably civil then you don’t feel a need to worry about it. It’s a problem that some people don’t see “combative” discussions in this way, but I don’t think there is any better solution in the long run. If you try to evolve norms to avoid the uncertainty and negative perceptions then you run along a treadmill—like the story with politically correct terminology. It’s okay to have a combative structure as long as you stick within the mainstream window of professional and academic discourse, and I think EA is mostly fine at that.
Whether a discussion proceeds as collaborative or combative depends on how the participants interpret what the other parties say. This is all heavily contextual, but as with many things involving conversational implicature, you can often spend some effort to clarify your implicature.
The internet is notoriously bad for conveying the unconscious signals that we usually use to pick up on implicature, and I think this is one of the reasons that internet discussions often turn hostile and combative.
So it’s worth putting in more signals of your intent into the text itself, since that’s all you have.
The right approach is to only look at actual points being made, and not try to infer implications in the first place.
When someone reacts to an implication, the appropriate response is to say “but I/they didn’t say anything about that,” ignore their complaints and move on.
You only have control over your own actions: you can’t control whether your interlocutor over-interprets you or not.
Your “right approach”, which is about how to behave as a listener, is compatible with Michael_PJ’s, which is about how to behave as a speaker: I don’t see why we can’t do both.
But I can control whether I am priming people to get accustomed to over-interpreting.
Because my approach is not merely about how to behave as a listener. It’s about speaking without throwing in unnecessary disclaimers.
That sounds potentially important. Could you give an example of a failure mode?
Consider how my question “Could you give an example...?” reads if I didn’t precede it with the following signal of collaborativeness: “That sounds potentially important.” At least to me (YMMV), I would be like 15% less likely to feel defensive in the case where I precede it with such a signal, instead of leaping into the question—which I would be likely (on a System 1y day) to read as “Oh yeah? Give me ONE example.” Same applies to the phrase “At least to me (YMMV)”: I’m chucking in a signal that I’m willing to listen to your point of view.
Those are examples of disclaimers. I argue these kinds of signals are helpful for promoting a productive atomsphere; do they fall into the category you’re calling “unnecessary disclaimers”? Or is it only something more overt that you’d find counterproductive?
I take the point that different people have different needs with regards to this concern. I hope we can both steer clear of typical-minding everyone else. I think I might be particularly oversensitive to anything resembling conflict, and you are over on the other side of the bell curve in that respect.
The failure mode where people over-interpret things that other people say, and then come up with wrong interpretations.
Well you should probably signal however friendly you are actually feeling, but I’m not really talking about showing how friendly you are, I’m talking about going out of your way to say “of course I don’t mean X” and so on.
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/05/skip-value-signals.html
It looks like we were talking at cross purposes. I was picking up on the admittedly months-old conversation about “signalling collaborativeness” and [anti-]”combaticism”, which is a separate conversation to the one on value signals. (Value signals are probably a means of signalling collaborativeness though.)
I think politeness serves a useful function (within moderation, of course). ‘Forcing’ people to behave more friendly than they feel saves time and energy.
I think EA has a problem with undervaluing social skills such as basic friendliness. If a community such as EA wants to keep people coming back and contributing their insights, the personal benefits of taking part need to outweigh the personal costs.
Not if people aren’t attracted to such friendliness. Lots of successful social movements and communities are less friendly than EA.