While I appreciate the sentiment expressed here, I agree with most commenters that the most persuasive writing style, and the most popular writing style, is to present one side of the argument.
If we intentionally want to change this dynamics, we have to change the incentive structure. For example, we can get a group of people to make a commitment to upvote EA Forum articles that present all sides of an argument. Other options are available as well.
However, until the incentives are changed, people will do what they naturally get rewarded for, and what takes less time and efforts.
“If we intentionally want to change this dynamics, we have to change the incentive structure.”
That’s what I’m doing here by changing what is perceived as virtuous.
“the most persuasive writing style … is to present one side of the argument”
If it’s persuasive that’s a further argument against doing it, because you’re biasing what people believe. At least if it was unpersuasive you wouldn’t be doing any harm.
If it’s persuasive that’s a further argument against doing it, because you’re biasing what people believe. At least if it was unpersuasive you wouldn’t be doing any harm.
Regarding the persuasiveness, it depends on what you’re optimizing for. Many people—including on the EA Forum—optimize for less effort and winning, as opposed to truth. This is a problem, as you rightly point out. I support your effort, and am suggesting a further specific incentive of people making a commitment to upvote posts that present both sides.
While I appreciate the sentiment expressed here, I agree with most commenters that the most persuasive writing style, and the most popular writing style, is to present one side of the argument.
If we intentionally want to change this dynamics, we have to change the incentive structure. For example, we can get a group of people to make a commitment to upvote EA Forum articles that present all sides of an argument. Other options are available as well.
However, until the incentives are changed, people will do what they naturally get rewarded for, and what takes less time and efforts.
“If we intentionally want to change this dynamics, we have to change the incentive structure.”
That’s what I’m doing here by changing what is perceived as virtuous.
“the most persuasive writing style … is to present one side of the argument”
If it’s persuasive that’s a further argument against doing it, because you’re biasing what people believe. At least if it was unpersuasive you wouldn’t be doing any harm.
Regarding the persuasiveness, it depends on what you’re optimizing for. Many people—including on the EA Forum—optimize for less effort and winning, as opposed to truth. This is a problem, as you rightly point out. I support your effort, and am suggesting a further specific incentive of people making a commitment to upvote posts that present both sides.