Executive summary: This post explores John Nerst’s framework of decoupling vs contextualising norms in discourse, arguing that both have merits and risks, and concluding that while wisdom is needed to judge when to apply each, society benefits from preserving at least some spaces for decoupled truth-seeking conversations.
Key points:
Decoupling norms: Ideas should be evaluated purely on truth, without requiring disclaimers or concern for broader implications—objections to this often look like bias or deflection.
Contextualising norms: Responsible communication requires considering possible social or political consequences, and ignoring them can appear naive, careless, or evasive.
Illustrative example: A claim like “blue-eyed people commit more murders” highlights the clash—decouplers defend the right to state facts directly, while contextualisers worry about stigma and misuse.
Cautions against dogmatism: Both approaches can be weaponized—strict decoupling can enable harmful speech, while overzealous contextualising can justify derailing discussions through claims of hidden agendas.
Author’s stance: Context matters in highly charged situations, but the judgment of what counts as “charged” requires wisdom rather than fixed rules.
Importance of decoupling spaces: Even if some discussions should be constrained, preserving decoupled forums is vital for epistemic health and as a safeguard against politically motivated suppression of speech.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
“Concern for broader implications”—the broader implications of having the discussion.
”Requires considering possible social or political consequences”—of the speech act.
“Look like bias or deflection”—would likely be clearer to say political bias.
”Strict decoupling can enable harmful speech”—not just ‘harmful’ in the sense of someone’s feelings being hurt, but in the worst case, it means standing aside as people begin co-ordinating on genocide.
”What counts as “charged””—not just charged, but excessively charged.
Executive summary: This post explores John Nerst’s framework of decoupling vs contextualising norms in discourse, arguing that both have merits and risks, and concluding that while wisdom is needed to judge when to apply each, society benefits from preserving at least some spaces for decoupled truth-seeking conversations.
Key points:
Decoupling norms: Ideas should be evaluated purely on truth, without requiring disclaimers or concern for broader implications—objections to this often look like bias or deflection.
Contextualising norms: Responsible communication requires considering possible social or political consequences, and ignoring them can appear naive, careless, or evasive.
Illustrative example: A claim like “blue-eyed people commit more murders” highlights the clash—decouplers defend the right to state facts directly, while contextualisers worry about stigma and misuse.
Cautions against dogmatism: Both approaches can be weaponized—strict decoupling can enable harmful speech, while overzealous contextualising can justify derailing discussions through claims of hidden agendas.
Author’s stance: Context matters in highly charged situations, but the judgment of what counts as “charged” requires wisdom rather than fixed rules.
Importance of decoupling spaces: Even if some discussions should be constrained, preserving decoupled forums is vital for epistemic health and as a safeguard against politically motivated suppression of speech.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
The overall summary is pretty good, however:
“Concern for broader implications”—the broader implications of having the discussion.
”Requires considering possible social or political consequences”—of the speech act.
“Look like bias or deflection”—would likely be clearer to say political bias.
”Strict decoupling can enable harmful speech”—not just ‘harmful’ in the sense of someone’s feelings being hurt, but in the worst case, it means standing aside as people begin co-ordinating on genocide.
”What counts as “charged””—not just charged, but excessively charged.