Ask HN: After Slate Star Codex, where are the nuanced discussions?
253 points| iamdamian | 5 years ago
We see a lot of nuance in Hacker News discussions, thanks to how the community has shaped up and to the tireless efforts of our moderators. And I want that level of discussion elsewhere, too. (Hacker News isn't the right place for every discussion, given its focus on tech.)
In particular, the recent takedown of Slate Star Codex has me thinking about nuance and truth, and how little space there is for it in online discussions today.
Without getting into any specific politics here, which platforms do you go to for nuanced, rational discussions? And, more broadly, how can we (as technologists) foster that sort of collegiate culture online, given the global scope of the Internet, the permanence of anything we post, and the inherent anonymity of the Internet stack.
I have a strong desire right now to 1) be a part of and reinforce existing communities with this ethos and 2) advocate for technology and culture that could make this the norm.
[+] [-] nkurz|5 years ago|reply
I think you are right that HN is not the right venue. A lot of what has kept it functional for over a decade is the focus on tech. It's not followed to the letter, but an attempt to make HN into SSC would probably destroy it. It's valuable enough as it is, so let's not take the chance.
The bright part is that (so far as I can tell) if one could attract the core community, SSC should be fairly portable. Scott's top posts were sometimes really good, but I don't think they were essential. I'm tempted that the right approach may be just to create a new space, advertise it, and try to attract enough of the core community to jump start it.
I picture it to be like capturing a swarm of bees: put a large cardboard box under the tree limb that they are hanging from, give it a sharp shake, seal up the box, take it to a new location, and install in a new hive. If you managed to capture a viable queen in the transfer, you are done! If not, you need to get the swarm to accept a new queen, with a process that involves exposure to the new queen's pheremones (and sometimes marshmallows --- I'm a little fuzzy on the details).
If one was to take that approach (metaphorically) where would you begin? And technologically, is there some better tool for the job than a Wordpress blog?
[+] [-] bluesign|5 years ago|reply
Exactly this, because tech discussion doesn’t usually split audience 50/50 and audience is usually more scientific.
When I am outlier with my comments, I can see maybe I am missing something. I am learning something useful everyday.
[+] [-] tomjen3|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] froasty|5 years ago|reply
The fact is that nuanced discussion doesn't scale. It requires a small core of dedicated users that can't get drowned out by dross (e.g. rabid Twitter users that collectively gish gallop). Broadcasting the existence of any of these communities is an almost guaranteed path to destroying the essence of what makes them successful communities in the first place.
[+] [-] johan_larson|5 years ago|reply
Data Secrets Lox is set up as a replacement for the SSC open threads, and is run on actual forum software, which means there are topic-specific threads for easier navigation. As membership increases, I expect we'll add subforums, also.
https://www.navalgazing.net/
https://datasecretslox.obormot.net/
[+] [-] johan_larson|5 years ago|reply
https://www.datasecretslox.com/
The old link will continue to work for a while.
[+] [-] oceliker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tunesmith|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IfOnlyYouKnew|5 years ago|reply
For example, I consider the relentless attacks on "mainstream journalism" coming from tech people to be repetitive, superficial, ignorant of history (journalism today is leagues ahead of the past), and misguided (phonebook-style "just the facts" neutrality is neither possible nor has it ever been the goal).
The same goes for "every politician is corrupt", etc.
But I can sort-off see that, to someone with the unfortunate flaw to wrongly entertain believes different from mine, my insistence to criticise every new low of the current US administration, might, in a certain light, also subjectively feel like tired, repetitive cynicism.
That's a logical paradox and it has its roots in our discourse no longer being grounded in a shared, objective reality.
[+] [-] DayneRathbone|5 years ago|reply
I'm one of the founders. Happy to answer any questions.
[+] [-] schoen|5 years ago|reply
Are you aware of any kind of backlash, where non-parties to a letter exchange harshly criticize one or both participants, or your platform, for engaging in the exchange at all?
One thing that I notice in your platform somehow is a sort of I-Thou dynamic (maybe just because people are addressing each other cordially, or even affectionately, in the second person?) and not an I-It ("look at that losery loser over there with the super-dumb beliefs!"). Surely that militates against tribalism -- and surely some people are mad that some of the conversations are happening at all? ("Why is this person/platform legitimizing this terrible person by having this letter exchange?" or something.)
Are you afraid that you'll be tempted to refuse certain letter exchanges because their topics are too intense or too taboo somehow, or because you're not sure the participants are interacting in good faith? Are you sort of at peace with the prospect of having to make that judgment?
How are people finding the platform and finding each other? Are you reaching out to them based on their prior reputations? Is someone suggesting your site to pairs of people who've been in social media fights, or seemed to be on the verge of them? Are people finding it themselves by word of mouth?
How many of the participants do you think have some kind of celebrity or substantial following outside of your site? Do you think that makes things better or worse in some way?
How do these exchanges compare to, say, a podcast video interview? (I did an SSC adversarial collaboration last year and my collaborator, and now friend, later interviewed me for his podcast, which felt like a pretty nice format too.)
[+] [-] pjc50|5 years ago|reply
The "gender critical" discussion, for example, contains Helen Pluckrose, one of the originators of the "grievance studies" paper, and Kathleen Stock, who got fired from being a philosophy professor for being anti-trans. Both of them take the anti-trans position.
[+] [-] esyir|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esperent|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcmaffey|5 years ago|reply
I will consider signing up, but I strongly resist using my own image as avatar, despite using my real name. Is there nuance to your policy there?
Lastly, your site is not well mobile optimized (iphone SE). The left menu should be collapsed or wrapped vertically inline.
[+] [-] satvikpendem|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] japanoise|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] indigochill|5 years ago|reply
Outside HN, I talk to people I know personally who I know enjoy nuanced discussions. And that's it.
> And, more broadly, how can we (as technologists) foster that sort of collegiate culture online, given the global scope of the Internet, the permanence of anything we post, and the inherent anonymity of the Internet stack.
I am leaning heavily towards old-school blogging right now (without comments - people wanna comment, they can go write a response post on their own blog), including links to other blogs of interest. Maybe webrings, although I'm not very familiar with the social dynamics there and what the pros/cons are when compared to a more casual linking between blogs. Mastodon is also on my radar but I just don't know anyone personally who's into that.
> be a part of and reinforce existing communities with this ethos
I think this just needs to be done with people you already know. Ask 'em "Hey, wanna start a club?" and then go do so. Trying to make it bigger than that is a threat to getting it started in the first place.
> advocate for technology and culture that could make this the norm.
Not gonna happen, I think. My perception is that people who appreciate nuanced discussion are the minority in the global population. But that doesn't mean we have to roll over and accept Twitter. We can still make our own digital clubs.
[+] [-] shmageggy|5 years ago|reply
One thing I've been thinking about lately is a discussion forum that is highly curated, featuring only comments from a whitelisted group of approved posters. Essentially a hybrid between journalism and the best of online commenting.
[+] [-] holler|5 years ago|reply
One thing I'm doing from the start is removing voting entirely. The site is "conversation-first" meaning I plan to develop it entirely around the conversation, only adding new features if they enhance the conversation in some way.
I'm wondering if a site could be highly curated but not heavily moderated? Maybe a site that's open for anyone to post wouldn't necessarily attract the same crowd as one that was a curated collection from a known source?
Originally I started thinking about this when I worked in news media some years ago and witnessed the state of online commenting back then! Fun stuff.
Cheers!
[+] [-] jseliger|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iamdamian|5 years ago|reply
It's intriguing, because it would still suffer from bias (like any platform) but maybe the diversity of moderators would neutralize that a bit, and maybe you'd see more cross-pollination between groups because of the quality of the discussion.
Given 1) how hard it is to bootstrap a new social media platform and 2) the resurgence of independent blogging, I'm wondering if a prototype could come in the form of a pluggable comment system, but where you hand curate the comments that show up (or could even feature them in a subsequent blog post)? Something as easy to set up as Disqus, but OSS and designed to de-escalate rather than escalate conversations.
[+] [-] sgillen|5 years ago|reply
This raises the barrier to entry already, and the money raised can go towards paying full time moderators / curators.
[+] [-] dmix|5 years ago|reply
https://www.lesswrong.com/
[+] [-] tomhoward|5 years ago|reply
Its subject matter is somewhat different to the rationalist theme of SSC, but there is some crossover.
RW explores what they term the “crisis of meaning” in the modern world, the decay of institutions and social cohesion, and the challenges individuals face through trauma, mental illness and alienation.
Their forums on Discord and Google Groups host ongoing discussions about ways of overcoming these issues and finding a path to a better world.
It has a less materialistic and more spiritual ethos than SSC, so it won’t be every SSC exile’s cup of tea, but some may find it appealing.
They’ve done some excellent interviews with a broad range of folks including Gabor Mate, Daniel Schmachtenberger, Jordan Hall, Eric Weinstein, Brett Weinstein, Heather Heying, Douglas Rushkoff, Stanislav Grof, Diana Fleischmann, Ken Wilbur, Iain McGilchrist, John Vervaeke and Charles Einsenstein.
https://www.rebelwisdom.co.uk
https://discord.gg/RK4MeYW
[+] [-] pjc50|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ralusek|5 years ago|reply
It's almost like, ironically, the best way forward would be to create a moderated community that slowly gets a user base of a diverse set of people, and then slowly pull back the moderation over time. Allowing something like subreddits with communities to self-select their own moderation levels is also great, imo. Reddit was perfect until the platform itself stopped being neutral.
[+] [-] KozmoNau7|5 years ago|reply
Have moderators cover only a few subforums, so they don't get stretched too thin, have the moderators/admins confer internally on cross-forum issues and bans.
It does require a competent moderator team that knows when to let discussions run, when to gently nudge people towards more reasoned debate, and when to swing the ban hammer.
Reddit was absolutely not perfect at any point in time. There were countless cases of power hungry mods in their own little kingdoms, doxxing, inter-subreddit fights and exceedingly virulent hate subreddits that specifically did their best to hurt other people. That's not debate, that's bullying and in many cases criminal.
[+] [-] boring_twenties|5 years ago|reply
> The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong
[+] [-] marsen|5 years ago|reply
It’s quite interesting, albeit more of an argument mapping site than a forum. I found participation a bit harder, as they have a “no duplicate arguments” rule, which probably makes sense for their setup.
A couple of diagrams that I found quite interesting:
https://www.kialo.com/general-ai-should-have-fundamental-rig... https://www.kialo.com/artificial-intelligence-ai-should-an-a... https://www.kialo.com/is-gender-a-social-construct-1570
[+] [-] brandonmenc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|5 years ago|reply
The slogan "nothing about us without us" has been used a lot for this recently, but it has a much older history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_About_Us_Without_Us
[+] [-] roenxi|5 years ago|reply
Anyone can assess evidence. Opinions formed after a best-as-you-can assessment of the evidence are better than the alternatives. A group of black people are perfectly capable of empathising with, understanding and having a nuanced opinion of the concerns of disabled people. Swap adjectives around as you like. This is because everybody has the ability to weigh evidence. Opinions formed on things that aren't evidence based are exceptionally bad ideas, so I'm more than happy for them to fall by the wayside.
I'm not talking peer reviewed evidence, but the ordinary stuff where there is reason to believe something is true and it has to passes all or at least most tests of authenticity that are thrown at it.
To have a nuanced discussion of politics, pushing partisans out of the room or at least quietening them down is the first step. "An X needs to be in the room to discuss topics related to X" is fair and necessary for decision making but not at all required for nuanced discussion.
[+] [-] Veen|5 years ago|reply
I find this comment difficult to understand. On an uncharitable reading, you would seem to be implying that non-white people are incapable of nuanced discussion about race, which I'm sure isn't what you meant. Or are you saying that what we take to be nuanced discussions about race are only considered nuanced because there are no non-white people? Or that it is impossible for white people to have a nuanced discussion about race unless there are black people present?
[+] [-] radu_floricica|5 years ago|reply
But yeah, we don't have that anymore.
So post-ssc-takedown, I'm going to be human, emotional and biased and going to say that I'm personally opposed to any ideology that suggest we should discuss less.
[+] [-] amvalo|5 years ago|reply
Uh, not much? This comment seems to be assuming some weird things about what the blog typically focuses on. Actually, he writes about trans issues a bit, got some flack for defending Blanchard, and a large fraction of the readership is trans.
[+] [-] seneca|5 years ago|reply
There's a place to hear the testimony of people who personally live a topic, and it's fundamentally important, but to claim they need to be present to discuss whatever topic they relate to seems counterproductive.
[+] [-] ttonkytonk|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] someguydave|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobthechef|5 years ago|reply
Actually, the very presence of the people involved can actually be counterproductive because of personal emotional investment, so it depends on circumstances.
> it's an academic exercise to those involved, not something with real impact on their lives.
A benefit of academia, even if it often fails to keep to this standard, is that it provides a setting for dispassionate discourse. And you can be sure that it has affects. If you want to see what society will look like in 20 years, look no further to what students are being taught at universities today.
--
It is my general observation that what some people call "dialogue" actually amounts to surreptitious coercion. You mention having a trans person present at the table. However, if you're a psychologist and you're characterizing mental disorders like gender dysphoria, you don't invite a trans person to the table as an equal with whom you're going to come to some compromise pleasing to both (in practice, pleasing to the trans person). This is not political negotiation, it's an attempt at knowing the truth. Sadly, we've made truth a kind of "what's the narrative we can all agree on" (in practice, "that the loudest bully is willing to accept"[0]). Conversation is ultimately about trying to get to the truth. By bringing the trans person to the table as an equal and not as a patient presumes the legitimacy of trans beliefs which are precisely that which is at issue. If someone, trans or not, wishes to make arguments in favor of their position, by all means, but one's, shall we say, identity does not take the place of reasoned argument.
[0] This is what happened with the DSM and same-sex attraction. There was no reasoned debate, only political coercion and acquiescence.
[+] [-] newacct583|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hindsightbias|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agucova|5 years ago|reply
You could add simple features to enhance discussion such as an option to quote academic sources.
[+] [-] josh2600|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zone411|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ace_of_spades|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gkanai|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dnissley|5 years ago|reply
Sure, there are some insightful comments. But also a lot of sneering, a lot of trash talk, a lot of very bad faith arguments, etc. This was the beginning of the end for my posting on metafilter. It's just too toxic.
[+] [-] a-nikolaev|5 years ago|reply