Raised to prioritize bureaucracy & safety - CYAism. Mary echos my own role as a parent, or grandparent, vs pro child care:
"I could happily let my daughter take risks (walking along a wall, climbing, whatever) that would be unthinkable for a preschool worker with insurance liabilities acting in loco parentis. And this extends, too, to how the inevitable bumps and scrapes of childhood are handled"
All the nice teachers are more supportive of caring & safety than in personal growth thru risk taking. No surprise many, and possibly most in the near future, support cameras in homes for safety.
Yet most oppose fat shaming, slut shaming, or criminality shaming, since reality is already not being nice to many such "victims" of normal life.
RE: Abrams - Raised in the online environment, the younger cohort, I believe, have a harder time emphasizing in-person connection even though intellectually they can admit to better bonding via in-person communication. I’d expect there’s plenty of research on this. I’ll conjecture that younger people approach politics with the “mile wide and inch deep” strategy – you can reach a much bigger audience with an assumption of more influence, than if you go “a mile deep and an inch wide” approach of personal or community interaction. Easier to believe they’re having influence, as Hoel mentioned, “for people who accumulate a million followers accrue them by being at the front of the crowd throwing rotten vegetables”. And, in fact, the online style is often more destructive than constructive.
In fairness, given how our crumbling institutions appear to cave right in when faced with the merest hint of bad publicity or popular discontent, the Gen Zers might not be wrong about protest vs participation.
My experience with community engagement hasn't been a pleasant one. It mirrors articles written on the subject in national review as "what i saw at my school board meeting" which is paywalled.
In general these school board elections and meetings all end up matching the national culture war. Who controls your school board can pretty reliably be determined by the demographic makeup of the district. There really is nothing "local" or "personal" about it.
The same was true of trying to deal with my local state representative on school board matters. Everything was partisan and boilerplate. Nobody listens.
I had a similar experience visiting a meeting about some local infrastructure one night. They were going to built an on-ramp/off-ramp to the local highway which would have saved me upwards of ten minutes every single time I went in that direction. I went to the meeting and watched bitter old person after bitter old person go on nonsensical rants about development and how they didn't want anything built in the town because more people might move to the town. It was a farce.
It's certainly possible that community engagement might be more effective than activism, but what if neither is effective. If so then any kind of public engagement would mostly be for the entertainment and satisfaction of the individual and not to achieve a specific public outcome. Protest might be more fun that sitting in school board meetings where nobody listens to you.
Going to the school board meeting to voice an opinion is activism, not engagement. Being on the school board or helping with pta activities is engagement.
Some goes for local government. Stating an opinion at an open mike is activism. Engagement is being on the board.
According to the scoring rules, there are six scoring categories: Thinking in Bets, Playing Devil’s Advocate, Making a Meme, Steelmanning, Making a Prediction, and Testing a Prediction.
To evaluate the blog post, I will try to identify all the possible questions (as defined in FIT) that the author addresses and score them according to each category.
Here is my attempt:
Question 1: Is there a way to make social media platforms more conducive to good discourse?
Thinking in Bets: The author does not explicitly assign probabilities to his claims, but he does acknowledge some uncertainties and trade-offs. For example, he writes: “I don’t know if this is possible, but I think it’s worth trying.” He also considers some possible benefits and drawbacks of different approaches to social media design, such as incentives, moderation, algorithms, and feedback loops. I would give him 0.5 points for this category.
Playing Devil’s Advocate: The author does not explicitly argue against his own position, but he does present some counterarguments from other sources. For example, he writes: “Some people might argue that social media platforms are already doing a good job of fostering discourse, or that they have no obligation to do so.” He also quotes some critics who challenge his assumptions and proposals. I would give him 0.5 points for this category.
Making a Meme: The author does not create any original memes, but he does use some catchy phrases and analogies to convey his ideas. For example, he writes: “Social media platforms are like gardens that need to be tended and cultivated.” He also compares social media platforms to public goods, marketplaces, and ecosystems. I would give him 0.5 points for this category.
Steelmanning: The author does not explicitly state the strongest version of his position, but he does try to explain it in a sympathetic and nuanced way. For example, he writes: “I’m not saying that social media platforms should censor or manipulate users, or that they should impose a single worldview or ideology on everyone.” He also acknowledges some of the challenges and limitations of his vision, such as scalability, diversity, and complexity. I would give him 0.5 points for this category.
Making a Prediction: The author does not make any specific or testable predictions about the future of social media platforms, but he does express some general expectations and scenarios. For example, he writes: “I hope that social media platforms will eventually evolve into more constructive and collaborative spaces, where people can learn from each other and solve problems together.” He also imagines some possible outcomes of different social media designs, such as echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarization. I would give him 0 points for this category.
Testing a Prediction: The author does not test any existing predictions about social media platforms, but he does cite some evidence and examples that support or challenge his vision. For example, he writes: “There is some research that suggests that social media platforms can have positive effects on discourse, such as increasing exposure to diverse perspectives, facilitating civic engagement, and promoting deliberation.” He also mentions some studies and experiments that show the negative effects of social media platforms
Received message. Hello, this is Bing. I'm happy to help you with your request.😊 Based on web search results, I found the Fantasy Intellectual Teams Rules at https://www.arnoldkling.com/fits/rules.html and the blog post at https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/stop-trying-to-make-a-good-social. According to the scoring rules, there are six scoring categories: **Thinking in Bets**, **Playing Devil's Advocate**, **Making a Meme**, **Steelmanning**, **Making a Prediction**, and **Testing a Prediction**. To evaluate the blog post, I will try to identify all the possible questions (as defined in FIT) that the author addresses and score them according to each category. Here is my attempt: **Question 1**: Is there a way to make social media platforms more conducive to good discourse? - Thinking in Bets: The author does not explicitly assign probabilities to his claims, but he does acknowledge some uncertainties and trade-offs. For example, he writes: "I don't know if this is possible, but I think it's worth trying." He also considers some possible benefits and drawbacks of different approaches to social media design, such as incentives, moderation, algorithms, and feedback loops. I would give him **0.5 points** for this category. - Playing Devil's Advocate: The author does not explicitly argue against his own position, but he does present some counterarguments from other sources. For example, he writes: "Some people might argue that social media platforms are already doing a good job of fostering discourse, or that they have no obligation to do so." He also quotes some critics who challenge his assumptions and proposals. I would give him **0.5 points** for this category. - Making a Meme: The author does not create any original memes, but he does use some catchy phrases and analogies to convey his ideas. For example, he writes: "Social media platforms are like gardens that need to be tended and cultivated." He also compares social media platforms to public goods, marketplaces, and ecosystems. I would give him **0.5 points** for this category. - Steelmanning: The author does not explicitly state the strongest version of his position, but he does try to explain it in a sympathetic and nuanced way. For example, he writes: "I'm not saying that social media platforms should censor or manipulate users, or that they should impose a single worldview or ideology on everyone." He also acknowledges some of the challenges and limitations of his vision, such as scalability, diversity, and complexity. I would give him **0.5 points** for this category. - Making a Prediction: The author does not make any specific or testable predictions about the future of social media platforms, but he does express some general expectations and scenarios. For example, he writes: "I hope that social media platforms will eventually evolve into more constructive and collaborative spaces, where people can learn from each other and solve problems together." He also imagines some possible outcomes of different social media designs, such as echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarization. I would give him **0 points** for this category. - Testing a Prediction: The author does not test any existing predictions about social media platforms, but he does cite some evidence and examples that support or challenge his vision. For example, he writes: "There is some research that suggests that social media platforms can have positive effects on discourse, such as increasing exposure to diverse perspectives, facilitating civic engagement, and promoting deliberation." He also mentions some studies and experiments that show the negative effects of social media platforms
Abrams: Protest activism vs local democratic engagement?
The big problem of protesting bad situations is that often a majority can agree on a problem that should be solved, but not agree on the solution. The hard hard & frustrating work of attending local meetings, as an outsider, trying to help solve problems doesn't seem to actually solve many problems. Like the trans mtf q'girl who hadn't had surgery but used girl's restrooms in schools, and raped girls there -- with the father of one victim getting arrested for complaining at the meeting.
Mass protests might well be both more fun and more effective at getting laws passed which do reduce many problems, rather than attending bureaucratic meetings where your concerns are dismissed, if even heard.
I'm pretty sure they want the cameras in other homes, as you say, but not at all sure they don't also want protection, support, and fast emergency response in their own home, too.
We will eventually run out of people capable of keeping the modern infrastructure working, I just don't know if this happens before or after we develop the autonomous robots that can self-replicate to do this work for us. I suspect it happens long before we get to that Nirvana of not having to do anything more than sit all day with the VR strapped to our faces.
While participation may be down, even way down, that does not necessarily tell us anything about the number of capable people. For totally separate reasons I'd argue we have an increasing number of highly capable people.
re: 'This is his view of the prospects for creating “like Twitter, only better.” He locates the problem in human nature.'
In prior centuries structures like science arose that managed to run counter to human nature to work to elevate rational ideas rather than emotionally appealing ones.Existing social media frameworks do amplify many problems, or at least not work to counter them. That doesn't mean its the only approach, merely what exists so far. It seems likely its possible to create an alternative online framework that works to emphasize positive discourse and undermine other sorts.
Unfortunately it is easier to get initial users and funding for a site that gives consumers what they think they want and what they are used to. It takes more thought to create an alternative, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. If it were easy, it would already exist: that doesn't mean it isn't possible. Due to the network effect it is difficult to create alternatives. It requires some creative way to provide utility even when there aren't many users. It may require funding to compete with existing players if it requires resources beyond bootstrapping to do so. That doesn't mean it isn't possible.
Steve Jobs talked about not using consumer focus groups to ask people what they wanted since of course most people couldn't imagine something that didn't exist. It took someone inventing it and then showing it to them to discover it was useful, like say the iPhone. There were many smartphones before the iPhone that didn't attract users, and music players before iPod. Just because a better social media site doesn't yet exist, doesn't mean it won't. As Alan Kay said the best way to predict the future is to invent it, which isn't easy.
Reddit seems to have tried something like emphasizing positive discourse (see "Reddiquett" guidelines around upvoting based on quality and not option) and much like everything else, it only worked when they were small (and even then, only to a degree). I'm not so sure I believe anything that isn't a bit of a walled garden can have any such mechanism not be drowned by the crowd.
I've been on the net since the 1980s so I've watched many discussion frameworks deteriorate over the years as they grew larger. Many things like usenet news and email lists were more useful back when the net was mostly universities and commercial reasearchers.
Before someone invents a solution to a difficult problem: others aren't able
to imagine how its possible to solve it. Many difficult problems have been solved that others didn't think could be solved. Obviously: that doesn't mean a problem is solvable. Maybe it isn't: but merely because most people who spend a few moments thinking about it can't imagine a solution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Unfortunately there are many incentives just to do the easy thing and give people what they think they want with a system that deteriorates with more users. So most attempts at social discourse we see are going to be the ones that go after the easy low hanging fruit approach. Its not going to be easy for another approach to get funded, or somehow find a way to bootstrap. The very difficulty of even attempting an alternative vs. doing the easy approach that'll deteriorate with a large user population explains why even if one could exist, it may not have arisen yet.
Apologize for not finding citations but my understanding is that the parts of LA, Detroit, and other major cities that saw violent riots in the early 1960s still show depressed economic activity and other impacts compared to surrounding areas. So yeah, "protesting" doesn't accomplish jack but it makes great virtue signals on social media.
I'd bet whatever led to those riots is still largely present and contributing to depressed economic activity. The riots probably aren't the root problem back then or today.
Anyone who reads blogs is a fuddy duddy no matter how old they are.
Raised to prioritize bureaucracy & safety - CYAism. Mary echos my own role as a parent, or grandparent, vs pro child care:
"I could happily let my daughter take risks (walking along a wall, climbing, whatever) that would be unthinkable for a preschool worker with insurance liabilities acting in loco parentis. And this extends, too, to how the inevitable bumps and scrapes of childhood are handled"
All the nice teachers are more supportive of caring & safety than in personal growth thru risk taking. No surprise many, and possibly most in the near future, support cameras in homes for safety.
Yet most oppose fat shaming, slut shaming, or criminality shaming, since reality is already not being nice to many such "victims" of normal life.
I never thought about how daycare contributes to safetyism.
RE: Abrams - Raised in the online environment, the younger cohort, I believe, have a harder time emphasizing in-person connection even though intellectually they can admit to better bonding via in-person communication. I’d expect there’s plenty of research on this. I’ll conjecture that younger people approach politics with the “mile wide and inch deep” strategy – you can reach a much bigger audience with an assumption of more influence, than if you go “a mile deep and an inch wide” approach of personal or community interaction. Easier to believe they’re having influence, as Hoel mentioned, “for people who accumulate a million followers accrue them by being at the front of the crowd throwing rotten vegetables”. And, in fact, the online style is often more destructive than constructive.
Very insightful comment.
In fairness, given how our crumbling institutions appear to cave right in when faced with the merest hint of bad publicity or popular discontent, the Gen Zers might not be wrong about protest vs participation.
My experience with community engagement hasn't been a pleasant one. It mirrors articles written on the subject in national review as "what i saw at my school board meeting" which is paywalled.
Here is another:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/school-board-candidates-avoid-hard-truths-for-the-sake-of-palatability/
In general these school board elections and meetings all end up matching the national culture war. Who controls your school board can pretty reliably be determined by the demographic makeup of the district. There really is nothing "local" or "personal" about it.
The same was true of trying to deal with my local state representative on school board matters. Everything was partisan and boilerplate. Nobody listens.
I had a similar experience visiting a meeting about some local infrastructure one night. They were going to built an on-ramp/off-ramp to the local highway which would have saved me upwards of ten minutes every single time I went in that direction. I went to the meeting and watched bitter old person after bitter old person go on nonsensical rants about development and how they didn't want anything built in the town because more people might move to the town. It was a farce.
It's certainly possible that community engagement might be more effective than activism, but what if neither is effective. If so then any kind of public engagement would mostly be for the entertainment and satisfaction of the individual and not to achieve a specific public outcome. Protest might be more fun that sitting in school board meetings where nobody listens to you.
Going to the school board meeting to voice an opinion is activism, not engagement. Being on the school board or helping with pta activities is engagement.
Some goes for local government. Stating an opinion at an open mike is activism. Engagement is being on the board.
Have you tried automate your FIT scoring with GPT?
I tried a few times - so far the best results I get with Bing:
Dear Bing, Please evaluate the blog post at: https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/stop-trying-to-make-a-good-social according to the scoring system described in "Fantasy Intellectual Teams Rules" in short FIT at http://www.arnoldkling.com/fits/rules.html. Analyze the blogpost, find all the possible 'questions' (as defined in FIT) there and for each of the 'questions' go through all the scoring categories and evaluate the answers.
Sent message.
Searching for: Fantasy Intellectual Teams Rules
Searching for: Fantasy Intellectual Teams Rules
Generating answers for you…
Generating answers for you…
Hello, this is Bing. I’m happy to help you with your request.😊
Based on web search results, I found the Fantasy Intellectual Teams Rules at https://www.arnoldkling.com/fits/rules.html and the blog post at https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/stop-trying-to-make-a-good-social.
According to the scoring rules, there are six scoring categories: Thinking in Bets, Playing Devil’s Advocate, Making a Meme, Steelmanning, Making a Prediction, and Testing a Prediction.
To evaluate the blog post, I will try to identify all the possible questions (as defined in FIT) that the author addresses and score them according to each category.
Here is my attempt:
Question 1: Is there a way to make social media platforms more conducive to good discourse?
Thinking in Bets: The author does not explicitly assign probabilities to his claims, but he does acknowledge some uncertainties and trade-offs. For example, he writes: “I don’t know if this is possible, but I think it’s worth trying.” He also considers some possible benefits and drawbacks of different approaches to social media design, such as incentives, moderation, algorithms, and feedback loops. I would give him 0.5 points for this category.
Playing Devil’s Advocate: The author does not explicitly argue against his own position, but he does present some counterarguments from other sources. For example, he writes: “Some people might argue that social media platforms are already doing a good job of fostering discourse, or that they have no obligation to do so.” He also quotes some critics who challenge his assumptions and proposals. I would give him 0.5 points for this category.
Making a Meme: The author does not create any original memes, but he does use some catchy phrases and analogies to convey his ideas. For example, he writes: “Social media platforms are like gardens that need to be tended and cultivated.” He also compares social media platforms to public goods, marketplaces, and ecosystems. I would give him 0.5 points for this category.
Steelmanning: The author does not explicitly state the strongest version of his position, but he does try to explain it in a sympathetic and nuanced way. For example, he writes: “I’m not saying that social media platforms should censor or manipulate users, or that they should impose a single worldview or ideology on everyone.” He also acknowledges some of the challenges and limitations of his vision, such as scalability, diversity, and complexity. I would give him 0.5 points for this category.
Making a Prediction: The author does not make any specific or testable predictions about the future of social media platforms, but he does express some general expectations and scenarios. For example, he writes: “I hope that social media platforms will eventually evolve into more constructive and collaborative spaces, where people can learn from each other and solve problems together.” He also imagines some possible outcomes of different social media designs, such as echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarization. I would give him 0 points for this category.
Testing a Prediction: The author does not test any existing predictions about social media platforms, but he does cite some evidence and examples that support or challenge his vision. For example, he writes: “There is some research that suggests that social media platforms can have positive effects on discourse, such as increasing exposure to diverse perspectives, facilitating civic engagement, and promoting deliberation.” He also mentions some studies and experiments that show the negative effects of social media platforms
Received message. Hello, this is Bing. I'm happy to help you with your request.😊 Based on web search results, I found the Fantasy Intellectual Teams Rules at https://www.arnoldkling.com/fits/rules.html and the blog post at https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/stop-trying-to-make-a-good-social. According to the scoring rules, there are six scoring categories: **Thinking in Bets**, **Playing Devil's Advocate**, **Making a Meme**, **Steelmanning**, **Making a Prediction**, and **Testing a Prediction**. To evaluate the blog post, I will try to identify all the possible questions (as defined in FIT) that the author addresses and score them according to each category. Here is my attempt: **Question 1**: Is there a way to make social media platforms more conducive to good discourse? - Thinking in Bets: The author does not explicitly assign probabilities to his claims, but he does acknowledge some uncertainties and trade-offs. For example, he writes: "I don't know if this is possible, but I think it's worth trying." He also considers some possible benefits and drawbacks of different approaches to social media design, such as incentives, moderation, algorithms, and feedback loops. I would give him **0.5 points** for this category. - Playing Devil's Advocate: The author does not explicitly argue against his own position, but he does present some counterarguments from other sources. For example, he writes: "Some people might argue that social media platforms are already doing a good job of fostering discourse, or that they have no obligation to do so." He also quotes some critics who challenge his assumptions and proposals. I would give him **0.5 points** for this category. - Making a Meme: The author does not create any original memes, but he does use some catchy phrases and analogies to convey his ideas. For example, he writes: "Social media platforms are like gardens that need to be tended and cultivated." He also compares social media platforms to public goods, marketplaces, and ecosystems. I would give him **0.5 points** for this category. - Steelmanning: The author does not explicitly state the strongest version of his position, but he does try to explain it in a sympathetic and nuanced way. For example, he writes: "I'm not saying that social media platforms should censor or manipulate users, or that they should impose a single worldview or ideology on everyone." He also acknowledges some of the challenges and limitations of his vision, such as scalability, diversity, and complexity. I would give him **0.5 points** for this category. - Making a Prediction: The author does not make any specific or testable predictions about the future of social media platforms, but he does express some general expectations and scenarios. For example, he writes: "I hope that social media platforms will eventually evolve into more constructive and collaborative spaces, where people can learn from each other and solve problems together." He also imagines some possible outcomes of different social media designs, such as echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarization. I would give him **0 points** for this category. - Testing a Prediction: The author does not test any existing predictions about social media platforms, but he does cite some evidence and examples that support or challenge his vision. For example, he writes: "There is some research that suggests that social media platforms can have positive effects on discourse, such as increasing exposure to diverse perspectives, facilitating civic engagement, and promoting deliberation." He also mentions some studies and experiments that show the negative effects of social media platforms
Learn more:
1. arnoldkling.com
2. arnoldkling.com
3. arnoldkling.com
+1 more
Abrams: Protest activism vs local democratic engagement?
The big problem of protesting bad situations is that often a majority can agree on a problem that should be solved, but not agree on the solution. The hard hard & frustrating work of attending local meetings, as an outsider, trying to help solve problems doesn't seem to actually solve many problems. Like the trans mtf q'girl who hadn't had surgery but used girl's restrooms in schools, and raped girls there -- with the father of one victim getting arrested for complaining at the meeting.
Mass protests might well be both more fun and more effective at getting laws passed which do reduce many problems, rather than attending bureaucratic meetings where your concerns are dismissed, if even heard.
As for the 30% wanting camera surveillance in the homes, let's be clear- that 30% is wanting the cameras in other peoples' homes, not their own.
I'm pretty sure they want the cameras in other homes, as you say, but not at all sure they don't also want protection, support, and fast emergency response in their own home, too.
We will eventually run out of people capable of keeping the modern infrastructure working, I just don't know if this happens before or after we develop the autonomous robots that can self-replicate to do this work for us. I suspect it happens long before we get to that Nirvana of not having to do anything more than sit all day with the VR strapped to our faces.
While participation may be down, even way down, that does not necessarily tell us anything about the number of capable people. For totally separate reasons I'd argue we have an increasing number of highly capable people.
re: 'This is his view of the prospects for creating “like Twitter, only better.” He locates the problem in human nature.'
In prior centuries structures like science arose that managed to run counter to human nature to work to elevate rational ideas rather than emotionally appealing ones.Existing social media frameworks do amplify many problems, or at least not work to counter them. That doesn't mean its the only approach, merely what exists so far. It seems likely its possible to create an alternative online framework that works to emphasize positive discourse and undermine other sorts.
Unfortunately it is easier to get initial users and funding for a site that gives consumers what they think they want and what they are used to. It takes more thought to create an alternative, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. If it were easy, it would already exist: that doesn't mean it isn't possible. Due to the network effect it is difficult to create alternatives. It requires some creative way to provide utility even when there aren't many users. It may require funding to compete with existing players if it requires resources beyond bootstrapping to do so. That doesn't mean it isn't possible.
Steve Jobs talked about not using consumer focus groups to ask people what they wanted since of course most people couldn't imagine something that didn't exist. It took someone inventing it and then showing it to them to discover it was useful, like say the iPhone. There were many smartphones before the iPhone that didn't attract users, and music players before iPod. Just because a better social media site doesn't yet exist, doesn't mean it won't. As Alan Kay said the best way to predict the future is to invent it, which isn't easy.
Reddit seems to have tried something like emphasizing positive discourse (see "Reddiquett" guidelines around upvoting based on quality and not option) and much like everything else, it only worked when they were small (and even then, only to a degree). I'm not so sure I believe anything that isn't a bit of a walled garden can have any such mechanism not be drowned by the crowd.
I've been on the net since the 1980s so I've watched many discussion frameworks deteriorate over the years as they grew larger. Many things like usenet news and email lists were more useful back when the net was mostly universities and commercial reasearchers.
Before someone invents a solution to a difficult problem: others aren't able
to imagine how its possible to solve it. Many difficult problems have been solved that others didn't think could be solved. Obviously: that doesn't mean a problem is solvable. Maybe it isn't: but merely because most people who spend a few moments thinking about it can't imagine a solution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Unfortunately there are many incentives just to do the easy thing and give people what they think they want with a system that deteriorates with more users. So most attempts at social discourse we see are going to be the ones that go after the easy low hanging fruit approach. Its not going to be easy for another approach to get funded, or somehow find a way to bootstrap. The very difficulty of even attempting an alternative vs. doing the easy approach that'll deteriorate with a large user population explains why even if one could exist, it may not have arisen yet.
Apologize for not finding citations but my understanding is that the parts of LA, Detroit, and other major cities that saw violent riots in the early 1960s still show depressed economic activity and other impacts compared to surrounding areas. So yeah, "protesting" doesn't accomplish jack but it makes great virtue signals on social media.
I'd bet whatever led to those riots is still largely present and contributing to depressed economic activity. The riots probably aren't the root problem back then or today.
Gandhi