Main Page Contact Register Log In

Thank you for bringing this up. Indeed, the matter of how to be rational, or how to secure and maintain the rationality of discussion in the community, is a topic probably worth half the total word count on the website. It's such a fragile state of affairs, if you think about it... On a scale of quality of political discussion that has on one end /pol/-level trolling or SJW bickering, we (it's probably better to ask does this apply to all of us?) want to represent the other end of the scale, where everybody follows norms of intellectual honesty and earnest interest in reaching the most accurate conclusions. This is a very high bar, relatively speaking. Many communities with norms for sane political discussion accept it as the norm for bias to creep in, as long as the participants are not egregiously rude, partisan, or uninformed. Even assuming an initial populace of best-quality users (a state we're probably not quite in the bunch of us, myself included, are probably fine but not exquisite as political discussion partners), it takes a strong culture of upholding quality standards in order to not be overrun by a wave of Eternal September-type users. This post of Eliezer's might be relevant here.

The point being, it remains to be seen whether Omnilibrium will develop such a culture. To the extent that I've seen online communities succeed in guarding themselves against influxes of low-quality posting, it involved rules (highly formal as well as highly informal bordering on "you haven't found favour with the mods"), banhammers, and a willingness for senior members to tell newcomers what is and isn't acceptable behaviour around there (which, for people of more pacifist inclinations, may be quite unpleasant to put into practice). We only have a recommendation system for now. And they were fighting against mere stupidity and obvious trolling and troublemaking. The values and demeanours that run against rational political discussion are much subtler bad faith, insinuations, closed-mindedness, groupthink... To avoid these things in oneself is a pretty big burden already; to accurately identify them in others is even harder and riskier for the community, since any instance of "calling out" someone on bias has a good chance to a) be wrong; b) spark conflict. It doesn't matter how good the written law is if nobody reads and follows it.

Is there any way for a community to nurture these qualities and good intentions, when there is no guarantee that any given member is sufficiently endowed with them, let alone a sizable fraction of its influential members?