4 ms·

Would be great to see some meaningful example where these principles clearly improved the conversation, be it in terms of time, conclusion, compromise or what h

Would be great to see some meaningful example where these principles clearly improved the conversation, be it in terms of time, conclusion, compromise or what have you. I've got this feeling that it's one of these things that cause a threaded discussion to be misinterpreted by outsiders in terms of predictability.

tunesmith 10y ago
I guess I often do it internally. If someone is acting derisive towards me but still has some amount of content in their objection, I (sometimes) internally pretend that they have said only the content, minus the derisive crap, and then I respond to that. I've also noticed that sometimes when I do that, the person I'm engaging with responds more respectfully. Other times I hit back because sometimes people are jerks. I dunno. Jury's still out for me on whether I should ignore derision all the time.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  The introduction of derision into a discussion is often a sign of weakness.
jandrewrogers 10y ago
It is important to understand the milieu in which Crocker's Rules originated. The old Extropians mailing list was, by design, a place where even highly controversial and socially taboo subjects could be discussed and argued from positions that average people might find abhorrent if the position was carefully constructed, interesting, and grounded in rational or scientific observation. Many people found it emotionally challenging to engage on that list due to the volume of uncomfortable ideas they were exposed to. Even on that list, many topics were difficult to discuss because it triggered too many people regardless of the merits of the topic. Declaring "Crocker's Rules" was an explicit statement that you refused to be triggered and that every possible subject matter was on the table for reasoned discourse without devolving into an emotional response. The flip side of this is being open to accepting better ideas that you are not predisposed to accepting. As an aside, Lee Daniel Crocker gets credit personally for successfully challenging some long-seated political beliefs I held, by virtue of compelling argumentation.
- hammock 10y ago
  >It is important to understand the milieu in which Crocker's Rules originated. The old Extropians mailing list was, by design, a place where even highly controversial and socially taboo subjects could be discussed and argued from positions that average people might find abhorrent if the position was carefully constructed, interesting, and grounded in rational or scientific observation. So, can you give some examples?
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    Effects of slavery as a way of organizing the economy? Everybody knows slavery is bad, end of story, which tends to cut short any analysis of its effect on internal efficiency, productivity, etc.
    - tpeo 10y ago
      Who calls "Crocker's rules"? The guy who wants to start the discussion about the economics of slavery? The guy who thinks it's viable? The guy who thinks it isn't viable and anyone who thinks so should be shot? How does it work? Furthermore, what's the point? I mean, if you're in a discussion group where there's a non-zero probability that one of it's members will pick slavery (or something else equally apalling) as a discussion issue, but group members are self-selected (which is a reasonable supposition for groups in general, and even more so for obscure mailing lists) then it's likely that all members are amoral enough for discussion purposes such that this "Crocker's rules" thing would be redundant.
      - herge 10y ago
        The article explains you can only declare Crocker's rule on yourself, and can not force it onto others who have not accepted it. A discussion will only work under Crocker's rules only if everyone consents.
        tpeo 10y ago
        I did read the article, thank you. What I meant is that I find it unlikely that in such a group there would even be a strong moral reaction to any issue in the first place. I don't know about the extropian mailing list, but take LessWrong members, for instance. They are quite shameless about the topics they choose. And they're not much given to non-cognitive criticism either (e.g. calling someone an ass). So calling on "Crocker's rules" would be just redundant. What is the point of ignoring something that doesn't happen? Edit: On the other hand, it relies on the assumption that there's a trade-off between civility and informativeness which just might not be there.

tunesmith 10y ago

I guess I often do it internally. If someone is acting derisive towards me but still has some amount of content in their objection, I (sometimes) internally pretend that they have said only the content, minus the derisive crap, and then I respond to that. I've also noticed that sometimes when I do that, the person I'm engaging with responds more respectfully. Other times I hit back because sometimes people are jerks. I dunno. Jury's still out for me on whether I should ignore derision all the time.

mannykannot 10y ago
The introduction of derision into a discussion is often a sign of weakness.

jandrewrogers 10y ago

It is important to understand the milieu in which Crocker's Rules originated. The old Extropians mailing list was, by design, a place where even highly controversial and socially taboo subjects could be discussed and argued from positions that average people might find abhorrent if the position was carefully constructed, interesting, and grounded in rational or scientific observation. Many people found it emotionally challenging to engage on that list due to the volume of uncomfortable ideas they were exposed to. Even on that list, many topics were difficult to discuss because it triggered too many people regardless of the merits of the topic. Declaring "Crocker's Rules" was an explicit statement that you refused to be triggered and that every possible subject matter was on the table for reasoned discourse without devolving into an emotional response. The flip side of this is being open to accepting better ideas that you are not predisposed to accepting. As an aside, Lee Daniel Crocker gets credit personally for successfully challenging some long-seated political beliefs I held, by virtue of compelling argumentation.

hammock 10y ago
>It is important to understand the milieu in which Crocker's Rules originated. The old Extropians mailing list was, by design, a place where even highly controversial and socially taboo subjects could be discussed and argued from positions that average people might find abhorrent if the position was carefully constructed, interesting, and grounded in rational or scientific observation. So, can you give some examples?
- tedunangst 10y ago
  Effects of slavery as a way of organizing the economy? Everybody knows slavery is bad, end of story, which tends to cut short any analysis of its effect on internal efficiency, productivity, etc.
  - tpeo 10y ago
    Who calls "Crocker's rules"? The guy who wants to start the discussion about the economics of slavery? The guy who thinks it's viable? The guy who thinks it isn't viable and anyone who thinks so should be shot? How does it work? Furthermore, what's the point? I mean, if you're in a discussion group where there's a non-zero probability that one of it's members will pick slavery (or something else equally apalling) as a discussion issue, but group members are self-selected (which is a reasonable supposition for groups in general, and even more so for obscure mailing lists) then it's likely that all members are amoral enough for discussion purposes such that this "Crocker's rules" thing would be redundant.
    - herge 10y ago
      The article explains you can only declare Crocker's rule on yourself, and can not force it onto others who have not accepted it. A discussion will only work under Crocker's rules only if everyone consents.
      - tpeo 10y ago
        I did read the article, thank you. What I meant is that I find it unlikely that in such a group there would even be a strong moral reaction to any issue in the first place. I don't know about the extropian mailing list, but take LessWrong members, for instance. They are quite shameless about the topics they choose. And they're not much given to non-cognitive criticism either (e.g. calling someone an ass). So calling on "Crocker's rules" would be just redundant. What is the point of ignoring something that doesn't happen? Edit: On the other hand, it relies on the assumption that there's a trade-off between civility and informativeness which just might not be there.