How to improve (online) discourse - a 10 minutes guide by Hirnstoff
This is a practically applicable quick guide on how to improve (online) discourse by Hirnstoff. It's a continuation on his previous video, in which he talks about the more theoretical background of why we fail at properly communicating (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0dsxZAgmLU).
The video postulates that (online) discourse can be improved by implementing certain principles of discussion:
1) Stating that you're open to discussion and willing to be convinced
2) Being friendly and humble
3) Focusing on the evidence
4) Encouraging yourself and others
I highly encourage you to watch the full video as it clarifies these points very comprehensibly. I think this is very useful and important advice in order to stop the ever-increasing prevalence of echo chambers and failing communication which will inevitably lead to violence. It's a grand undertaking to implement these ideals in society as a whole but as trite as it may sound it's on all of us to do our part.
The video postulates that (online) discourse can be improved by implementing certain principles of discussion:
1) Stating that you're open to discussion and willing to be convinced
2) Being friendly and humble
3) Focusing on the evidence
4) Encouraging yourself and others
I highly encourage you to watch the full video as it clarifies these points very comprehensibly. I think this is very useful and important advice in order to stop the ever-increasing prevalence of echo chambers and failing communication which will inevitably lead to violence. It's a grand undertaking to implement these ideals in society as a whole but as trite as it may sound it's on all of us to do our part.
Comments (22)
I can answer that one...
... get a Fungo bat in aluminum.
They are longer than normal bats, but swing lighter and very fast. It takes far less energy to create greater force and the smaller barrel of the bat makes the point of force more concentrated. This is how old retired guys can hit fielding practice or long fly balls for hours without getting tired.
I think I get what you're saying, but correct me if I'm wrong. If I extrapolate your statement then the solution would be to have a moderated publishing model, right? If so, the problem I see with a publishing model which is moderated is that it restricts the freedom of users. And I feel like it's less problematic to use a non-moderated publishing model and trying to appeal to the user to basically self-moderate instead of the other way round.
I think moderating would make it more effective but also more prone to exploitation
Well, this is the practically applicable follow-up video on the more theoretical video he did before.
If you don't mind me asking, what would your solution look like? Or do you think there is a solution at all? Or going even deeper, do you think there is a problem at all?
I feel like this sounds cynical but I promise you it's not, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion.
I know your heart is in the right place, but when it comes to the flat earth it is probably not the case that Larry wants to "know the truth"; Larry wants to make the truth.
If democratic inclusion and freedom for users is the priority for a site, ok, that's a choice which can be made. The price tag for that choice is mediocre to worse content.
I think many people value truth privately, but in public the ego blow from being wrong is just too much in this heavily partisan environment.
I think it comes down to what people fundamentally value. For instance it's fine if someone values racial justice, but if they place that as their top concern it's going to conflict with others who take a broader, more traditional view of justice. For example there was an article in the WSJ today about a school in Chicago which was pushing teachers to grant minority students artificially higher grades in the name of decreasing the achievement gap. Maybe this is racial justice, who knows, but it's not justice in the traditional sense.
Yes, some people cannot be argued with, but I think the majority of people actually do care quite a bit about what's true and what's not. They have to (at least on some level) because they wouldn't even survive otherwise. In the end reality always wins and will punish everyone for their incorrect description of it. Let's focus on all those people that do care about truth instead of giving up beforehand, because some people don't.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
The point of my video is not to show that flat-earthers want to know the truth. It's just an example of a radical view that can be challenged with the methods I described. Although, as I say in the video, I think that even flat-earthers care about the truth as they vehemently proclaim, that the earth is flat. If a person indeed "wants to make the truth" though and can't be swayed from this motivation, then I agree that no successful discussion can take place. But as I said, that's beside the point. I care much more about discussions with everyday people.
Thanks for posting my video! :)
It's remarkable that you think this could be considered racial justice. Offhand, to me it sounds like the school is simply doctoring the numbers to look good or meet some standard. They're cheating (the minority kids most of all), in other words.
I didn't say it was impossible to reach others with different values/views, I said your approach is fundamentally flawed in assuming that everyone values truth to the same degree.
For some reason I expected you to be a better listener and more open to the ideas of others.
I never committed myself to a position as to whether that policy would constitute racial justice. I think the concept of racial justice is a suspect one in general, but if I were to accept it as a valid goal then blatant academic favoritism is not out of the question.
In any case my broader point was more just about how difficult discussion can be when the fundamental vales of two individuals can be very much at odds.
That's what I found remarkable. But I didn't look into the case so I can't do anything but speculate.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Equal justice is generally suspect? How so?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This sounds like a strawman, but I may be misinterpreting you.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I don't think that our fundamental values differ much, actually. We just suppress or promote the values that are in accord with whatever tribe we belong to. A dedicated atheist can have a sense of the sacred, for instance, it's just that they revere something different than the theist.
Quoting praxis
Quoting praxis
I think what's happening here is that you're regarding "racial justice" as a sub-category of justice and I'm regarding the term more in its modern social usage. Racial justice in its modern usage generally refers to redressing historical wrongs through perks or advantages today that apply to only one group, e.g. reparations and affirmative action. Easier grading for minorities could easily fall into this category.
Of course I support justice, and that includes justice for everyone regardless of race, class, gender, etc.
so in that sense I obviously support "racial justice" or "social justice." But the actual meanings of these terms today are quite different from just an extension of the conception of justice.
Quoting praxis
Oh yeah I wasn't talking about you and me in particular not being able to have discussions because our fundamental values vary so much. I was talking more in a general sense. I personally find it nearly impossible to carry on fruitful discussions with strong identitarians either on the left or the right. If someone is willing to prioritize their own ethnic group before justice/fairness then I just find it impossible.
And I agree with you about how atheists can still have a sense of the sacred. I wouldn't be surprised if much of the environmentalism/conservation debates today are at its core clashing conception of the "sacred."
It sounds like you're more concerned with ideology than with extensions of the conception of justice or sub-categories of justice. If concerned with fair and equal justice, and a belief that that is a goal worth pursuing, it's easy to see how some approaches may be better than others, or that some approaches may even be corrupt. If an ideology doesn't value fair and equal justice then it may well consider the whole enterprise suspect.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I don't think that you can win over a racist with reason. Their sense of fairness has to overcome the privileges of being part of the majority, if nothing else.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Does this mean that you're a science denier?
no.
Quoting praxis
sure, but couldn't a racist be part of a minority as well? a minority could even be in power in a country as they were in south africa.
Quoting praxis
it's not about ideology, it's about the actual modern usage of the term. it's not 1960. we're not discussing whether one group ought to have the right to attend integrated public schools or be able to vote. the discussion is simply no longer about equal rights under the law.
if you want to understand the discourse today look to ibram kendi and robin diangelo, both have widely read books on the subject and routinely lecture as educator. that is where we are today with discourse. the modern issues we are discussing including affirmative action, reparations, and other concrete proposals to help narrow the achievement gap - the article i mentioned above explicitly mentioned that term and it's a common one.
the traditional conception of justice in the western world is blind - s/he doesn't care whether someone is poor or rich, what race or class they are, while this version is justice is quite visual so i see the two as categorically different. justice can apply to individuals, when it applies to entire groups it is more suspect.
So when justice applies unfairly to one group we should try to do something about that. Earlier you wrote, [i]"I support justice, and that includes justice for everyone regardless of race, class, gender, etc.
so in that sense I obviously support 'racial justice' or 'social justice.'"[/i] There's no doubt that 'racial justice' can be politicized or used as a political tool to manipulate public opinion, but then practically anything can be politicized these days, even something as simple as wearing a mask to help prevent the spread of a deadly pandemic. So I suppose that we agree in a need for ever-vigilant suspicion and support for racial justice.
here's the thing: virtually everyone values justice. if we just consider racial justice or social justice or any type of group justice a sub-category of justice then it follows that (almost) everyone supports those categories, at least in the abstract.
my main concern here is that if we're not using phrases or words how they're actually used today then we run the risk of confusing people or being out of touch with the discourse today.
it's like if someone were to me if i'm an anti-fascist, i would answer something along the lines of "in theory, yes - i am certainly not a fascist and i don't support fascism, but the anti-fascist movement as it exists today is not one that i support due to their violence and rioting against random local businesses." in other words, i think both the traditional meanings of the words but also the way they're being used in discourse today matter when addressing an issue or a concept like that.
edit: if you were to ask me if i were an anti-fascist and it were 1936 i would give an unqualified "yes."
You can’t even be bothered to capitalize letters so the inconvenience of having to explain yourself beyond three letters must truly be an outrage.
But seriously, I think that the value in the OP of this topic is in its promotion of the idea that we need to make the effort to dig beneath the surface in order to find common ground in which to connect.