> Hal Finney
>I realize that this is pretty fuzzy in terms of specific
>prescriptions for action in the real world. I don't claim to have a
>fully fleshed out philosophy here; these are ideas which I am
>exploring and offering for consideration. It has long seemed to me
>that the traditional mode of discourse, argument and rebuttal, is not
>very successful. I believe we have seen mostly failures in our own
>debates here. We are much more successful when we are working
>cooperatively, brainstorming together, bouncing ideas off one
>another. I would like to see us find a way to bring this kind of
>approach into a larger arena.
Yes; I'm lacking specifics for prescriptions and a seamless
perspective as well; I think that many of us are. And we know that
in every moment the singularity comes a little closer and we are not
prepared.
Something needs to be done, clearly. But I'm not entirely sure if
there is a fatal problem in the structure of traditional debate. The
problem probably lies in the medium or in the channels by which
debates may be productive. I suspect that our debates often fail,
drag on, or go in circles because there is little structure to them.
Greater structure in debates and general organization of resources
would serve to bind the community as one with common purposes; along
the way it would probably accomplish some of the things that people
might expect of the near-nascent transhumanist/Extropian political or
media spinoffs.
You cannot expect a method to work if it is not properly applied.
Political debates, for a timely example, operate within the realm of
established political power structures and therefore accomplish very
little or nothing. But even entirely earnest debates---such as those
on this list---can easily fail for any number of reasons. This list
lacks the features of a formal journal or academic community which are
supposed to maintain coherence, context, and quality in discourse.
Lee Daniel Crocker offered back in September a prescription for useful
debate, which didn't seem to attract much attention despite the fact
that it was one of the few recent explicit statements of the sort.
(And despite the fact that it was in response to a call for formal
debate.) During the recent "patents" discussion Robin remarked:
"Behold, the great cycle of email, where the only way to kill one
flamefest favorite (qualia), is to introduce another (e.g., patents)."
"Flamefesting" is clearly not intrinsic to the nature of debate.
I'll try to informally name a few problems, expressed in negative
terms, from which extended discussions on this list may suffer.
- Lack of topic statements
In order to know what one is discussing one must have a
clear statement of the contention. Often an observation
or question becomes a major point of debate but is too
monolithic or ill-defined for precise discussion.
- Lack of position statements
It can be difficult to know who, exactly, thinks what when
everyone is posting and crossposting to different messages.
Not only is this inconvenient, it results in redundant
postings, difficulty in seeing how many different positions
are represented, and poor goal orientation (see).
- Lack of exterior context
Topics, points of argument, and positions should include
adequate reference to and understanding of developments
in the rest of the world. The Extropy list is obviously
not the first place that things get discussed; it serves
no purpose to duplicate arguments already held in public
forums. If posters are unfamiliar with previous work
references and summaries can be offered.
- Lack of goal orientation
Some of our debates should have some concrete results.
Papers are published in journals to make knowledge
available for further research. There doesn't seem to
be many noticeable effects of many of the discussions
here even when the participants are clearly begging for
them. Part of the reason for the recent expression of
desire for greater public exposure, I think, is that our
interaction, which we all enjoy and which has great
potential, often does not result in action. Bouncing
ideas around is very important. Bouncing ideas around,
bouncing them so that they don't get stuck on the roof,
and throwing them purposefully at the target is better.
- Lack of topic management
Topics can shift within messages; digressions can take over
discussions---it is important to maintain focus on the main
points of contention. I love digressions but they do not
always serve the goals of a debate.
- Lack of thread management
When topics do change (in general) the subject lines of
posts should change. As Eliezer puts it in a specification
for a mailing list, "One of the things I really hated about
the Extropians list was missing some great discussion of tech
because it grew out of "VEGI: Should turnips be illegal?""
In addition, subject lines are not always maintained
exactly as originally written. Large and small variations
sneak in so that posts with common origins get listed
separately in the archives. It helps to spell the subject
properly at least so those variations don't have to be
corrections.
- Lack of message text formatting
A lot of general netiquette falls in this category: 80-
character or less formatting of text; unambiguous
attributions; minimal quotation of previous messages;
minimal or no nested quotations or attributions; et cetera.
- Lack of moderation and review
Boards of competent moderators and reviewers are certainly
fallible. We must assume, however, that individual
posters are more so. Most or all of the above deficiencies
could be ameliorated by application of some sort of rule-
based structure and moderation.
List members could endeavor to modify their strategies; other locations
(_The Transhumanist_, _The Journal of Transhumanism_, et cetera and,
of course, new publications and sites) could act not just as forums for
discussion but as centers for transhumanist ideas, news, and information
in general.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:05 MDT