Difference between revisions of "Crocker's rules"

From Lesswrongwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Crocker's Rules''', named after [[Lee Daniel Crocker]], are a rationality-enhancing technique.
+
'''Crocker's Rules''', named after [[wikipedia:Lee Daniel Crocker]], are a rationality-enhancing technique.
  
 
By declaring commitment to Crocker's Rules, one authorizes other debaters to [[optimization|optimize]] their messages for information, even when this entails that emotional feelings will be disregarded.  The underlying assumption is that rudeness is sometimes necessary for effective conveyance of information, if only to [[signaling|signal]] a lack of patience or tolerance: after all, knowing whether the speaker is becoming angry or despondent is useful [[Bayesian evidence]].
 
By declaring commitment to Crocker's Rules, one authorizes other debaters to [[optimization|optimize]] their messages for information, even when this entails that emotional feelings will be disregarded.  The underlying assumption is that rudeness is sometimes necessary for effective conveyance of information, if only to [[signaling|signal]] a lack of patience or tolerance: after all, knowing whether the speaker is becoming angry or despondent is useful [[Bayesian evidence]].

Revision as of 05:28, 18 July 2009

Crocker's Rules, named after wikipedia:Lee Daniel Crocker, are a rationality-enhancing technique.

By declaring commitment to Crocker's Rules, one authorizes other debaters to optimize their messages for information, even when this entails that emotional feelings will be disregarded. The underlying assumption is that rudeness is sometimes necessary for effective conveyance of information, if only to signal a lack of patience or tolerance: after all, knowing whether the speaker is becoming angry or despondent is useful Bayesian evidence.

Thus, one who has committed to these rules largely gives up the right to complain about emotional provocation, flaming, abuse and other violations of etiquette in the interest of effective debate.