From: hal@finney.org
Date: Tue Sep 28 1999 - 09:45:28 MDT
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, <sentience@pobox.com>, writes:
> Two people operating under Crocker's Rules should be able to exchange
> visualizations in minimum time and with minimum effort, so there *is* a
> networking effect. We can hope that this mental discipline will
> eventually spread, and drive out the sick culture of "manners" and
> "politeness" based on social dominance, politics, fear of retribution,
> and the desire to avoid trouble.
The problem is that these rules introduce tremendous friction when
operating with someone who does not follow them, which is almost the
entire world. It means that you are constantly giving offense to
people, which leads to wasted time on your part as you try to correct
the misunderstanding.
It's also the case that most people will be unable to follow these
rules successfully. That is, although they may try not to take offense,
there will still be areas where they can be emotionally hurt. In a world
where communicators care nothing for the sensibilities of others, such
harm will be relatively common. They of course the recipients try not
to show it, or they even try to lie to themselves and deny their pain.
This can lead to hidden resentments or even emotional problems.
In my opinion, the best policy to follow is the maxim from computer
protocol design: be conservative in what you send and be liberal in
what you accept. That is, try not to take offense, but try not to give
offense either.
Really, this is basic common sense. I think most people will come to
adopt something similar to this as they become mature, based on problems
that arise in being excessively blunt.
Most societies have conventions of politeness which have evolved over
many generations. Given the inherent differences and incompatibilties
among people, politeness is the social lubricant that allows people to
get along with the minimum of friction. It saves wasted time in trying
to correct misunderstandings and deal with disputes and resentments.
Politeness exists for a reason, and I believe that denying it is going
to impose costs which could have been avoided.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:19 MST