I think your argument is reasonable from a logical perspective, and I would generally make a similar argument as I would find the template quite persuasive.
However, I, again, feel you're improperly pushing shapes into the shape-board again. Of course, understanding cognitive bias is a fantastic tool to improve human behavior from an engineering perspective, and your argumentum ad numerum is sound.
That being said, you're focusing too much on what my emotional motivation might be rather than looking at the system - do you really think there isn't an element of that dynamic I outlined in an interaction like this? Of course there is.
Anyhow, you know, I don't have the terminology in my back-pocket, but there's definitely a large blind-spot when someone is ignoring the spirit of intellectual curiosity in a positive light rather than a negative one.
In this case, don't you think a tool like mild negative social feedback might be a useful mechanism? Of course, there's a limit, and if such a person were incapable of further insight, they'd probably not be very useful conversants. That's obviously not happening here.
One final thing is relevant here - you just hit on a pretty important point. There is a grit to a certain type of discourse that is actually superior to this discourse, I'd happily accept that point. Why not just transfer the burden of moderation to that point, rather than what you perceive to be the outset? Surely, you'll greatly reduce your number of false positives.
I provide negative social feedback sometimes because I feel it's appropriate. In the future, I probably won't. That being said, it's obvious that I've never sparked a thoughtless brawl, so the tolerance is at least inappropriately adjusted sufficiently to that extent.
However, I, again, feel you're improperly pushing shapes into the shape-board again. Of course, understanding cognitive bias is a fantastic tool to improve human behavior from an engineering perspective, and your argumentum ad numerum is sound.
That being said, you're focusing too much on what my emotional motivation might be rather than looking at the system - do you really think there isn't an element of that dynamic I outlined in an interaction like this? Of course there is.
Anyhow, you know, I don't have the terminology in my back-pocket, but there's definitely a large blind-spot when someone is ignoring the spirit of intellectual curiosity in a positive light rather than a negative one.
In this case, don't you think a tool like mild negative social feedback might be a useful mechanism? Of course, there's a limit, and if such a person were incapable of further insight, they'd probably not be very useful conversants. That's obviously not happening here.
One final thing is relevant here - you just hit on a pretty important point. There is a grit to a certain type of discourse that is actually superior to this discourse, I'd happily accept that point. Why not just transfer the burden of moderation to that point, rather than what you perceive to be the outset? Surely, you'll greatly reduce your number of false positives.
I provide negative social feedback sometimes because I feel it's appropriate. In the future, I probably won't. That being said, it's obvious that I've never sparked a thoughtless brawl, so the tolerance is at least inappropriately adjusted sufficiently to that extent.