Thank you for the work in creating Persuasion. I have put a question about the project in this comment, and would love to see an FAQ where questions could be posted.
I signed up for Persuasion for two reasons. The first is I ideologically agree with your thesis and ideology. I like to read ideas that agree with my model of the …
Thank you for the work in creating Persuasion. I have put a question about the project in this comment, and would love to see an FAQ where questions could be posted.
I signed up for Persuasion for two reasons. The first is I ideologically agree with your thesis and ideology. I like to read ideas that agree with my model of the world.
The second is more worrying. I felt I had to support the project because other similarly "liberal" publications have become first and foremost about winning the culture war. In that goal, they seem to be slowly throwing away their limiting principles, and doing and saying whatever they can to win.
You are someone who I have seen trying to thread this needle. Both holding the liberal position without throwing away values I see as fundamental to the position. I believe in you, and that has been enough of a reason for me to give my own money.
But what are your plans to allow Persuasion to maintain this position? What processes and incentives will you put in place to prevent the organization from being pulled towards "winning the culture war"? This answer may be as simple as "hire the right people", but I worry this may not be enough.
One example of a process could be asking people to sign up for longer subscription cycles. This allows people to not be able to immediately cancel when they get an emotional rush. Another could be having explicit counter argument essays, forcing people to confront the strongest positions against the liberal position (and there are many).
Yes. I love the idea of having explicit counter argument essays - perhaps comparing and contrasting in a split page format (note: the first conversation will be a debate on the original premise espoused by Yascha - which is fantastic). Another idea that would be helpful to enable accessibility and accountability is to boil down the arguments to their bare essence. So often, the plot is lost by the use of inaccessible and/or flowery language.
For example, the argument that cancel culture is not new. All that is happening is the allowable range of ideas has shifted. Now "your" ideas are moving out of the realm of acceptability, and only when you are forced out of the public sphere of institutions can you see the forces that were already there.
Not convinced but I think it is a strong argument.
Your idea of side by side is interesting. The economist did a back and forth debate format for a while, don't think it took off but a good start nether the less.
Apologies if this is against protocol but on your point re: side by side please see the Flip Side. It has a news topic du jour where they do a side by side of op ed opinions (left v right). Super helpful for quickly separating the wheat from the chaff.
On your point re: cancel culture, yes, but there’s always a wrinkle - social media enables access to an idea but it obfuscates (or amplifies) the “weight” of that opinion. How many people really believe a given idea or said differently, how much “power” is behind that idea?
Hi Yascha,
Thank you for the work in creating Persuasion. I have put a question about the project in this comment, and would love to see an FAQ where questions could be posted.
I signed up for Persuasion for two reasons. The first is I ideologically agree with your thesis and ideology. I like to read ideas that agree with my model of the world.
The second is more worrying. I felt I had to support the project because other similarly "liberal" publications have become first and foremost about winning the culture war. In that goal, they seem to be slowly throwing away their limiting principles, and doing and saying whatever they can to win.
You are someone who I have seen trying to thread this needle. Both holding the liberal position without throwing away values I see as fundamental to the position. I believe in you, and that has been enough of a reason for me to give my own money.
But what are your plans to allow Persuasion to maintain this position? What processes and incentives will you put in place to prevent the organization from being pulled towards "winning the culture war"? This answer may be as simple as "hire the right people", but I worry this may not be enough.
One example of a process could be asking people to sign up for longer subscription cycles. This allows people to not be able to immediately cancel when they get an emotional rush. Another could be having explicit counter argument essays, forcing people to confront the strongest positions against the liberal position (and there are many).
Thank you for your work,
Sam Taylor
Yes. I love the idea of having explicit counter argument essays - perhaps comparing and contrasting in a split page format (note: the first conversation will be a debate on the original premise espoused by Yascha - which is fantastic). Another idea that would be helpful to enable accessibility and accountability is to boil down the arguments to their bare essence. So often, the plot is lost by the use of inaccessible and/or flowery language.
For example, the argument that cancel culture is not new. All that is happening is the allowable range of ideas has shifted. Now "your" ideas are moving out of the realm of acceptability, and only when you are forced out of the public sphere of institutions can you see the forces that were already there.
Not convinced but I think it is a strong argument.
Your idea of side by side is interesting. The economist did a back and forth debate format for a while, don't think it took off but a good start nether the less.
Apologies if this is against protocol but on your point re: side by side please see the Flip Side. It has a news topic du jour where they do a side by side of op ed opinions (left v right). Super helpful for quickly separating the wheat from the chaff.
On your point re: cancel culture, yes, but there’s always a wrinkle - social media enables access to an idea but it obfuscates (or amplifies) the “weight” of that opinion. How many people really believe a given idea or said differently, how much “power” is behind that idea?