People with high knowledge about math don't get into low-quality interactions about math, no matter the medium. They'll find a way to make it informative. If an interaction is not informative, it's always because one or both participants don't know their stuff.
Moderation is important, but it solves a different problem: letting people who don't know their stuff also participate and benefit without destroying everything.
To me it seems like people with a high-quality knowledge can definitely still get into low-quality interactions, even when it's about a subject they know inside and out.
Lets say we have two hypothetical mathematicians who both know more math than the average person. They are both _very_ proud about the amount of math they know. They happen to bump into each other in a discussion about $INTERESTING_THEORY (I don't know enough math to know what this would be). They each pick opposing sides in this discussion, and each become more and more nonplussed with the others opinion, eventually derailing the conversation and devolving into a flame war.
Maybe the average person is nicer/more focused on maintaining a useful conversation than I think, but I have observed this pattern to many times to think it doesn't show up. That being said, I haven't seen it very often on HN, so there's evidence for your point still.
There is a good chance that it's exactly the opposite.
Our behavior is determined by the environment, and there is not element in the environment more important that our peers.
If you take a Roman and a barbarian an exchange them, you get a new barbarian and a new Roman (because how could they survive otherwise?). And, I suspect, if you exchange the Romans and the barbarians slowly enough you will have the previous Romans behaving like barbarians and the previous barbarians like Romans.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. High-quality individuals frequently get into low-quality interactions, especially online.
People with high knowledge about math don't get into low-quality interactions about math, no matter the medium. They'll find a way to make it informative. If an interaction is not informative, it's always because one or both participants don't know their stuff.
Moderation is important, but it solves a different problem: letting people who don't know their stuff also participate and benefit without destroying everything.
IANA expert in social interactions but...
To me it seems like people with a high-quality knowledge can definitely still get into low-quality interactions, even when it's about a subject they know inside and out.
Lets say we have two hypothetical mathematicians who both know more math than the average person. They are both _very_ proud about the amount of math they know. They happen to bump into each other in a discussion about $INTERESTING_THEORY (I don't know enough math to know what this would be). They each pick opposing sides in this discussion, and each become more and more nonplussed with the others opinion, eventually derailing the conversation and devolving into a flame war.
Maybe the average person is nicer/more focused on maintaining a useful conversation than I think, but I have observed this pattern to many times to think it doesn't show up. That being said, I haven't seen it very often on HN, so there's evidence for your point still.
1 reply →
What's the basis for this claim? Perhaps the individuals you're thinking of are not as high quality as you think.
There is a good chance that it's exactly the opposite.
Our behavior is determined by the environment, and there is not element in the environment more important that our peers.
If you take a Roman and a barbarian an exchange them, you get a new barbarian and a new Roman (because how could they survive otherwise?). And, I suspect, if you exchange the Romans and the barbarians slowly enough you will have the previous Romans behaving like barbarians and the previous barbarians like Romans.