I think we agree. I can't imagine you spending time articulating an idea on someone you know will reject it. You described this here today because you expect it will either update my world model, or that of a reader. At the very least it may surface a counter arg from me that will cause you to update. In all cases, you are winning, your time is not wasted.
Therefore: if someone are spending their time arguing on things that are lose-lose, then it is 100% their fault. They made the wrong decision/investment of where they put their time & energy. The problem isn't "internet arguments", it's people making choices that they regret and then not learning from them.
As the Minnesotans say: "there's no such thing as bad weather, only unprepared people". Something like that here
ChatGPT summary:
1. Humans vary widely in reasoning capacity and incentives.
2. Attention and time are scarce resources.
3. Online ecosystems distort communication and reward hostility.
4. Therefore it is irrational to try to engage everyone in good faith debate.
5. The better strategy is to articulate ideas clearly for audiences where they can propagate.
I think we agree. I can't imagine you spending time articulating an idea on someone you know will reject it. You described this here today because you expect it will either update my world model, or that of a reader. At the very least it may surface a counter arg from me that will cause you to update. In all cases, you are winning, your time is not wasted.
Therefore: if someone are spending their time arguing on things that are lose-lose, then it is 100% their fault. They made the wrong decision/investment of where they put their time & energy. The problem isn't "internet arguments", it's people making choices that they regret and then not learning from them.
As the Minnesotans say: "there's no such thing as bad weather, only unprepared people". Something like that here