Review
This is a linkpost for https://homosabiens.substack.com/p/thresholding
Review
Thresholding
5Screwtape
1Alex Vermillion
2Screwtape
4Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
New Comment
This post gave me hands down the most useful new mental handle I've picked up in the last three years.
Now, I should qualify that. My role involves a lot of community management, where Thresholding is applicable. It's not a general rationality technique. I also think Thresholding is kind of a 201 or 301 level idea so to speak; it's not the first thing I'd tell someone about. (Although, if I imagine actually teaching a semester long 101 Community Management or Conflict Management class, it might make the cut?) It's pretty plausible to me that there were other ways my last three years could have gone where Thresholding wasn't the problem that kept coming up, again and again, and so I'd look at this handle and go "huh, seems fine I guess but not important" or even "do people really do that?"
Given the way my three years actually went though, I think it makes accurate claims, and having the word is really useful in how I think and act. If I had the option to send a copy of Thresholding back in time to myself on January 1st, 2023, along with assurance from my future self that it was important no seriously. . . well, obviously not the best use of a time machine. But that would obviously have been advice worth at least ~$500 USD to me.
I'm not arguing it's worth that much to everyone; again, I have some vocational applications. But even if you don't handle community complaints, you live among other people, and some of those people are going to butt up against the thresholds of the rules, and I claim this will help you react more sensibly to that. I'll further claim that, given the kinds of people who hang out around LessWrong, the Thresholding concept is unusually useful for the blind spots we have. We like to have explicit rules, and we pride ourselves on being principled and holding to exactly what we said. But man, that doesn't stop incessant 2.9ing from being a problem. It's also a concept that gains from more people having the word in their vocabulary.
I want this thing in the Best Of LessWrong collection, because I want more people to read it and recognize it when it happens. Mostly, I really want past!me to have read it, and the next best thing I have is telling folks like me about it.
I really like the concept and agree that a lot of Rationalist-community folks are walking around without it. I also think the concept is likely to be mishandled by a lot of people and to really make a mess of community dynamics because of how the current presentation isn't paired with any helpful tips at how to use it.
I've seen this play out a couple times since the post's publication:
- Alice bumps into Bob while walking past.
- Bob, who dislikes Alice, says "Ouch!" and makes a big fuss.
- Bob tells the Meetup Organizer about this.
- Alice says she just accidentally bumped into Bob and it's not a big deal.
- Bob tells the Meetup Organizer that, sure, it's not a big deal, but Alice bumped into him 2 months ago as well, and she's just Thresholding, which means Doing Bad Things But Not Often Enough To Be A Big Deal, so even if it's not a big deal, we should make it one, and punish Alice.
- The Meetup Organizer, who has always had a hard time with social situations, feels very proud to get a chance to apply their new Thresholding skill, and Alice gets in trouble.
The concept of Thresholding is really useful: it lets you stop doing rules lawyering and start using common sense. However, the people who need to learn about Thresholding do not have social common sense, and can often apply the idea in a very rigid way, making things even more exploitable for bad actors.
I do not have a good enough view of the whole of the community to know whether this second-order effect is small enough that the first-order effect is a good purchase at this price, and I really really liked Duncan's essay, but I'm reluctant to promote the essay further for this reason.
This sure does seem like a failure mode someone could make after reading Thresholding.
Cards on the table, I think I've got one of the better views on the whole of the community, I do actually think in-person ACX meetups on average are too open, and if I had only one dial that said "trust more" or "trust less" I'd turn it about 5% towards "trust less." Not 20%, or even 10%! We can be more precise than one big dial, and should use that precision.
I don't know what to do about the general case where there's a good tool, properly integrating that tool makes you more effective overall, but learning and starting to use that tool is likely going to lead to some mistakes, and also it's hard to get good practice in to smooth those out.
For Thresholding in particular, the addendum I'd make is to just start counting at lower thresholds, make small nudges earlier, and be comfortable counting higher? Like, write down the 2.9, give a quick and light "aww, I'd rather you did better" with no other comment, and patiently wait until the number of 2.9s smacks you over the head?
Basically, you make a reasonable point, it's going to be hard to measure the places where this improves vs makes things worse, but I still think it's on net worth circulating the concept.
Guess who has written extensively about the general case of this failure mode of new conceptual handles 😅
1Curated and popular this week
(This is a linkpost for Duncan Sabien's article "Thresholding" which was published July 6th, 2024. I (Screwtape) am crossposting a linkpost version because I want to nominate it for the Best of LW 2024 review - I'm not the original author.)
If I were in some group or subculture and I wanted to do as much damage as possible, I wouldn’t create some singular, massive disaster.
Instead, I would launch a threshold attack.
I would do something objectionable, but technically defensible, such that I wouldn’t be called out for it (and would win or be exonerated if I were called out for it). Then, after the hubbub had died down, I would do it again. Then maybe I would try something that’s straightforwardly shitty, but in a low-grade, not-worth-the-effort-it-would-take-to-complain-about-it sort of way. Then I’d give it a couple of weeks to let the memory fade, and come back with something that is across the line, but where I could convincingly argue ignorance, or that I had been provoked, or that I honestly thought it was fine because look, that person did the exact same thing and no one objected to them, what gives?
Maybe there’d be a time where I did something that was clearly objectionable, but pretty small, actually—the sort of thing that would be the equivalent of a five-minute time-out, if it happened in kindergarten—and then I would fight tooth-and-nail for weeks, exhausting every avenue of appeal, dragging every single person around me into the debate, forcing people to pick sides, forcing people to explain and clarify and specify every aspect of their position down to the tiniest detail, inflating the cost of enforcement beyond all reason.
Then I’d behave for a while, and only after things had been smooth for months would I make some other minor dick move, and when someone else snapped and said “all right, that’s it, that’s the last straw—let’s get rid of this guy,” I’d object that hey, what the fuck, you guys keep trying to blame me for all sorts of shit and I’ve been exonerated basically every time, sure there was that one time where it really was my fault but I apologized for that one, are you really going to try to play like I am some constant troublemaker just because I slipped up once?
And if I won that fight, then the next time I was going to push it, maybe I’d start out by being like “btw don’t forget, some of the shittier people around here try to scapegoat me; don’t be surprised if they start getting super unreasonable because of what I’m about to say/do.”
And each time, I’d be sure to target different people, and some people I would never target at all, so that there would be maximum confusion between different people’s very different experiences of me, and it would be maximally difficult to form clear common knowledge of what was going on. And the end result would be a string of low-grade erosive acts that, in the aggregate, are far, far, far more damaging than if I’d caused one single terrible incident.
This is thresholding, and it’s a class of behavior that most rule systems (both formal and informal) are really ill-equipped to handle. I’d like for this essay to help you better recognize thresholding when it’s happening, and give you the tools to communicate what you’re seeing to others, such that you can actually succeed at coordinating against it.
I.
There are at least three major kinds of damage done by this sort of pattern. . .
(crossposter note: the rest is at https://homosabiens.substack.com/p/thresholding.)