It isn't the assumption, it's what you do with it. I recently finished Max Tegmark's "Our Mathematical Universe" which is basically a cosmologist's attempt at the ultimate theory of Life, the Universe and Everything (or, at the very least, a philosophical discussion thereof underpinned by math and cosmology). One of the interesting points he makes is that "reality" is not only subjective, but there are, for practical purposes, three kinds: - Physical reality (that which would be, regardless of whether there's anyone to observe it) - Consensus reality (a collective, agreed-upon interpretation of physical reality) - Internal reality (an individual's perception of the universe as it appears only to them) Within that framework, you can't help but make assumptions. "Making assumptions" is the only way to create an internal reality - "I cannot see through the table, therefore I assume it is solid." "Ramona is consistently rude to me, therefore I assume she's a bitch." The tricky part is in wedding your internal reality with the consensus reality. That's where it goes off the rails. This is where "people skills" come in. At some point, you're going to need to broach the subject with that other person that you've assumed they're a white male between 18 and 25 that doesn't date much. "People skills" are necessary to test your assumptions and revise them so that your internal reality better matches consensus reality. The problem with The Internet is You Are Always Right. When the other side of the argument is an abstraction, lending it credo takes a heapin' helpin' of humility. If you aren't practiced at it, discarding a hypothesis is a dreadful chore. If you aren't zealously willing to be wrong, amending your perceptions is a painful process. Forming opinions? Easiest thing in the world. Reforming opinions? You have to practice at it. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself; I am large, I contain multitudes." - Walt Whitman One has to have been consistently right for a boring amount of time before being wrong is a reward. If you're clever, though, you discover that being wrong is perhaps the best possible way to learn something. The trick is being wrong without being a dick about it - something that I struggle with.
At least you admit it, though. There's a lot of people who won't.The trick is being wrong without being a dick about it - something that I struggle with.
Internet communication teaches you how to be a dick. I'm a real good learner. I'm spectacular at being a dick. What we all need to learn - myself most of all - is that the gains from being a dick are rarely worth it. This, more than anything, is what's wrong with Reddit and what's right with Hubski. Being a dick on Reddit is rewarded to a stupendous degree. There have been exactly zero cultural or UI innovations designed to curtail that. Hubski, on the other hand, seems to care a lot, culturally speaking, about civility. "And I am more than willing to be a dick to ensure that trend continues," he said, depressingly aware of the irony.
If I understand you correctly, it means that we can therefore assume (maybe even as a consensus reality) that civility is a design choice as much as a cultural choice. By designing the site around its users as much as its content, I think hubski facilitates and encourages civil behaviour instead of expecting civil behaviour to occur by itself. That is the reason that there can be good subreddits, but by default they aren't, because you need both a strong community and a way to create and maintain a civil community.
This right here is perhaps the most important thread in this entire discussion. Everything else boils down to "how do you remember your manners?" and the answers, as varied and creative as they are, boil down to "more or less successfully" with interludes of "but I always try harder." Here's the crux of it: civility is a design choice as much as a cultural choice. More than that, the two are interrelated. Structure can emphasize civility and denigrate hostility, or it can reward "entertainment." So this statement: Has the distinct problem of presuming that it would be possible to create a civil community on a borderless site where flamboyance is rewarded and nonconformity is punished. Haven't shown this off in years - wanna see my first "big" comment on Reddit? Bam. That's me, talking shit to a spammer. And everyone else piling on. Got the entire domain banned - not bloody bad, eh? Problem is, there's nothing remotely civil about any part of that discussion. Nothing. No aspect of it. But it's a funny beatdown, and it feels really good when you read it. The problem with Reddit is everyone is "tom" to someone else. "upvotes" and "downvotes" are every bit as civilizing as Nero's Thumb at the Colosseum. There's no compassion, there's no consideration, there's just a binary affinity gage - positive or negative. Combine that with two interesting factoids: - 80% of the participants don't vote at all, so the gage is dominated by outliers - You react to criticism between three and twelve times as strongly as praise. Think about that - if you want to create a healthy community, your "upvote" should have between three and twelve times as much weight as your "downvote." Your "mad props" comments should be between three and twelve times as much weight as your "fuck you tom"s. Have you ever seen a "mad props" comment that's even in the same zipcode as that "fuck you tom?" I have, but it didn't come easy. There's really only one solution: a site that only rewards positivity. It's not possible to accomplish it 100% (my beatdowns of Ramona being heavily "hubbed" or whatever are proof of that) but if you don't make a conscious effort to reward positivity and discourage negativity, you're going to end up with rage and kittens. The steady state of Reddit is "shit to be angry about" and "completely inoffensive things." And that's why, no matter how hard individual subreddits try (and I'm a part of several that try really.fucking.hard), they will always be swimming against the tide of design.there can be good subreddits, but by default they aren't, because you need both a strong community and a way to create and maintain a civil community.
This more than anything else disappointed me. Other than the fact that it was a conversation that was instigated on someone else's post and derailed it, I thought the whole thing should've played out without any spectators. No point to it. Seemed like the sort of thing that happens on reddit, not hubski. I didn't bother to read any of it. I got about as far as him/her calling you sexist, which you aren't, and figured the rest wouldn't make anyone any happier.(my beatdowns of Ramona being heavily "hubbed" or whatever are proof of that)
We sort of do. It just also happens to be the 'meh' function. NOT circle-dotting something though still isn't the functional equivalent of a downvote. (Sorry for continuing the reddit analogy) Edit to include I had a better way of stating it. On Hubski, you can only be for something. You cannot be against something.
You can be against something with thoughtful argument (but that takes thought and argument, intelligence, research and patience), with irony (which is often misunderstood), and tongue-in-cheekiness (which is frequently taken literally). You can also be against something by ignoring it. veen's statement, reinforced by kleinbl00 (who weirdly enhanced my dreams all night): This would be another great slogan: civility is a design choice as much as a cultural choice
is intriguing and as true for web design as it is for urban design.Hubski: Where civility is a design choice
I would alter it to: Hubski. Civility by design. Maybe it's dwelling on definitions, but I much prefer motto or philosophy over slogan. Slogan seems to me like something a marketingteam has to add afterwards, while a philosophy is a guiding principle on which new decisions can be based.
You just did. And it's totally not tomorrow yet!
As you can imagine, we put a lot of time and thought in to the "motto" for Hubski (I too dislike the term slogan). At first I had wanted to have it read: Hubski -are you thoughtful? Because I wanted people to feel challenged by it. I wanted to let people know that there was an expectation. mk wisely, and strongly disagreed and preferred "a thoughtful web" which is what is there next to "Hubski" when you are logged out. I like "Hubski -Civility by design" and hope the site can continue to live up to such a lofty philosophy.
I agree with mk, I much prefer 'a thoughtful web' because the other one sounds almost threatening: are you even thoughtful?!!?! A true motto has to be in Latin, so if I translated it correctly (my Latin is rough) it should be in civilitate consilium, which can mean both civility through design as civility through wisdom (consilium can mean both plan, wisdom as judgement.
thenewgreen: While that's true, we actually put most of the time and thought into after the fact. I put up "a thoughtful web" with only a little consideration. Over time we have asked ourselves whether or not we should say something different, if anything at all. We keep coming back to it. I like that it works on more than one level, and that it begs interpretation. I don't view Hubski users as customers, and I don't intend to encourage that kind of relationship unnecessarily. There is no doubt that we are providing a kind of service here with the site, but I want to create a new space, and I don't see why at the same time we can't carve out a little bit of new space in an economic sense as well. In fact, the latter might be necessary if we are to succeed at the first. On a somewhat related tangent, I find it bizarre how in this day, companies will relate to their customers in ways that their customers wouldn't dare relate to each other. Take radio advertisements, for example. By and large (at least in the US) radio advertisements often employ a sense of humor that only a genuine idiot might appreciate. They are loud, obnoxious, and not funny. A terribly offensive and degrading interaction has become normalized in radio advertising simply because it works. I never want to start talking about you all behind closed doors as if you were somehow different than me. The day that we start doing that is the day that Hubski starts to die. The site might grow as a result, but Hubski will wither and die.As you can imagine, we put a lot of time and thought in to the "motto" for Hubski (I too dislike the term slogan).
This is certainly true of larger, syndicated radio stations. It's appealing to the lowest common denominator and taking the easiest route to a quick dollar. Plus, if you're the radio station or underwriter it's easier to sell. Most of the ads run on those kind of radio stations aren't exactly high-brow businesses anyway. I actually have a decent amount of experience with creating, marketing, and running radio advertisements and have been fortunate enough to do so through a college-station in a mid-sized market. We avoid advertisements like you have described at all costs.By and large (at least in the US) radio advertisements often employ a sense of humor that only a genuine idiot might appreciate.
I don't see the users of Hubski as customers and I'll also never see them as a product. While that's true, we actually put most of the time and thought into after the fact.
-True, true. I recall a list of words/phrases put together only to return to what was already there. I never want to start talking about you all behind closed doors as if you were somehow different than me
-I agree, I am first and foremost a hubskier. It would be a very sad thing if I felt otherwise. I think it was flagamuffin that recently said that he approaches each conversation on Hubski as if the other person likely knows more about the topic than he does. I too take this approach and I extend it to the understanding of the site itself. This place is special to me because of the collection of people that use it. For this reason, I think the hubski logo is perfect, I see the smaller dots as individuals and the larger one as the collective. at the same time we can't carve out a little bit of new space in an economic sense as well. In fact, the latter might be necessary if we are to succeed at the first.
I'd like to hear more about these new ideas.
That's just it, though - from a perspective of civility and discourse, "meh" is very much not the same thing as "disapproval." And to be clear, that's something that definitely shouldn't change. The fact that me and Ramona's dust-up has pretty much been the big event for the past week emphasizes that people really aren't comfortable with flame wars, no matter how civilly they're conducted. The lack of "disapproval buttons" has required, like, five different people to weigh in with thoughtful discourses about the problem. Curious to see how it pencils out as the community gets larger. This sort of thing only works up to a point... but in my opinion, works hella better than a downvote button.
It's nice to revisit this thread. Thanks insomniasexx for including it in the July 2015 newsletter. This comment and the one above by kb may have (along with many other contributions) profoundly deepened my appreciation for kb. The description of how hard it is to let go of our assumptions and to be willing to re-form our opinions is so relevant to some curriculum I'm writing right now, that I'm going to lift this right off the hub and insert it in my coursebook somewhere. Brilliant and gratefully received. thx again kb.
This hits pretty hard. I recently joined a Martial Arts class and before it even starts I'm looking at the fellow students with harsh internal judgments and assumptions. I can list what was going through my head, but I feel as if it's better for me to just state it as is and have you fill my shoes. I was skeptical of joining too with the scary thought I'd be become what I have judged and assumed. You just need to find a way to let go.