Paternal Formats

I like the distinction but I wont support the choice of names for a second. You've said that you're not making a value judgement, but in action, you are imposing one. You can't use that word.

I think a better word for the "coercive" end of the continuum is "paternal". This has some of the negative connotation, but only in the right ways, sometimes paternalism is obnoxious, but we need to learn that there are also times when paternalism is appropriate.

(A lot of people think coercion is inherently bad in all situations, and they're right. A lot of people also think paternalism is inherenly bad in all situations, but they're wrong.)

A teacher should always be paternal. We should be as uncomfortable with that as we are uncomfortable with the idea of schools. A little bit uncomfortable. Not too much.

The other end of the continuum seems harder to name, but coining the word "unpaternal" can't do any harm. "Navigable" maybe.

I observe that the distinction seems to be mostly about how well the author understands what the reader needs to read. If the author understands much better than the reader, the civically appropriate format will always be paternalistic. The unit of media unpaternalism seems to be consumption-decisions per second.

This name seems unnecessarily intrinsically prejudicial. Perhaps 'legible' vs 'illegible' would be better, or use McLuhan's 'hot' vs 'cool' mediums.

I think this would be improved by a short paragraph (or less) explaining what "coercive" means in this context. (I made a guess after glancing at the bullet-lists, and then looked at the linked document; my guess was not correct.)

Promoted to curated: This is a short post that gets to the point very quickly, but with a pretty important distinction that I've referenced a few times since then. I also particularly appreciated the change of naming as a response to comments and agree with the new choice of words quite a bit.

Great post by the way.

a wiki-style format, where prerequisite concepts are obsessively hyperlinked, works fine.

Uncoercive formats can create a tendency for attention to jump all over the place and not spend enough time on any one topic.

There's a concept here (possible what the OP meant by "coercive") which I might call "structure". One of the downsides to wikis (or parts of wikis) is, what if you wanted to read them? Is there a good order? Usually*, no. This limits their usefulness. Wikipedia is like someone who didn't know what a textbook was, reinvented it badly - pages everywhere, connected by string in random places where one page's title is mentioned on another page. The fact that you can only (maybe) find something if you know you're looking for it, and exactly what it's called limits one of the most useful aspects of books of knowledge - the chance to learn things you don't already know.

The Sequences are unusual in this regard (there's an order!) which is why I've read them. (One of the downsides of the medium was that I didn't initially realize that. If I read a physical copy of Lord of The Rings, I'd know I finished it.)

*I'm not aware of any counter-examples.

Minor errata:

in a manner heavily bias[ed] toward

I've been experimenting a bit with using vimwiki: https://github.com/vimwiki/vimwiki

This topic (affordance/encoding) is one of the universal entry points to systemization of fully general agency.

I feel like the more paternal a format gets, the more it allows for various and complex articulations between individual elements. In order of growing expressivity :

• bullet list/hyperlink : elements all share the same relation
• blueprint/diagram/chart : allows to display multiple types of relations between elements, but each must be separately defined in the key
• story/video : allows the full use of language's power to articulate the elements

I'd choose my format based on that.

Based on the discussions below, it seems clear to me that there are (at least) two continuous dimensions of legibility and coercion, which are often related but conceptually distinct. I think they are positively correlated in most good writing, so they are easily conflated, but clarifying them seems useful.

The first is Legible <--> Illegible, in Venkatesh Rao's terms, as others suggested. This is typically the same as serial-access vs random-access, but has more to do with structure; trees are highly legible, but may not require a particular order. Rough notes from a lecture are illegible (even if they are typed, rather than hand-written,) but usually need to be read in order.

Coercive <--> Non-coercive, mostly in the negative sense people disliked. Most of the time, the level of coercion is fairly low even in what we think of as coercive writing. For example, any writing that pushes a conclusion is attempting to change your mind, hence it is coercive. Structures that review or present evidence are non-coercive.

I think it takes effort to make something legible but non-coercive, and it is either very high effort OR badly structured when they are illegible and non-coercive. And since I've brought up Venkatesh Rao and mentioned two dimensions, I believe I'm morally required to construct a 2x2. I can't upload a drawing in a comment, but I will "take two spectra (or watersheds) relevant to a complex issue, simplify each down to a black/white dichotomy, and label the four quadrants you produce." Given his advice, I'll use a "glossary of example “types” to illustrate diversity and differentiation within the soup of ambiguity."

Paternalistic non-fiction writing is legible but coercive; it assumes it knows best, but allows navigation. The sequences are a good example, well structured textbooks are often a better example. Note that being correct doesn't change the level of coercion! There are plenty of coercive anti-evolution/religious biology "textbooks," but the ones that are teaching actual science are no less coercive.

Unstructured Wikis are illegible and non-coercive; the structure isn't intended to make a point or convince you, but they are also unstructured and makes no effort to present things logically or clearly on a higher level. (Individual articles can be more or less structured or coercive, but the wiki format is not.)

Blueprints, and Diagrams, are legible but non-coercive, since by their structure they only present information, rather than leading to a conclusion. Novels and other fiction are (usually) legible, but are often non-coercive. Sometimes there is an element of coercion, as in fables, Lord of the Flies, HP:MoR, and everything CS Lewis ever wrote - but the main goal is (or should be) to be immersive or entertaining rather than coercive or instructive.

Conversations, and almost any multi-person Forum (including most lesswrong writing) are coercive and illegible. Tl;drs are usually somewhat illegible as well. The structure of conversation is hard to understand, there are posts and comments that are relevant that aren't clearly structured. At the same time, everyone is trying to push their reasoning.