🧠 **认知风险与信息筛选的困境**：文章指出，现代社会充斥着大量信息，其中许多观点可能缺乏原创性或有益性。作者认为，“说服性言论”可能是一种生物性适应，旨在帮助个体获取更多资源，而非纯粹的理性交流。这使得个体在信息筛选时面临挑战，需要警惕潜在的认知风险。

🛡️ **谨慎传播与言论自由的平衡**：作者建议，虽然应审慎考虑传播可能带来负面认知影响的信息，但同时也要避免过度限制言论自由。文章认为，一个能够容纳复杂、甚至“令人不适”的思想的平台，对于培养原创性思维和认知实验能力至关重要。过度的管制反而会削弱平台的根本价值。

💡 **原创性思维与平台价值**：文章核心观点之一是，原创性思考可能具有内在价值，而通过接触复杂议题来培养这种能力也同样重要。该平台旨在支持这种认知实验，并允许其探索至各种结论。因此，将言论限制在“对任何人都是安全的”水平，将违背平台的初衷和核心价值。

Published on October 9, 2025 4:19 PM GMT

Epistemics: I'm experimenting with "snippets" that are low now-effort material from the deep past. Maybe ancient comments? Maybe things I wrote with myself as an audience and was kind of embarrassed to post anywhere but didn't want to throw away? This is the former, written in a specific era, for a specific audience, with specific feelings and questions authentically expressed, and a Gricean response offered in good faith. Shorn of such context, maybe it is bad?

Arguably, most thoughts that most humans have are either original or good but not both. People seriously attempting to have good, original, pragmatically relevant thoughts about nearly any topic normally just shoot themselves in the foot. This has been discussed ad nauseum.

This place is not good for cognitive children, and indeed it MIGHT not be good for ANYONE! It could be that "speech to persuade" is simply a cultural and biological adaptation of the brain which primarily exists to allow people to trick other people into giving them more resources, and the rest is just a spandrel at best.

It is admirable that you have restrained yourself from spreading links to this website to people you care about and you should continue this practice in the future. One experiment per family is probably more than enough.

--

HOWEVER, also, you should not try to regulate speech here so that it is safe for dumb people without the ability to calculate probabilities, detect irony, doubt things they read, or otherwise tolerate cognitive "ickiness" that may adhere to various ideas not normally explored or taught.

There is a possibility that original thinking is valuable, and it is possible that developing the capacity for such thinking through the consideration of complex topics is also valuable. This site presupposes the value of such cognitive experimentation, and then follows that impulse to whatever conclusions it leads to.

Regulating speech here to a level so low as to be "safe for anyone to be exposed to" would basically defeat the point of the site.