Crocker's rules
I think the idea that emotions are not information... alien? I guess. Whatever. These sorts of rules do select for certain kinds of people to have certain kinds of conversations, but I don&#x27;t buy that the actual selection effect is what is intended or claimed.<p>When intelligent people have great conversations, they are not the kind where people&#x27;s emotions are disregarded. That does not make them less efficient, in fact, considering that humans have a great deal of circuitry for empathy, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to claim the opposite: That an environment where a high level of emotional communication is processed in a constructive way is the most efficient way to convey information.<p>I don&#x27;t think this post holds up to scrutiny:<p>&gt; The underlying assumption is that rudeness is sometimes necessary for effective conveyance of information, if only to signal a lack of patience or tolerance<p>In other words, some emotions are perfectly acceptable! It&#x27;s ok to be rude, because, I guess, somehow rudeness is an emotion conducive to rational communication? Ok. Granted. Why is signaling that one is upset not also a constructive emotion? It&#x27;s not entirely spelled out but it&#x27;s easy to infer that what is really at issue here is the expectation of empathy and good faith. The implication being that empathy is an obstacle to rational discussion.<p>That&#x27;s what disregarding &quot;emotional feelings&quot; means.<p>To put it lightly, I emphatically disagree.<p>Edit: To make it clear, here is an alternative rule I think would be more productive. Crocker&#x27;s rules gets you some types of conversations with some types of people you otherwise wouldn&#x27;t get. Instead, I think one should offer to be receptive to empathetic discussion about a difficult topic. I think this gets you other kinds of conversations with other kinds of people and I think they are more useful.