My thinking on this is slightly different than @omark’s. Specifically:
Everyone commits to being vulnerable by sharing their own controversial statements. This symmetry is often not present in normal conversation, where you focus on one topic where one person might have a controversial opinion and the other does not.
It’s much higher density on iterating through controversial opinions than a normal conversation would be.
It’s a session you can sign up for where you can trust everyone is coming to the session with the same intention to grow and show vulnerability.
Everyone opts in to being exposed to controversial viewpoints. Normal conversation seldomly features such opt-ins.
Thus, you can experience expressing and hearing controversial opinions much more quickly and safely than in a normal conversation.
That’s interesting though I don’t see how the commitment mechanism could work without some arbiter to decide if the follow up statement is actually controversial How do you envision disputes along the lines of not-actually-that-controversial will be resolved?
Good question!
My thinking on this is slightly different than @omark’s. Specifically:
Everyone commits to being vulnerable by sharing their own controversial statements. This symmetry is often not present in normal conversation, where you focus on one topic where one person might have a controversial opinion and the other does not.
It’s much higher density on iterating through controversial opinions than a normal conversation would be.
It’s a session you can sign up for where you can trust everyone is coming to the session with the same intention to grow and show vulnerability.
Everyone opts in to being exposed to controversial viewpoints. Normal conversation seldomly features such opt-ins.
Thus, you can experience expressing and hearing controversial opinions much more quickly and safely than in a normal conversation.
That’s interesting though I don’t see how the commitment mechanism could work without some arbiter to decide if the follow up statement is actually controversial How do you envision disputes along the lines of not-actually-that-controversial will be resolved?