The post attempts to point out the important gap between fighting over norms/values and getting on the same page about what people’s norms/values even are, and offers a linguistic tool to help readers navigate it in their life.
A lot of (the first half of) the post feels like An Intuitive Introduction to Being Pro Conversation Before Fighting, and it’s all great reading.
I think the OP wants to see people really have conversation about these important differences in values, and is excited about that. Duncan believes that this phrase is a key step allowing (certainly Duncan) to have these conversations, and I am happy that this seems accurate for some number of people.
There are many perspectives on why people avoid having conversations about value differences. Scott has written a lot trying to encourage people to have actual conversation about values differences, such as Guided By the Beauty of Our Weapons and Fundamental Values Differences Are Not That Fundamental. I think often there are forces that try to delegitimize honest talk about values differences in favor of just punishing those that don’t share their values, in an attempt to gain power. I think it’s also the case that many people have a kind of learned helplessness of values talk – they’re scared because they expect those forces are out to get them, and that phrases that attempt to move the conversation there are just scary.
The post doesn’t address this much, and in that regard it feels a touch naive to me. That said, I think we can build our own small, walled garden here and have trust in each other to have real conversations. And for that purpose, this sort of “laying out the basics and offering a linguistic tool” has a lot in common with how much of the sequences provided value.
I haven’t ever used the phrase myself. One way to update on that would be “this is evidence that it’s not the right phrase”, but on reflection I feel more like “I regret not doing so and would like to make an explicit effort to try using it 3 times”.
I think overall it’s very clear and is valuable as a post for many to read. I expect to vote for it with somewhere between +2 and +4.
I think if it’s included it would probably be good to include some of the comment section which was also good.
--
P.S. For me, while I liked the post, I didn’t really get the phrase until I saw it being used in the wild a bunch of times. I think I would’ve grokked the phrase sooner if there was a concise instance early on of how both sides of the conversation go. For example, I think (?) that in most interactions, it’s good for both people to use the phrase in my culture and explain what norms they think are right, and then decide which norms they’re going to coordinate on together.
The post attempts to point out the important gap between fighting over norms/values and getting on the same page about what people’s norms/values even are, and offers a linguistic tool to help readers navigate it in their life.
A lot of (the first half of) the post feels like An Intuitive Introduction to Being Pro Conversation Before Fighting, and it’s all great reading.
I think the OP wants to see people really have conversation about these important differences in values, and is excited about that. Duncan believes that this phrase is a key step allowing (certainly Duncan) to have these conversations, and I am happy that this seems accurate for some number of people.
There are many perspectives on why people avoid having conversations about value differences. Scott has written a lot trying to encourage people to have actual conversation about values differences, such as Guided By the Beauty of Our Weapons and Fundamental Values Differences Are Not That Fundamental. I think often there are forces that try to delegitimize honest talk about values differences in favor of just punishing those that don’t share their values, in an attempt to gain power. I think it’s also the case that many people have a kind of learned helplessness of values talk – they’re scared because they expect those forces are out to get them, and that phrases that attempt to move the conversation there are just scary.
The post doesn’t address this much, and in that regard it feels a touch naive to me. That said, I think we can build our own small, walled garden here and have trust in each other to have real conversations. And for that purpose, this sort of “laying out the basics and offering a linguistic tool” has a lot in common with how much of the sequences provided value.
I haven’t ever used the phrase myself. One way to update on that would be “this is evidence that it’s not the right phrase”, but on reflection I feel more like “I regret not doing so and would like to make an explicit effort to try using it 3 times”.
I think overall it’s very clear and is valuable as a post for many to read. I expect to vote for it with somewhere between +2 and +4.
I think if it’s included it would probably be good to include some of the comment section which was also good.
--
P.S. For me, while I liked the post, I didn’t really get the phrase until I saw it being used in the wild a bunch of times. I think I would’ve grokked the phrase sooner if there was a concise instance early on of how both sides of the conversation go. For example, I think (?) that in most interactions, it’s good for both people to use the phrase in my culture and explain what norms they think are right, and then decide which norms they’re going to coordinate on together.