One of the things I like about this post the most, is it shows how much careful work is required to communicate. It’s not a trick, it’s not just being better than other people, it’s simple, understandable, and hard work.
I think all the diagrams are very helpful, and really slow down and zoom in on the goal of nailing down an interpretation of your words and succeeding at communicating.
There’s a very related concept (almost so obvious that you could say it’s contained in the post) of finding common ground, where, in negotiation/conflict/disagreement, you can rule out things that neither of you want or believe and thus find common ground. “I believe people should be nicer” “While I think that’s a nice thing to say, I think you’re pushing against some other important norm, perhaps of being direct with people or providing criticism” “Sorry, let me be clear; I in no way wish to lower the current levels of criticism, directness, or even levels of upset people are getting, and I think we’re on the same page on that; I’m interested in people increasing their thoughtfulness in other ways” “Ah, thanks, I see we have common ground on that issue, so I feel less threatened by this disagreement. I’m not sure I agree yet, but let’s see about this.” I think the post is helpful for seeing this.
I disagree with the application to an example on LessWrong, as is not uncommon I tend to think the theory in Duncan’s post is true and very well explained, and then thoroughly disagree with its application to a recent political situation. I don’t think that is much reason to devalue the post though.
This is a post I think about explicitly on occasion, I think it’s pretty important for communication, and I’m giving the post a +4.
(Meta: this is not a great review on my part, but I am leaning on the side of sharing my perspective for why I’m voting. I wish I had more time to write great reviews that I more confidently expected to help others think about the posts.)
One of the things I like about this post the most, is it shows how much careful work is required to communicate. It’s not a trick, it’s not just being better than other people, it’s simple, understandable, and hard work.
I think all the diagrams are very helpful, and really slow down and zoom in on the goal of nailing down an interpretation of your words and succeeding at communicating.
There’s a very related concept (almost so obvious that you could say it’s contained in the post) of finding common ground, where, in negotiation/conflict/disagreement, you can rule out things that neither of you want or believe and thus find common ground. “I believe people should be nicer” “While I think that’s a nice thing to say, I think you’re pushing against some other important norm, perhaps of being direct with people or providing criticism” “Sorry, let me be clear; I in no way wish to lower the current levels of criticism, directness, or even levels of upset people are getting, and I think we’re on the same page on that; I’m interested in people increasing their thoughtfulness in other ways” “Ah, thanks, I see we have common ground on that issue, so I feel less threatened by this disagreement. I’m not sure I agree yet, but let’s see about this.” I think the post is helpful for seeing this.
I disagree with the application to an example on LessWrong, as is not uncommon I tend to think the theory in Duncan’s post is true and very well explained, and then thoroughly disagree with its application to a recent political situation. I don’t think that is much reason to devalue the post though.
This is a post I think about explicitly on occasion, I think it’s pretty important for communication, and I’m giving the post a +4.
(Meta: this is not a great review on my part, but I am leaning on the side of sharing my perspective for why I’m voting. I wish I had more time to write great reviews that I more confidently expected to help others think about the posts.)