Zvi already mentioned this, but I just want to emphasize that I think error finding and correction (including noticing possible ambiguities and misunderstandings) is one of the most important functions of discussion, and it works much better in a group discussion (especially for hard to detect errors) because everyone interested in the discussion can see the error as soon as one person notices it and points it out. If you do a series of one-on-one discussions, to achieve the same effect you’d have to track down all the previous people you talked to and inform them. I think in practice very few people would actually bother to do that, due to subconscious status concerns among other reasons, which would lead to diverging epistemic states among people thinking about the topic and ensuing general confusion.(Sometimes an error is found that the “teacher” doesn’t recognize as an error due to various cognitive biases, which would make it impossible to track down all the previous discussants and inform them of the error.)
Zvi’s “asynchronous and on demand” is also a hugely important consideration for me. In an one-on-one discussion, the fact that I can ask questions and get immediate responses is often counterbalanced by the feeling that I don’t have time to think, digest an idea, and decide whether it makes sense or not, because the other person is waiting for me to nod so they can move on (and that person’s time is usually pretty valuable). So frequently I just nod and think that I’ll figure it out later on my own time, but that means I’m not actually taking advantage of the main benefit of having a one-on-one discussion. I think Paul might not be taking this into account when he says “a factor of 2 efficiency bonus for tailored/interactive talk relative to static public talk.”
Zvi’s “asynchronous and on demand” is also a hugely important consideration for me.
This seems orthogonal to the broadcast vs. 1-on-1 model. E.g., email threads are a thing, as are comment threads that whose primary value is a dialog between two people.
Zvi already mentioned this, but I just want to emphasize that I think error finding and correction (including noticing possible ambiguities and misunderstandings) is one of the most important functions of discussion, and it works much better in a group discussion (especially for hard to detect errors) because everyone interested in the discussion can see the error as soon as one person notices it and points it out. If you do a series of one-on-one discussions, to achieve the same effect you’d have to track down all the previous people you talked to and inform them. I think in practice very few people would actually bother to do that, due to subconscious status concerns among other reasons, which would lead to diverging epistemic states among people thinking about the topic and ensuing general confusion.(Sometimes an error is found that the “teacher” doesn’t recognize as an error due to various cognitive biases, which would make it impossible to track down all the previous discussants and inform them of the error.)
Zvi’s “asynchronous and on demand” is also a hugely important consideration for me. In an one-on-one discussion, the fact that I can ask questions and get immediate responses is often counterbalanced by the feeling that I don’t have time to think, digest an idea, and decide whether it makes sense or not, because the other person is waiting for me to nod so they can move on (and that person’s time is usually pretty valuable). So frequently I just nod and think that I’ll figure it out later on my own time, but that means I’m not actually taking advantage of the main benefit of having a one-on-one discussion. I think Paul might not be taking this into account when he says “a factor of 2 efficiency bonus for tailored/interactive talk relative to static public talk.”
This seems orthogonal to the broadcast vs. 1-on-1 model. E.g., email threads are a thing, as are comment threads that whose primary value is a dialog between two people.