I haven’t read the second article yet, so I am not sure where this all goes. But I am thinking about “why our kind can’t cooperate?” and this feels like a possible approach to solve that problem—instead of trying to achieve coordination by talking (which would encourage some people to give contrarian answers, and virtually guarantee failure), we could choose the coordination point in silence and then explain our choice. (Some wannabe contrarians will still argue for a different answer, but now it will feel like “too late, the others have already agreed, and you are just providing excuses for why you are not there”.)
Instead of asking your tribe to debate, ask yourself what is your tribe’s Schelling point, and then announce it. If you are right, others are likely to agree. (And “Schelling point” itself could be a Schelling point of rationalist group decision.)
I haven’t read the second article yet, so I am not sure where this all goes. But I am thinking about “why our kind can’t cooperate?” and this feels like a possible approach to solve that problem—instead of trying to achieve coordination by talking (which would encourage some people to give contrarian answers, and virtually guarantee failure), we could choose the coordination point in silence and then explain our choice. (Some wannabe contrarians will still argue for a different answer, but now it will feel like “too late, the others have already agreed, and you are just providing excuses for why you are not there”.)
Instead of asking your tribe to debate, ask yourself what is your tribe’s Schelling point, and then announce it. If you are right, others are likely to agree. (And “Schelling point” itself could be a Schelling point of rationalist group decision.)