If you find yourself talking with someone who seems to have a very different worldview or way of looking at a situation, and your attempts to communicate seem to be falling completely flat (i.e. you don’t understand the things they’re trying to say and they don’t seem to be understanding yours)...
...and both of you are fairly invested in actually bridging the communication gap
(or, at least you’re pretty invested, and they’re at least willing to continue talking to you even if they don’t seem super invested? It was unclear to me which people needed to have the prerequisites)
...then here’s a process you think will help bridge that gap. It is fairly skill-intensive. You think it’d work reasonably well for people who have the skill-prequisites. The process doesn’t seem perfect but it’s the best one you’ve got.
Mostly accurate.
A lot of the time, these ‘fractures’ result in major disconnections between people, such that they stop talking to each other for a year or more. Or if they need to work together, it becomes really difficult for them to work together in any functional or healthy way. This fracture can spread to others or cause group-wide fractures.
A rationalist-relevant example might be… say, inability of certain prominent rationalist leaders from being able to coordinate or even have reasonable / good conversations with one another. Sometimes requiring extensive mediation. Or sometimes causing bigger community-wide conflicts. I’m sure you can come up with at least 3 examples.
Sorry for not including this context in the post. I wasn’t trying to make the post very good. :P
OK, but let’s say! YOU are experiencing this kind of fracture with someone and are at least willing to try to bridge. (However, unwilling / unable to drop your frame or try to adopt theirs.) This process is an attempt to find a way to start the conversation without either party needing to drop their frame. So the frames get to ‘meet’.
Mostly accurate.
A lot of the time, these ‘fractures’ result in major disconnections between people, such that they stop talking to each other for a year or more. Or if they need to work together, it becomes really difficult for them to work together in any functional or healthy way. This fracture can spread to others or cause group-wide fractures.
A rationalist-relevant example might be… say, inability of certain prominent rationalist leaders from being able to coordinate or even have reasonable / good conversations with one another. Sometimes requiring extensive mediation. Or sometimes causing bigger community-wide conflicts. I’m sure you can come up with at least 3 examples.
Sorry for not including this context in the post. I wasn’t trying to make the post very good. :P
OK, but let’s say! YOU are experiencing this kind of fracture with someone and are at least willing to try to bridge. (However, unwilling / unable to drop your frame or try to adopt theirs.) This process is an attempt to find a way to start the conversation without either party needing to drop their frame. So the frames get to ‘meet’.