“Anti-crux” is where the two parties who’re disagreeing about X take the time to map out the “common ground” that they both already believe, and expect to keep believing, regardless of whether X is true or not. It’s a list of the things that “X or not X?” is not a crux of. Often best done before double-cruxing, or in the middle, as a break, when the double-cruxing gets triggering/disorienting for one or both parties, or for a listener, or for the relationship between the parties.
A common partial example that may get at something of the spirit of this (and an example that people do in the normal world, without calling it “anti-crux”) is when person A has a criticism of e.g. person B’s blog post or something (and is coming to argue about that), but A starts by creating common knowledge that e.g. they respect person B, so that the disagreement won’t seem to be about more than it is.
What’s anti-crux?
“Anti-crux” is where the two parties who’re disagreeing about X take the time to map out the “common ground” that they both already believe, and expect to keep believing, regardless of whether X is true or not. It’s a list of the things that “X or not X?” is not a crux of. Often best done before double-cruxing, or in the middle, as a break, when the double-cruxing gets triggering/disorienting for one or both parties, or for a listener, or for the relationship between the parties.
A common partial example that may get at something of the spirit of this (and an example that people do in the normal world, without calling it “anti-crux”) is when person A has a criticism of e.g. person B’s blog post or something (and is coming to argue about that), but A starts by creating common knowledge that e.g. they respect person B, so that the disagreement won’t seem to be about more than it is.