I like parts of the simulacrum model, but I fully disagree with framing it as a hierarchy. Most conversations are operating on more than one of these dimensions at the same time, and especially in 1:1 situations you can actually acknowledge the multiple issues, and agree (or not) to separate them more clearly.
For the MAPLE issue, It’s possible to separate out the issues into separate conversational threads, _all of which_ may be important enough to discuss with your friend. There’s the factual content (which you might want to have fact-checked by a third-party, rather than MAPLE), there’s judgement about weighting of evidence/issues (which it’s hard to see how giving them prior-response privileges really improves), issues about how your audience will increase or decrease trust in your writing (for which giving them a place to respond could be beneficial), thinking about how members of MAPLE will view you (for which a heads-up could be beneficial, but may not be), and about how your friend will model your future behavior when you have a complaint about their in-group (harder to discuss, but still an important part of it).
For this discussion with a friend, if you were stuck at level-1, you would get almost no value from the discussion. It’s the higher-level questions which are worth exploring, in order to refine your models of the world and the impact that publishing this article will have (which includes the content, but also the common knowledge that you created it and decided to publish it in this way).
I like parts of the simulacrum model, but I fully disagree with framing it as a hierarchy. Most conversations are operating on more than one of these dimensions at the same time, and especially in 1:1 situations you can actually acknowledge the multiple issues, and agree (or not) to separate them more clearly.
For the MAPLE issue, It’s possible to separate out the issues into separate conversational threads, _all of which_ may be important enough to discuss with your friend. There’s the factual content (which you might want to have fact-checked by a third-party, rather than MAPLE), there’s judgement about weighting of evidence/issues (which it’s hard to see how giving them prior-response privileges really improves), issues about how your audience will increase or decrease trust in your writing (for which giving them a place to respond could be beneficial), thinking about how members of MAPLE will view you (for which a heads-up could be beneficial, but may not be), and about how your friend will model your future behavior when you have a complaint about their in-group (harder to discuss, but still an important part of it).
For this discussion with a friend, if you were stuck at level-1, you would get almost no value from the discussion. It’s the higher-level questions which are worth exploring, in order to refine your models of the world and the impact that publishing this article will have (which includes the content, but also the common knowledge that you created it and decided to publish it in this way).