If you attend a talk at a rationalist conference, please do not spontaneously interject unless the presenter has explicitly clarified that you are free to do so. Neither should you answer questions on behalf of the presenter during a Q&A portion. People come to talks to listen to the presenter, not a random person in the audience.
If you decide to do this anyways, you will usually not get audiovisual feedback from the other audience members that it was rude/cringeworthy for you to interject, even if internally they are desperate for you to stop doing it.
Not that I expect you to disagree, but to make it explicit, I don’t think this is something that is specific to rationalist conferences. I think it applies to a large majority of conferences.
If you decide to do this anyways, you will usually not get audiovisual feedback from the other audience members that it was rude/cringeworthy for you to interject, even if internally they are desperate for you to stop doing it.
You also very well might not get this feedback from the presenter. They may not be confrontational enough to call you out on it. And with the spotlight on them, they may feel uncomfortable doing things like sighing in exasperation or showing frustration in their facial expressions and body language.
I suspect it’s a bit more nuanced that this. Factors include the size of the audience, how often you’re interjecting, the quality of the interjections, whether your pushing the presenter off track towards your own pet issue, whether you’re asking a clarifying question that other audience members found useful, how formal the conference is and how the speaker likes to run their sessions.
whether you’re asking a clarifying question that other audience members found useful
This is a frequent problem in math heavy research presentations. Someone presents their research, but they commit a form of the typical mind fallacy, where they understand their own research so well that they fatally misjudge how hard it is to understand for others. If the audience consists of professionals, often nobody dares to stop the presenter with clarificatory questions, because nobody wants to look stupid in front of all the other people who don’t ask questions and therefore clearly (right!?) understand the presented material. In the end, probably 90% have mentally lost the thread somewhere before the finish line. Of course nobody admits it, lest your colleagues notice your embarrassing lack of IQ!
Sure; unfortunately what’s happening at rationalist conferences is that frequently the most socially unaware/attention seeking person in the room is speaking up, in a way that does not actually contribute, and encourages other socially unaware people to go do it at other talks.
Eh, depends heavily on who’s presenting and who’s talking. For instance, I’d almost always rather hear Eliezer’s interjection than whatever the presenter is saying.
I mean, I see why a rule of “do not spontaneously interject” is a useful heuristic; it’s one of those things where the people who need to shut up and sit down don’t realize they’re the people who need to shut up and sit down. But still, it’s not a rule which carves the space at an ideal joint.
An heuristic which errs in the too-narrow direction rather than the too-broad direction but still plausibly captures maybe 80% of the value: if the interjection is about your personal hobbyhorse or pet peave or theory or the like, then definitely shut up and sit down.
Takeaway: ask beginning of presentation what comments are allowed. If you’re a presenter, specify it. You can then expect people to know that comments are unwelcome.
If you attend a talk at a rationalist conference, please do not spontaneously interject unless the presenter has explicitly clarified that you are free to do so. Neither should you answer questions on behalf of the presenter during a Q&A portion. People come to talks to listen to the presenter, not a random person in the audience.
If you decide to do this anyways, you will usually not get audiovisual feedback from the other audience members that it was rude/cringeworthy for you to interject, even if internally they are desperate for you to stop doing it.
Not that I expect you to disagree, but to make it explicit, I don’t think this is something that is specific to rationalist conferences. I think it applies to a large majority of conferences.
You also very well might not get this feedback from the presenter. They may not be confrontational enough to call you out on it. And with the spotlight on them, they may feel uncomfortable doing things like sighing in exasperation or showing frustration in their facial expressions and body language.
There should be a moderator who does this for them.
I suspect it’s a bit more nuanced that this. Factors include the size of the audience, how often you’re interjecting, the quality of the interjections, whether your pushing the presenter off track towards your own pet issue, whether you’re asking a clarifying question that other audience members found useful, how formal the conference is and how the speaker likes to run their sessions.
This is a frequent problem in math heavy research presentations. Someone presents their research, but they commit a form of the typical mind fallacy, where they understand their own research so well that they fatally misjudge how hard it is to understand for others. If the audience consists of professionals, often nobody dares to stop the presenter with clarificatory questions, because nobody wants to look stupid in front of all the other people who don’t ask questions and therefore clearly (right!?) understand the presented material. In the end, probably 90% have mentally lost the thread somewhere before the finish line. Of course nobody admits it, lest your colleagues notice your embarrassing lack of IQ!
Sure; unfortunately what’s happening at rationalist conferences is that frequently the most socially unaware/attention seeking person in the room is speaking up, in a way that does not actually contribute, and encourages other socially unaware people to go do it at other talks.
Eh, depends heavily on who’s presenting and who’s talking. For instance, I’d almost always rather hear Eliezer’s interjection than whatever the presenter is saying.
I mean, I see why a rule of “do not spontaneously interject” is a useful heuristic; it’s one of those things where the people who need to shut up and sit down don’t realize they’re the people who need to shut up and sit down. But still, it’s not a rule which carves the space at an ideal joint.
An heuristic which errs in the too-narrow direction rather than the too-broad direction but still plausibly captures maybe 80% of the value: if the interjection is about your personal hobbyhorse or pet peave or theory or the like, then definitely shut up and sit down.
I make the simpler request because often rationalists don’t seem to be able to tell when this is (or at least tell when others can tell)
Takeaway: ask beginning of presentation what comments are allowed. If you’re a presenter, specify it. You can then expect people to know that comments are unwelcome.