Some of my instincts are opposite to this. Full agreement with naming the positives in each group/position.
I think abstraction is often the enemy of crux-finding. When people are in far-mode, they tend to ignore the things that make for clear points of disagreement, and just assume that it’s a value difference rather than a belief difference. I think most of the tribal failures to communicate are from the default of talking abstractly.
Agreed that it’s often not necessary to identify or reinforce the group boundaries. Focus on the disagreements, and figure out how to proceed in the world where we don’t all agree on things.
I think the example of epistemic status recommendation is a good one—this isn’t about groups, it’s about a legitimate disagreement in when it’s useful and when it’s wasteful or misleading. It’s useful if it gets debated (and I have to say, I haven’t noticed this debate) to clarify that it’s OK if it’s the poster/commenter choice, and it’s just another tool for communication.
I’m clueless enough, and engineering-mind enough, that hypothetical examples don’t help me understand or solve a problem.
I suspect I should have just stayed out, or asked for a clearer problem description. I don’t really feel tribal-ish in myself or my interactions on the site, so I suspect I’m just not part of the problem nor solution. PLEASE let me know (privately or publically) if this is incorrect.
Some of my instincts are opposite to this. Full agreement with naming the positives in each group/position.
I think abstraction is often the enemy of crux-finding. When people are in far-mode, they tend to ignore the things that make for clear points of disagreement, and just assume that it’s a value difference rather than a belief difference. I think most of the tribal failures to communicate are from the default of talking abstractly.
Agreed that it’s often not necessary to identify or reinforce the group boundaries. Focus on the disagreements, and figure out how to proceed in the world where we don’t all agree on things.
I think the example of epistemic status recommendation is a good one—this isn’t about groups, it’s about a legitimate disagreement in when it’s useful and when it’s wasteful or misleading. It’s useful if it gets debated (and I have to say, I haven’t noticed this debate) to clarify that it’s OK if it’s the poster/commenter choice, and it’s just another tool for communication.
(I think, by ‘positive’, Ben meant “explain positions that the group agrees with” rather than “say some nice things about each group”)
FYI it is a hypothetical example.
I’m clueless enough, and engineering-mind enough, that hypothetical examples don’t help me understand or solve a problem.
I suspect I should have just stayed out, or asked for a clearer problem description. I don’t really feel tribal-ish in myself or my interactions on the site, so I suspect I’m just not part of the problem nor solution. PLEASE let me know (privately or publically) if this is incorrect.