I experienced it firsthand not too long ago at the NYC Megameetup: dialogues where both (or more) parties actively tried to explore each others’ maps, seeking points where there was overlap and where there were gaps. More concretely, everyone was asking a lot more questions then usual. These questions were relevant and clarifying. They helped make the discussion feel speedy, as in, like we were running from room to room, trying to find interesting bits of knowledge, especially where views diverged.
The best way I can describe it is that it felt like thinking together—like having more people in your head.
I don’t think this was because of a large amount of shared references, like in a subculture. I think it was because the culture of LW and LW-adjacent emphasizes curiosity, openness, and respect.
Or a world in which the median dialogue is much more productive?
For me, it would be a world where much less time is wasted producing arguments-as-soldiers. Whether it’s in small, day-to-day interactions or in bigger discussions, like around geopolitical conflicts.
Does this explain it better? It still feels a little airy.
Somewhat. But I wonder how much of your NYC meetup example is explained by the participants just being high quality, and diverse enough, that you could always sort yourself into having great conversational partners.
It’s an interesting point, what’s meant by “productive” dialogue. I like the “less…arguments-as-soldiers” characterization. I asked ChatGPT4 what productive dialogue is and part of its answer was: “The aim is not necessarily to reach an agreement but to understand different perspectives and possibly learn from them.” For me, productive dialogue basically means the same thing as “honorable discourse,” which I define as discourse, or conversation, that ultimately supports love and value building over hate and value destruction. For more, see here: dishonorablespeechinpolitics.com/blog2/#CivilVsHonorable
I experienced it firsthand not too long ago at the NYC Megameetup: dialogues where both (or more) parties actively tried to explore each others’ maps, seeking points where there was overlap and where there were gaps. More concretely, everyone was asking a lot more questions then usual. These questions were relevant and clarifying. They helped make the discussion feel speedy, as in, like we were running from room to room, trying to find interesting bits of knowledge, especially where views diverged.
The best way I can describe it is that it felt like thinking together—like having more people in your head.
I don’t think this was because of a large amount of shared references, like in a subculture. I think it was because the culture of LW and LW-adjacent emphasizes curiosity, openness, and respect.
For me, it would be a world where much less time is wasted producing arguments-as-soldiers. Whether it’s in small, day-to-day interactions or in bigger discussions, like around geopolitical conflicts.
Does this explain it better? It still feels a little airy.
Somewhat. But I wonder how much of your NYC meetup example is explained by the participants just being high quality, and diverse enough, that you could always sort yourself into having great conversational partners.
It’s an interesting point, what’s meant by “productive” dialogue. I like the “less…arguments-as-soldiers” characterization. I asked ChatGPT4 what productive dialogue is and part of its answer was: “The aim is not necessarily to reach an agreement but to understand different perspectives and possibly learn from them.” For me, productive dialogue basically means the same thing as “honorable discourse,” which I define as discourse, or conversation, that ultimately supports love and value building over hate and value destruction. For more, see here: dishonorablespeechinpolitics.com/blog2/#CivilVsHonorable