I found a few examples on LW, but don’t really want to call out anyone specifically. Here’s another example:
At the EA hotel, talking about specific problems/demographics of the EA community, we were talking in general terms, trying to describe a particular demographic. At some point someone was like “hold on what are we discussing here, can we explain specifically what we would expect to see?”
This was actually a good move, but it was too early. Specifically, we were still fruitfully changing and exploring our model, finding the most useful way to actually think about this particular dynamic in the EA community. By forcing us to go specific at this time, we ended up “locked in” to the specific frame we were at when we went more specific, and it took about 20 minutes of conversational maneuvering to get back to the “exploration” phase. At that point, we eventually did settle on a better frame that seemed useful to everyone, and let the conversation naturally lead to examples and specificity.
I recognize that both of the above examples are a bit general, I’m having trouble finding specific examples that aren’t a bit controversial or would point too much towards blaming a specific person if they saw me write.
So the push for specificity helped clarify people’s thinking, but the discussion got derailed because no one said “let’s consider another possibility for the claim we want to make”.
I don’t think that means anyone was failing by being too specific. There seems to be a separate kind of failure mode in the domain of exloratory-discussion steering efficiency.
But I’m happy with the quality of the examples you’re providing to facilitate our discussion.
In One’s Own Thinking: When you have any kind of thought or belief, try making it specific when you get a chance. You’ll probably get some value out of the exercise. You neglect the exercise at your peril.
In Discourse: If you’re putting forth a claim, then it’s worth trying to provide specifics for it. If you’re not yet making a claim, but more like exploring ideas, then specifics are not yet mandatory.
I think there’s a similar danger in trying to be too specific in ones’ own thinking. I can’t quite articulate it yet, but the idea of “holding a question” in this article feels internally to me like a very different stance then one where I’m requesting specificity from myself, and I find it highly valuable.
There’s something about the move of specificity that doesn’t allow for “space”, which occurs both internally and in conversation.
I found a few examples on LW, but don’t really want to call out anyone specifically. Here’s another example:
At the EA hotel, talking about specific problems/demographics of the EA community, we were talking in general terms, trying to describe a particular demographic. At some point someone was like “hold on what are we discussing here, can we explain specifically what we would expect to see?”
This was actually a good move, but it was too early. Specifically, we were still fruitfully changing and exploring our model, finding the most useful way to actually think about this particular dynamic in the EA community. By forcing us to go specific at this time, we ended up “locked in” to the specific frame we were at when we went more specific, and it took about 20 minutes of conversational maneuvering to get back to the “exploration” phase. At that point, we eventually did settle on a better frame that seemed useful to everyone, and let the conversation naturally lead to examples and specificity.
I recognize that both of the above examples are a bit general, I’m having trouble finding specific examples that aren’t a bit controversial or would point too much towards blaming a specific person if they saw me write.
So the push for specificity helped clarify people’s thinking, but the discussion got derailed because no one said “let’s consider another possibility for the claim we want to make”.
I don’t think that means anyone was failing by being too specific. There seems to be a separate kind of failure mode in the domain of exloratory-discussion steering efficiency.
But I’m happy with the quality of the examples you’re providing to facilitate our discussion.
Sort of, it helped solidify a not yet solidified frame, which was a waste of time, because the frame was rapidly changing.
I said this, but the person I was talking to had a strong aesthetic need for specificity and wouldn’t let it go.\
I think there was failingin asking for specificity at the wrong time.
Maybe we can agree to say this:
In One’s Own Thinking: When you have any kind of thought or belief, try making it specific when you get a chance. You’ll probably get some value out of the exercise. You neglect the exercise at your peril.
In Discourse: If you’re putting forth a claim, then it’s worth trying to provide specifics for it. If you’re not yet making a claim, but more like exploring ideas, then specifics are not yet mandatory.
I think there’s a similar danger in trying to be too specific in ones’ own thinking. I can’t quite articulate it yet, but the idea of “holding a question” in this article feels internally to me like a very different stance then one where I’m requesting specificity from myself, and I find it highly valuable.
There’s something about the move of specificity that doesn’t allow for “space”, which occurs both internally and in conversation.
Just wanted to say I appreciated this exchange in both directions.