I think the complement sandwich can be useful as a stepping stone to good communication. That said, I think of it as a narrow formulation of a more general (and less precisely defined) approach to conversation that I might point to with phrases like āwork with people where they are atā and ābe aware of the emotions that your words induce in other peopleā. There was an article on LessWrong that I canāt find, arguing that clear communication is worded to pre-emptively avoid likely misunderstandings and misconceptions. The idea Iām pointing to is like that, but concerning the emotional interpretation of your words rather than the literal meaning. I think this can apply just as much to the rationalist community as to any other community (although I havenāt had any conversations with rationalists so I donāt know for sure).
Like literary and conversational techniques in general, if they are followed as a hard rule then they risk coming across as formulaic and hence inauthentic. However I can imagine that it might be useful to adopt the complement sandwich as a rule until you gain a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanics.
I think the complement sandwich can be useful as a stepping stone to good communication. That said, I think of it as a narrow formulation of a more general (and less precisely defined) approach to conversation that I might point to with phrases like āwork with people where they are atā and ābe aware of the emotions that your words induce in other peopleā. There was an article on LessWrong that I canāt find, arguing that clear communication is worded to pre-emptively avoid likely misunderstandings and misconceptions. The idea Iām pointing to is like that, but concerning the emotional interpretation of your words rather than the literal meaning. I think this can apply just as much to the rationalist community as to any other community (although I havenāt had any conversations with rationalists so I donāt know for sure).
Like literary and conversational techniques in general, if they are followed as a hard rule then they risk coming across as formulaic and hence inauthentic. However I can imagine that it might be useful to adopt the complement sandwich as a rule until you gain a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanics.