RSS

Dou­ble-Crux

TagLast edit: 5 Oct 2020 6:12 UTC by Morpheus

Double-Crux is a technique for addressing complex disagreements by systematically uncovering the cruxes upon which the disagreement hinges. A crux for an individual is any fact that if they believed differently about it, they would change their conclusion in the overall disagreement. A double-crux is a crux for both parties. Perhaps we disagree on whether swimming in a lake is safe. A crux for each of us is the presence of crocodiles in water: I believe there aren’t, you believe there are. Either of us would change our mind about the safety if we were persuaded about this crux.

Double-Crux differs from typical debates which are usually adversarial (your opinion vs mine), and instead attempt to be a collaborative attempt to uncover the true structure of the disagreement and want would change the disputants minds.

Related: Disagreement, Conversation

A version of the technique is described in Double Crux – A Strategy for Resolving Disagreement written by (then) CFAR instructor, Duncan_Sabien. The Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR) originated the technique. Eli Tyre, another CFAR instructor who has spent a lot of time developing the technique, more recently shared The Basic Double Crux pattern.

See Also

The Ba­sic Dou­ble Crux pattern

Eli Tyre22 Jul 2020 6:41 UTC
53 points
20 comments4 min readLW link

Dou­ble Crux — A Strat­egy for Re­solv­ing Disagreement

Duncan_Sabien2 Jan 2017 4:37 UTC
135 points
103 comments12 min readLW link

Dou­ble­crux is for Build­ing Products

Raemon17 Jul 2019 6:50 UTC
32 points
14 comments9 min readLW link

*Another* Dou­ble Crux Framework

Raemon28 May 2018 23:30 UTC
15 points
7 comments1 min readLW link

Don’t Dou­ble-Crux With Suicide Rock

Zack_M_Davis1 Jan 2020 19:02 UTC
63 points
30 comments2 min readLW link

A Con­crete Multi-Step Var­i­ant of Dou­ble Crux I Have Used Suc­cess­fully

deluks91715 Mar 2018 1:26 UTC
16 points
4 comments2 min readLW link

Dou­ble Crux­ing the AI Foom debate

agilecaveman27 Apr 2018 6:46 UTC
17 points
3 comments11 min readLW link

Some cruxes on im­pact­ful al­ter­na­tives to AI policy work

Richard_Ngo10 Oct 2018 13:35 UTC
149 points
13 comments12 min readLW link

Ba­sic Con­ver­sa­tional Co­or­di­na­tion: Micro-co­or­di­na­tion of In­ten­tion

Eli Tyre27 Jul 2020 22:41 UTC
40 points
7 comments2 min readLW link

Mus­ings on Dou­ble Crux (and “Pro­duc­tive Disagree­ment”)

Raemon28 Sep 2017 5:26 UTC
16 points
72 comments6 min readLW link

Keep Your Beliefs Cruxy

Raemon28 Jul 2019 1:18 UTC
49 points
34 comments3 min readLW link

Public Po­si­tions and Pri­vate Guts

Vaniver11 Oct 2018 19:38 UTC
83 points
13 comments8 min readLW link

Con­tra dou­ble crux

Thrasymachus8 Oct 2017 16:29 UTC
19 points
71 comments8 min readLW link

The True Re­jec­tion Challenge

Alicorn27 Jun 2011 7:18 UTC
60 points
533 comments1 min readLW link

Dou­ble Crux Ex­am­ple: Should HPMOR be on the Front Page?

Raemon9 Oct 2017 3:50 UTC
19 points
12 comments18 min readLW link

Train­ing Regime Day 9: Dou­ble-Crux

Mark Xu23 Feb 2020 18:08 UTC
7 points
0 comments3 min readLW link

Find­ing Cruxes

elriggs20 Sep 2019 23:54 UTC
16 points
25 comments5 min readLW link

True Sources of Disagreement

Eliezer Yudkowsky8 Dec 2008 15:51 UTC
11 points
53 comments8 min readLW link