I liked this for the idea that fear of scarcity can drive “unreasonable” behaviors. This helps me better understand why others may behave in “undesirable” ways and provides a more productive way of addressing the problem than blaming them for being e.g. selfish. This also provides a more enjoyable way of changing my behaviors. Instead of being annoyed with myself for e.g. being too scared to talk to people, I look out for tiny accomplishments (e.g. speaking up when someone got my order wrong) and the benefits it brings (e.g. getting what I wanted to order), to show myself that I am capable. The more capable I feel, the less afraid I am of the world.
ambigram
Karma: 382
This essay had a significant influence on my growth in the past two years. I shifted from perceiving discomfort as something I am subject to, to considering my relationship with discomfort as an object that can be managed. There are many other writings and experiences that contributed to this growth, but this was the first piece I encountered that talked about managing our relationship with hazards as a thing we can manipulate and improve at. It made me wonder why all human activity may be considered running in the meadow and why contracting may be bad, it showed me how dangers can be mitigated through clearer communication of boundaries, it made me aware of how people can be hazards too.
After working through Nook Nature, I think I sort of understand now why contracting might be bad. Trying to manage my fears and do things (instead of just trying to avoid mistakes) has indeed led to a more enjoyable experience and makes me feel more alive. However, I still stand by my original comment, in that I’m not quite clear what exactly the author is trying to convey.
Something that strikes me as I reread this piece is that I can’t tell which are the assumptions, the claims, and the arguments. For example, the essay says that Meadow Theory claims contraction is bad, as in “it is the claim of this theory and this philosophy that this is bad”. Yet there does not seem to be an explanation or argument for why this claim might be true. Does that mean we are supposed to take it as an assumption instead?
I don’t know how I would rewrite this essay to make it clearer, but if I were to write a piece to myself that captures part of what I have learnt, it would look something like this:
Meadow Theory, remixed
Life is more rewarding when we have a larger surface area of contact with reality
Expanding our surface area of contact with reality enriches our lives. We can expand into new areas, such as traveling to new places or growing a company, or delve deeper into specific areas, like honing our skills in cooking or mastering a musical instrument. Growth makes life more enjoyable and fulfilling.
But explorations expose us to hazards
Unfortunately, life is filled with hazards, both big and small, and exploring brings us into contact with more of such hazards. For instance, when we travel to a new country, we may face unfamiliar food, language barriers, or cultural misunderstandings. Similarly, as we hone our culinary skills, we may come across complex techniques that have greater risks, such as flambéing or working with sharp knives.
Hazards hurt us, so we try to eliminate them from our experience
Hazards are unpleasant and can be dangerous, so our instinct is to eliminate them. And if we can’t, we try to eliminate them from our experiences. For example, if we can’t eradicate a disease, then maybe we use antimicrobial soap to wash our hands, or we avoid crowded areas. We think that hazards are the problem to be dealt with, but is this really the case?
Meadow & Posts
Let’s consider an analogy. Imagine you are running freely in a meadow. You’re blindfolded, but that’s fine, because the meadow is safe. Now, imagine someone informing you that there is a single post somewhere in the meadow. You might get hurt if you run headlong into a post! What do you do? You slow down and feel your way through, just in case the post is right in front of you.
We contract because we are afraid of getting hurt
Suppose the person had been mistaken and there isn’t actually any post in the meadow. Would anything change? No, you still move slowly because you believe there is a post out there. You contract not because there is actual danger, but because you are (sanely) afraid of getting hurt.
Being afraid is unpleasant, so we strive to eliminate posts from our explorations
Our instinctive response is to get rid of posts, or at least get rid of the possibility of encountering posts as we traverse the meadow. We avoid areas known to contain posts, like how people who are afraid of being laughed at might avoid performing on stage. We stick to known routes, like those who choose to remain in their hometowns simply because it feels comfortable, or people who only read books that get good reviews so they won’t waste their time on bad books.
We also help others to avoid encountering posts
When we have a responsibility for or are helping others, we also strive to eliminate posts from their explorations of reality. We ban children from playing outside, because it is dangerous. We tell our employees exactly what to do, so they won’t do it wrongly.
However, avoiding posts leads to a more limited experience
Trying to avoid all posts is costly. There are many hazards in the world. Trying to eliminate all hazards from your experience of the world leads to an increasingly narrow life. You wake up in a city you hate, because you’re afraid to move to a new place. You stay in a numbing job, because you fear rejection in your job applications. You avoid talking to people, because you’re afraid they might laugh at you. You don’t really try to improve your skills, because you’re afraid of discovering you’re not so talented after all. In striving to avoid all potential risks, we end up living a limited life.
What if there’s a better way?
Imagine if you knew that the meadow contained only one post, and you managed to locate it. You would feel relieved, knowing that it’s safe everywhere else, and you could resume running freely.
But as you venture further into the meadow, your certainty about the post’s location diminishes. You start to slow down again, because the danger can be anywhere. You contract, not just because you are afraid of danger, but because you’re not sure where the danger lies. If the post was on top of a small hill, then you would still be able to run freely, slowing down only once you sense the ground sloping upwards. You can’t tell if you are nearing a post, so you slow down everywhere.
Managing uncertainty for ourselves
Rather than trying to eliminate all posts, the key is to become better at discerning where hazards are more likely to be, so that we can take the appropriate amount of caution. There are several approaches to managing this uncertainty for ourselves.
One approach is to seek guidance from those who have explored the same area. For example, learning from mentors or seeking advice from experts can provide valuable insights and reduce uncertainty. Maybe we learn from our elders that “pride comes before a fall”, so we know to pay attention to whether we are becoming arrogant and careless.
Another approach is to familiarize ourselves with the terrain, so we gain the knowledge and experience that allow us to better predict where posts tend to be. Maybe after cold calling hundreds of strangers, we start to figure out what leads to better results and what leads to rejections.
We can also get better at seeing, or by making our blindfolds less opaque. Rationality skills, for example, can help us improve at the general skill of seeing reality for what it is, as opposed to what we perceive.
Yet another approach is to increase our capacity to handle potential hazards. As we grow and develop, our ability to navigate challenges expands. A post that is the size of a grass stalk may be fatal to someone the size of an ant, but a mere irritation to someone as big as a human. For example, the more self-assured we are, the less impact others’ opinions have on our self-esteem. Similarly, having more financial resources allows us to take greater financial risks.
Notice that all these approaches encourage you to explore reality, rather than shrink from it. Better yet, these explorations can help you get better at navigating the meadow, so you can explore parts of the meadow that contain larger, more dangerous posts. These approaches enable you to explore more of the world, not less.
Managing uncertainty for others
The principles of managing uncertainty also apply when we are helping others. Rather than trying to completely shield them from all hazards, we can set boundaries and provide guidance to help them navigate their own explorations. For instance, providing the critical guidelines for a junior team member would ensure they do not make catastrophic mistakes, while still allowing them to learn from their own errors. We can teach children to notice how hunger affects their emotions, rather than just telling them what and when to eat. Such an approach promotes growth and resilience while still providing a safety net within certain limits.
Living expansively in a world of hazards
In summary, living expansively in a world of hazards means understanding and managing risks rather than trying to eliminate all possibilities of danger. We don’t need to ensure that there are no hazards, just ensure that we approach hazards appropriately. We want to be more cautious in areas where there is greater danger to us, and to get better at dealing with hazards so we can explore more areas expansively.
What you think of as a failure to fully eliminate all hazards may in fact be a deliberate decision to hold back so as to promote a healthier, more productive approach to dealing with hazards in the world.
I used to deal with disappointment by minimizing it (e.g. it’s not that important) or consoling myself (e.g. we’ll do better next time). After reading this piece, I think to myself “disappointment is baby grief”.
Loss is a part of life, whether that is loss of something concrete/”real” or something that we imagined or hoped for. Disappointment is an opportunity to practice dealing with loss, so that I will be ready for the inevitable major losses in the future. I am sad because I did not get what I’d wanted or hoped for, and that is okay.
Hmm interesting. I agree that there is a difference between a claim about an individual’s experience, and a claim about reality. The former is about a perception of reality, whereas the latter is about reality itself. In that case, I see why you would object to the paraphrasing—it changes the original statement into a weaker claim.
I also agree that it is important to be able to make claims about reality, including other people’s statements. After all, people’s statements are also part of our reality, so we need to be able to discuss and reason about it.
I suppose what I disagree with thus that the original statement is valid as a claim about reality. It seems to me that statements are generally/by default claims about our individual perceptions of reality. (e.g. “He’s very tall.”) A claim becomes a statement about reality only when linked (implicitly or explicitly) to something concrete. (e.g. “He’s in the 90th percentile in height for American adult males.” or “He’s taller than Daddy.” or “He’s taller than the typical gymnast I’ve trained for competitions.”)
To say a stated reason is “bizarre” is a value judgment, and therefore cannot be considered a claim about reality. This is because there is no way to measure its truth value. If bizarre means “strange/unusual”, then what exactly is “normal/usual”? How Less Wrong posters who upvoted Said’s comment would think? How people with more than 1000 karma on Less Wrong would think? There is no meaning behind the word “bizarre” except as an indicator of the writer’s perspective (i.e. what the claim is trying to say is “The stated reason is bizarre to Said”).
I suppose this also explains why such a statement would seem insulting to people who are more Duncan-like. (I acknowledge that you find the paraphrase as insulting as the original. However, since the purpose of discussion is to find a way so people who are Duncan-like and people who are Said-like can communicate and work together, I believe the key concern should be whether or not someone who is Duncan-like would feel less insulted by the paraphrase. After all, people who are Duncan-like feel insulted by different things than people who are Said-like.)
For people who are Duncan-like, I expect the insult comes about because it presents a subjective (social reality) statement in the form of an objective (reality) statement. Said is making a claim about his own perspective, but he is presenting it as if it is objective truth, which can feel like he is invalidating all other possible perspectives. I would guess that people who are more Said-like are less sensitive, either because they think it is already obvious that Said is just making a claim from his own perspective or because they are less susceptible to influence from other people’s claims (e.g. I don’t care if the entire world tells me I am wrong, I don’t ever waver because I know that I am right.)
Version 3 is very obviously definitely not the same content and I don’t know why you bothered including it.
I included Version 3 because after coming up with Version 2, I noticed it was very similar to the earlier sentence (“I definitely no longer understand.”), so I thought another valid example would be simply omitting the sentence. It seemed appropriate to me because part of being polite is learning to keep your thoughts to yourself when they do not contribute anything useful to the conversation.
I’m curious, what do you think of these options?
Original: “I find your stated reason bizarre to the point where I can’t form any coherent model of your thinking here.”
New version 1: “I can’t form any coherent model of your thinking here.”
New version 2: “I don’t understand your stated reason at all.”
New version 3: Omit that sentence.
These shift the sentence from a judgment on Duncan’s reasoning to a sharing of Said’s own experience, which (for me, at least) removes the unnecessary/escalatory part of the insult.
I’m very confused, how do you tell if someone is genuinely misunderstanding or deliberately misunderstanding a post?
The author can say that a reader’s post is an inaccurate representation of the author’s ideas, but how can the author possibly read the reader’s mind and conclude that the reader is doing it on purpose? Isn’t that a claim that requires exceptional evidence?
Accusing someone of strawmanning is hurtful if false, and it shuts down conversations because it pre-emptively casts the reader in an adverserial role. Judging people based on their intent is also dangerous, because it is near-unknowable, which means that judgments are more likely to be influenced by factors other than truth. It won’t matter how well-meaning you are because that is difficult to prove; what matters is how well-meaning other people believe you to be, which is more susceptible to biases (e.g. people who are richer, more powerful, more attractive get more leeway).
I personally would very much rather people being judged by their concrete actions or impact of those actions (e.g. saying someone consistently rephrases arguments in ways that do not match the author’s intent or the majority of readers’ understanding), rather than their intent (e.g. saying someone is strawmanning).
To be against both strawmanning (with weak evidence) and ‘making unfounded statements about a person’s inner state’ seems to me like a self-contradictory and inconsistent stance.
Still trying to figure out/articulate the differences between the two frames, because it feels like people are talking past each other. Not confident and imprecise, but this is what I have so far:
Said-like frame (truth seeking as a primarily individual endeavor)
Each individual is trying to figure out their own beliefs. Society reaches truer beliefs through each individual reaching truer beliefs.
Each individual decides how much respect to accord someone, (based on the individual’s experiences). The status assigned by society (e.g. titles) are just a data point.
e.g. Just because someone is the teacher doesn’t mean they are automatically given more respect. (A student who believes an institution has excellent taste in teachers may respect teachers from that institution more because of that belief, but the student would not respect a teacher just because they have the title of “teacher”.)
If a student believes a teacher is incompetent and is making a pointless request (e.g. assigned a homework exercise that does not accomplish the learning objectives), the student questions the teacher.
A teacher that responds in anger without engaging with the student’s concerns is considered to be behaving poorly in this culture. A teacher who is genuinely competent and has valid reasons should either be able to explain it to the student or otherwise manage the student, or should have enough certainty in their competence that they will not be upset by a mere student.
Claims/arguments/questions/criticisms are suggestions. If they are valid, people will respond accordingly. If they are not, people are free to disagree or ignore it.
If someone makes a criticism and is upset when no one responds, the person who criticizes is in the wrong, because no one is obliged to listen or engage.
The ideal post is well-written, well-argued, more true than individuals’ current beliefs. Through reading the post, the reader updates towards truer beliefs.
If a beginner writes posts that are of poorer quality, the way to help them is by pointing out problems with their post (e.g. lack of examples), so that next time, they can pre-empt similar criticisms, producing better quality work. Someone more skilled at critique would be able to give feedback that is closer to the writer’s perspective, e.g. steelman to point out flaws, acknowledge context (interpretive labor).
The greatest respect a writer can give to readers is to present a polished, well-written piece, so readers can update accordingly, ideally with ways for people to verify the claims for themselves (e.g. source code they can test).
The ideal comment identifies problems, flaws, weaknesses or provides supporting evidence, alternative perspectives, relevant information for the post, that helps each individual reader better gauge the truth value of a post.
If a commenter writes feedback or asks questions that are irrelevant or not valuable, people are free to ignore or downvote it.
The greatest respect a commenter can give to writers is to identify major flaws in the argument. To criticize is a sign of respect, because it means the commenter believes that the writer can do better and is keen to make their post a stronger piece.
Duncan-like frame (truth seeking as a primarily collectivist endeavor)
Each society is trying to figure out their collective beliefs. Society reaches truer beliefs through each individual helping other individuals converge towards truer beliefs.
Amount of respect accorded to someone is significantly informed by society. The status assigned by society (e.g. titles) act as a default amount of respect to give someone. For example, one is more likely to believe a doctor’s claim that “X is healthier than Y” than a random person’s claim that Y is healthier, even if you do not necessarily understand the doctor’s reasoning, because society has recognized the doctor as medically knowledgeable through the medical degree.
e.g. A student gives a teacher more respect in the classroom by default, and only lowers the respect when the teacher is shown to be incompetent. If a student does not understand the purpose of a homework exercise, the student assumes that they are lacking information and will continue assuming so until proven otherwise.
If a student questions the teacher’s homework exercise, teacher would be justified in being angry or punishing the student because they are being disrespected. (If students are allowed to question everything the teacher does, it would be far less efficient to get things done, making things worse for the group.)
Claims/arguments/questions/criticisms are requests to engage. Ignoring comments would be considered rude, unless they are obviously in bad faith (e.g. trolling).
The ideal post presents a truer view of reality, or highlights a different perspective or potential avenue of exploration for the group. Through reading the post, the reader updates towards truer beliefs, or gets new ideas to try so that the group is more likely to identify truer beliefs.
If a beginner writes posts that are of poorer quality, the way to help them is to steelman and help them shape it into something useful for the group to work on. Someone more skilled at giving feedback is better at picking out useful ideas and presenting them with clarity and concision.
The greatest respect a writer can give to readers is to present a piece that is grounded in their own perspectives and experiences (so the group gets a more complete picture of reality) with clear context (e.g. epistemic status, so people know how to respond to it) and multiple ways for others to build on the work (e.g. providing source code so others can try it out and make modifications).
The ideal comment builds on the post, such as by providing supporting evidence, alternative perspectives, relevant information (contributing knowledge) or by identifying problems, flaws, weaknesses and providing suggestions on how to resolve those (improving/building on the work).
If a commenter writes feedback or asks questions that are irrelevant or not valuable, the writer (or readers) respond to it in good faith, because the group believes in helping each other converge to the truth (e.g. by helping others clear up their misunderstandings).
The greatest respect a commenter can give to writers is to identify valuable ideas from the post and build on it.
It feels like an argument between a couple where person A says “You don’t love me, you never tell me ‘I love you’ when I say it to you.” and the person B responds “What do you mean I don’t love you? I make you breakfast every morning even though I hate waking up early!”. If both parties insist that their love language is the only valid way of showing love, there is no way for this conflict to be addressed.
Maybe the person B believes actions speak louder than words and that saying “I love you” is pointless because people can say that even when they don’t mean it And perhaps person B believes that that is the ideal way the world works, where everyone is judged purely based on their actions and ‘meaningless’ words are omitted, because it removes a layer of obfuscation. But the thing is, the words are meaningless to person B; they are not meaningless to person A. It doesn’t matter whether or not the words should be meaningful to person A. Person A as they are right now has a need to hear that verbal affirmation, person A genuinely has a different experience when they hear those words; it’s just the way person A (and many people) are wired.
If you want to have that relationship, both sides are going to have to make adjustments to learn to speak the other person’s language. For example, both parties may agree to tapping 3 times as a way of saying “I love you” if Person B is uncomfortable with verbal declarations.
If both parties think the other party is obliged to adjust to their frame, then it would make sense to disengage; there is no way of resolving that conflict.
I actually think I prefer Said’s frame on the whole, even though my native frame is closer to Duncan’s. However, I think Said’s commenting behavior is counter-productive to long-term shifting of community norms towards Said’s frame.
I am not familiar with the history, but from what I’ve read, Said seems to raise good points (though not necessarily expressed productive ways). It’s just that the subsequent discussion often devolves into something that’s exhausting to read (like I wish people would steelman Said’s point and respond to that instead of just responding directly, and I wish people would just stop responding to Said if they felt the discussion is getting nowhere rather than end up in long escalating conflicts, and I don’t have a clear idea of how much Said is actually contributing to the dynamics in such conversations because I get very distracted by the maybe-justified-maybe-not uncharitable assumptions being thrown around by all the participants).
I think there are small adjustments that Said can make to the phrasing of comments that can make a non-trivial difference, that can have positive effects even for people who are not as sensitive as Duncan.
For example, instead of saying “I find your stated reason bizarre to the point where I can’t form any coherent model of your thinking here”, Said could have said “I don’t understand your stated reason at all”. This shifts from a judgment on Duncan’s reasoning to a sharing of Said’s own experience, which (for me, at least) removes the unnecessary insult[1]. I suspect other people’s judgments have limited impact on Said’s self-perception, so this phrasing won’t sound meaningfully different to Said, but I think it does make a difference to other people, whether or not it is ideal that this is how they experience the world. And maybe it’s important that people learn to care less about other people’s judgments, but I don’t think it’s fair to demand them to just change instantly and become like Said, or to say that people who are unable or refuse to do that simply should not be allowed to participate at all (or like saying sure you can participate, as long as you are willing to stick your hand in boiling water even though you don’t have gloves and I do).
Being willing to make adjustments to one’s behavior for the sake of the other party would be a show of good faith, and builds trust. At least in my native frame/culture, direct criticism is a form of rudeness/harm in neutral/low-trust relationships and a show of respect in high-trust relationships, and so building this trust would allow the relationship to shift closer to Said’s preferred frame.
Of course, this only works if Duncan is similarly willing to accommodate Said’s frame.
I agree that there is something problematic with Said’s commenting style/behavior given that multiple people have had similar complaints, and given that it seems to have led to consequences that are negative even within Said’s frame. And it is hard to articulate the problem, which makes things challenging. However, it feels like in pushing against Said’s behaviors, Duncan is also invalidating Said’s frame as a valid approach for the community discourse. This feels unfair to people like Said, especially when it seems like a potentially more productive norm (when better executed, or in certain contexts). That’s why it feels unfair to me that Said is unable to comment on the Basics of Rationalist Discourse post.
It’s a bit like there’s a group of people who always play a certain board game by its rules, while there’s another group where everyone cheats and the whole point is to find clever ways to cheat. To people from the first group, cheating is immoral and an act of bad faith, but to the other group, it’s just a part of the game and everyone knows that. One day, someone from the first group gets fed up with people from the second group, and so they decide to declare a set of rules for all game players, that says cheating is wrong. And then they add that the only people who get to vote are people who don’t cheat. Of course the results aren’t going to be representative! And why does the first group have the authority to decide the rules for the entire community?
I don’t know for certain if this is the right characterization, but here are a few examples why I think it is more of an issue of differing frames rather than something with clear right/wrong: (I am not saying the people were right to comment as they did, just pointing out that the conflict is not just about a norm, there is a deeper issue of frames)
In a comment thread, Said says something like Duncan banned Said likely because he doesn’t like being criticized, even though Duncan explicitly said otherwise. To Duncan, this is a wrongful accusation of lying, (I think) because Duncan believes Said is saying that Duncan-in-particular is wrong about his own motivations. However, I think Said believes that everyone is incapable of knowing their true motivations, and therefore, his claim that Duncan might be motivated by subconscious reasons is just a general claim that has no bearing on Duncan as a person, i.e. it’s not intended as a personal attack. It’s only a personal attack if you share the same frame as Duncan.
When clone of saturn said “However, I suspect that Duncan won’t like this idea, because he wants to maintain a motte-and-bailey where his posts are half-baked when someone criticizes them but fully-baked when it’s time to apportion status.”, I read it to mean that “I suspect” applies to the entire sentence, not just the first half. This is because I started out with the assumption that it is impossible for anyone to truly know a person’s motivations, and therefore the only logical reading is that “I suspect” also applies to “he wants to maintain a motte-and-bailey”. There’s no objective true meaning to the sentence (though one may agree on the most common interpretation). It’s like some people when they say “I don’t like it”, it’s implied that “and I want you to stop doing it”, but for others it just means “I don’t like it” and also “that’s just my opinion, you do you”. Thus, I personally would consider it a tad extreme (though understandable given Duncan’s experiences) to call for moderator response immediately without first clarifying with clone of saturn what was meant by the sentence.
While I do think Said is contributing to the problem (whether intentionally or unintentionally), it would be inappropriate to dismiss Said’s frame just because Said is such a bad example of it. This does not mean I believe Said and Duncan are obliged to adjust to each other’s norms. Choosing to disengage and stay within their respective corners, is in my opinion, a perfectly valid and acceptable solution.
I didn’t really want to speak up about the conflicts between Duncan and other members, because I don’t have the full picture. However, this argument is spilling out into public space, so it feels important to address the issue.
As someone who joined about a year ago, I have had very positive experiences on LW so far. I have commented on quite a few of Duncan’s posts and my experience has always been positive, in part because I trust that Duncan will respond fairly to what I say. Reading Duncan’s recent comments, however, made me wonder if I was wrong about that.
Because I am less sensitive than Duncan, it often felt like Duncan was making disproportionately hostile and uncharitable responses. I couldn’t really see what distinguished comments that triggered such extreme responses from other comments. That made me worried that if I’d made a genuine mistake understanding Duncan’s point, that Duncan would also accuse me of strawmanning or not trying hard enough, or that I was being deliberately obtuse. After all, I do and have misunderstood other people’s words before. Seeing Duncan’s explanations on subsequent comments helped me get a better understanding of Duncan’s perspective, but I don’t think it is reasonable to expect people to read through various threads to get the context behind Duncan’s replies.
This means that from an outsider’s perspective, the natural takeaway is that we should not post questions, feedback or criticisms, because we might be personally attacked (accused of bad intentions) for what seems like no reason. It is all the more intimidating/impactful given that Duncan is such an established writer. I know it can be unfair to Duncan (or writers in general) because of the asymmetries, but things continuing as they are would make it harder to nurture healthy conflict at LW, which I believe is also counter to what Duncan hopes for the community.
To end off more concretely, here are some of the things I think would be good for LW:
To consider it pro-social (and reward?) when participants actively choose to slow down, step back, or stop when engaged in unproductive, escalating conflicts (e.g. Stopping Out Loud)
To be acceptable to post half-baked ideas and request gentler criticisms and have such requests respected, e.g. for critics to make their point clear and step back, if it is clear that their feedback is unwanted, so readers can judge for themselves
It should be made obvious via the UI if certain people have been blocked, otherwise it gives a skewed perspective.
When commenting on posts by authors who prefer more collaborative approaches, or for posts that are for half-baked ideas,
commenters to provide more context behind comments (e.g. why you’re asking about a particular point, is it because you feel it is a critical gap or are you just curious), because online communication is more error-prone than in-person interactions and also so it is easier to for both parties to reach a shared understanding of the discussion
If readers agree with a comment, but the comment doesn’t meet the author’s preferred requirements, to help refine the comment instead of just upvoting it (might need author to indicate if this is the case though, because sometimes it’s not obvious?).
To be willing to adjust commenting styles or tolerance levels based on who you are interacting with, especially if it is someone you have had significant history with (else just disengage with people you don’t get along with)
If one feels a comment is being unfair, to express that sentiment rather than going for a reciprocal tit-for-tat response so the other has an opportunity to clarify. If choosing to respond in poor form as a tit-for-tat strategy (which I really don’t like), to at least make that intent explicit and provide the reasoning.
To avoid declaring malicious intent without strong evidence or to disengage/ignore the comment when unable to do so. e.g. “You are not trying hard enough to understand me/you are deliberately misunderstanding me..” --> “That is not what I meant. <explanation/request for someone to help explain/choose to disengage>.”
For authors to have the ability to establish the norms they prefer within their spaces, but to be required to respect the wider community norms if it involves the community.
Common knowledge of the different cultures as well as the associated implications.
- ^
Insult here referring to the emotional impact sense that I’m not sure how to make more explicit, not Said’s definition of insult.
Right now it feels like it’s an either/or choice between criticism and construction, which puts them in direct opposition, but I don’t think they’re necessarily in conflict with each other.
After all, criticism that acknowledges the constraints and nuances of the context is more meaningful than criticism that is shallow and superficial, and criticism that highlights a new perspective or suggests a better alternative is more useful than criticism that only points out flaws. In a sense, it’s not that there’s too much criticism and not enough of contributions, it’s that we want critiques that are of higher standards.
Maybe instead of trying to figure out how to determine the right amounts of criticism individuals are exposed to, we can instead focus on building a culture that values and teaches writing of good critique? There would still (and always be) simplistic or nitpicky criticisms, but perhaps if the community were better at identifying them as such, and providing feedback on how to make such comments better, things would improve over time.
Admittedly, I don’t really know what this would look like in practice, or whether or not it would make a difference to the experience of authors, but putting the issue in terms of killing Socrates feels like dooming it to win/lose or lose/lose solutions...
Noted, and I appreciate the response.
Copy-paste doesn’t seem to work in general, I had to retype the markdown formatting for my comment.
...I don’t think the issue here is nuance. My attempt at a non-nuanced non-unfriendly version would be more like “It feels like CYA because those nuances are obvious to you, but they aren’t actually obvious to some other people.” or maybe “It feels like CYA because you are not the target audience.”
As someone who is perhaps overly optimistic about people’s intentions in general, I don’t really like it when people make assumptions about character/values (e.g. don’t care about truth) or read intent into other people’s actions (e.g. you’re trying to CYA, or you’re not really trying to understand me). People seem to assume negative intent with unjustifiable levels of confidence when there can be better alternative explanations (see below), and this can be very damaging to relationships and counterproductive for discussions. I think it might be helpful if we move away from inferring unknowable things and focus more on explaining our own experiences instead? (e.g. I liked the part where DirectedEvolution shared about their experience rewriting the section, and also Duncan’s explanation that writing nuance feels genuinely effortless).
Example of an alternative interpretation:
...basically, if you find the distinction tedious, it’s strong evidence that you’re either blind to the meaningfulness in the first place, or you just don’t care.
There is a third possibility I can think of: something may be meaningful and important but omitted because it is not relevant to our current task. For example, when we teach children science, we don’t teach them quantum mechanics simply because it is distracting when learning the basics, and not because quantum mechanics is irrelevant or unimportant in general. I personally would prefer it if teachers made this more explicit (i.e. say that they are teaching a simplified model and we would get to learn more details next time) but I get the impression that this is already obvious to other people so I’d imagine it comes across as superfluous to them.
I appreciate this essay because I have experienced a (much milder) version of this “not existing”. It helps me feel seen in certain ways. I also like that it helps me understand a different kind of perspective, and that it helps me make sense of Duncan’s behavior in some of the comment threads. However, I must admit that while I understand intellectually that this is how Duncan experiences things, I myself can’t really imagine it; I don’t understand it on the gut level. The below response is influenced by this essay and also recent discussions on other posts.
The spectrum
There seems to be a spectrum in terms of how much weight people give their own experiences compared to things other people say.
On the one end, we have people who believe so weakly in their own experiences that if someone asks them “Why didn’t you lock the door?”, the first instinct is to doubt themselves and ask “Oh no did I forget?”, even if they know that they had locked the door and even checked it multiple times. (If they hear someone say people like them don’t exist, they conclude “Maybe I don’t actually exist?”)
On the other end, we have people who so firmly believe in their own experiences that even if multiple people tell them something that contradicts their own experience, they will simply laugh it off as ridiculous. (If they hear someone say people like them don’t exist, they think “Of course I exist, therefore they must be wrong.”)
People don’t necessarily belong exclusively to one group. One may be very opinionated about taste in music, while at the same time sensitive about their food preferences.
The need for both sides
Both are important:
We need to be able to listen to alternate explanations of our own experiences and to be able to accept that other people can have experiences that are different from ours, because our personal experiences are just a very tiny part of all of human experience. We want to be able to learn from and cater to all the different perspectives, not just our own limited perspective.
Yet, firm belief in our own experiences is useful for ensuring that we don’t end up with societal beliefs that are divorced from reality. If everyone is too willing to believe others’ words over their own perceptions, if there was no child ready to point out that the emperor is in fact not wearing any clothes, then it seems society would end up with nonsensical beliefs touted by charlatans, beliefs that no one has actually ever personally experienced.
We want, of course, to strike a balance. We want to be able to trust our own experiences: other people’s opinions should not be able to negate our own experiences. And yet, we must also be open to the possibility that we are wrong. We should be able to hold both things in our minds at once and weigh them carefully rather than defaulting to one or the other.
It’s really hard though (for me, at least). In some areas I default far too easily to believing others over myself. And yet in other areas, I find myself slow to update when I hear about experiences that don’t match mine. There’s no vocabulary or concept in my world to describe their experiences, so it gets rounded off to something that matches my world without me realizing it. I can’t tell that I’m doing it until someone explains it to be in a way I can understand. (And sometimes I get the sense that people on the “own perspective” end are simply incapable of realizing that people can have experiences that are different from theirs.)
Working with people from different parts of the spectrum
Some discussions I have with people feel more collaborative. We both believe the other has something useful to say. If I am struggling to express my thoughts, they help by rephrasing or suggesting possibilities based on their understanding, until we converge upon a common understanding. They may disagree with me, but they make what feels like a genuine attempt to understand what I am trying to say and see if there is some truth to it. It feels like we are working together to figure out the truth. I think people like that are on the “believing what others say” end of the spectrum.
Some discussions feel less equal. It feels like they are so sure and confident in their own perspective that it is my job as the person with the different perspective to convince them that they are wrong. I have to explain things from their perspective; they won’t help me understand or clarify my thoughts. It feels like the burden of shifting both of us towards what is true is almost entirely on me. I am the salesperson, trying to sell them my version of reality. They are the customer, waiting to be convinced. I think it’s part of what Frame Control was talking about?
Talking to people like that can be exhausting, and quickly becomes very frustrating when I am under high stress. Maybe this is because I have such weak belief in my own opinions. In some areas, it feels like there’s some kind of mental/emotional cost incurred when I try to express something that is different from what people commonly believe, because a part of myself believes I am wrong and so I have to expend energy to go against both my beliefs and other people’s beliefs.
There are certain conditions, however, where the second type of discussion feels collaborative. Like in the second case, they don’t help you express your thoughts, they don’t reflect back at you, they poke holes in your argument. And yet, moments later, days later, weeks later, you realize that they are thinking about what you said and that they do actually take into consideration the things you said when they make decisions. If there is equality on a higher level (i.e. there are also conversations where they try to change my mind, and in those cases they are the ones putting in the work of convincing me) and they show that they are listening and willing to change their minds, then it also feels like collaborative discussion, just of a different style. The tricky thing is that I don’t think you can tell the difference between the second and third cases immediately, only through repeated interactions.
In other words, sometimes it feels like I’m talking to someone from the “own perspective” end of the spectrum but it turns out that they’re more central, it’s just that they are conversing in a different style.
A better culture
I’m not sure how true this concept of the spectrum is, but if it were true, is there anything that would help? Here are some ideas based on what I’ve found helpful:
Help people build trust in their own experiences:
Stop outright invalidating people’s experiences, e.g. “It hurts.” “No, it doesn’t.”; “I hate my baby brother.” “No, you don’t.”
Take care (sometimes? when you have significant influence over someone?) to distinguish between one’s opinions and reality, e.g. “The drink is too sweet for me” instead of “The drink is too sweet”. “I think that X, but I may be wrong.” (I think it’s important for people to learn that “The drink is too sweet” is just someone’s opinion, rather than end up thinking that it is other people’s responsibility/ to phrase it as an opinion.)
Teach people to pay attention to their own experiences (needs to be balanced by the concept that we can have blind spots, we may interpret things wrongly etc.), e.g. instead of saying “It is wrong for anyone to touch you in these places”, we say “This is your body. If anyone touches you in any way that makes you feel uncomfortable, you can say no etc.”)
Take care to listen to people when they aren’t being heard, rather than just dismissing their concerns (e.g. “I’m sure he didn’t mean it”), especially when they are people you are close to or you have power over them
Help people see that people’s opinions are a reflection of their models rather than an indication of the truth or validity of other people’s experiences:Take pride in harmless differences, especially if they are things that society typically frowns upon (needs to be countered with respect for society’s comfort level with things that are ‘weird’): e.g. “People think it’s childish, but I like reading children’s books!”, or “I know people think I have bad taste, but I really like X.”
Celebrate differences in opinions: e.g. one person says “The first one was the best”, the other person says “Really? I think the last was the nicest, because X”, then the first person responds with “Ah, interesting! I think …” (or anything genuinely positive)
Create space for individual variations:
Acknowledge and accommodate differences, e.g. “You can observe first then join in later if you’d prefer.”
Accommodate (on a societal level) the different types of needs (e.g. wheelchair accessibility) and talk about it, so people know about it (e.g. kitchenware for the blind)
Make it safe for people to express differences e.g. if someone states a different opinion and your response is a “No way! Really?!” and they seem to withdraw or react unexpectedly, make it clear that you are interested in their opinion (e.g. ask a question to learn more) (needs to be genuine)
Help people understand that everyone is different, in ways that we consistently underestimate:
Share about your experiences (like this essay), or write/share articles/essays about people who experience the world differently (e.g. news articles about difficulties faced by people who have learning disorders) or about typical mind fallacy
Things like personality quizzes are perhaps harmful in some ways but they do seem quite successful at encouraging people to talk about their differences?
Encourage people when they share their opinions and participate in conversations (even if badly), because the best way of learning that everyone is different is by having discussions with people who are different. (note that the needs of all parties should still be considered)
I like this for the idea of distinguishing between what is real (how we behave) vs what is perceived (other people’s judgment of how we are behaving). It helped me see that rather than focusing on making other people happy or seeking their approval, I should instead focus on what I believe I should do (e.g. what kinds of behaviour create value in the world) and measure myself accordingly. My beliefs may be wrong, but feedback from reality is far more objective and consistent than things like social approval, so it’s a much saner goal. And more importantly, it is a goal that encourages genuine change.
“Oh, that,” said the king with a shrug. “That isn’t your honor, Costis. That’s the public perception of your honor. It has nothing to do with anything important, except perhaps for manipulating fools who mistake honor for its bright, shiny trappings. You can always change the perceptions of fools.”
-- The King of Attolia, by Megan Whalen Turner
What we want is for perceptions to match with what is real, not for perceptions themselves to be manipulated independently of reality.
I like this because it reminds me:
before complaining about someone not making the obvious choice, first ask if that option actually exists (e.g. are they capable of doing it?)
before complaining about a bad decision, to ask if the better alternatives actually exist (people aren’t choosing a bad option because they think it’s better than a good option; they’re choosing it because all other options are worse)
However, since I use it for my own thinking, I think of it more as an imaginary/mirage option instead of a fabricated option. It is indeed an option fabricated by my mind, but it doesn’t feel like I made it up. It always feels real, then turns out to be an illusion upon closer examination.
I agree in some sense that for the purpose of my learning/interest, I would rather people err on the side of engaging with less effort than not engaging at all. However, I think community norms need to be more opinionated/shaped because it influences the direction of growth.
The culture I’ve enjoyed the most is one where high standards is considered desirable by the community as a whole, especially core members, but it is acceptable if members do not commit to living up to those standards (you gain respect for working like a professional, but it is acceptable if you just dabble like an amateur):
You are only penalised for failing to fulfill your responsibilities/not meeting the basic standards (e.g. being consistently late, not doing your work) and not for e.g. failing to put in extra effort. You have the freedom to be a hobbyist, but you are still expected to respect other people’s time and work.
Good norms are modelled and highlighted so new members can learn them over time
You need to work at the higher standards to be among the successful/respected within the group (the community values high quality work)
People who want to work at the higher standards have the space to do so (e.g. they work on a specific project where people who join are expected to work at higher standards or only people who are more serious are selected)
I like it because it feels like you are encouraged or supported or nudged to aim higher, but at the same time, the culture welcomes new people who may just be looking to explore (and may end up becoming core members!). It was for a smaller group that met in person, where new people are the minority, and the skill is perhaps more legible, so I’m not sure how that translates to the online world.
It’s also fun being in groups that enforce higher standards, but the purpose of those groups tend to be producing good work rather than reaching out to people and growing the community.
This was interesting! Here’s my attempt to make sense of the essay & the comments:
TL;DR We can think of the parts of reality that we have influence over as our surface area of contact with reality. One way of expanding this is increasing our scale of impact (e.g. self → friends & family → communities → world). Since reality is fractal though, you can also expand by engaging more deeply with reality and developing expertise in an area (e.g. beginner → able to cook good food for yourself). Increasing scale of impact tends to seem more impressive, but delving deeper also expands our agency over reality, just in a less visible manner. This fractal nature of reality also means that regardless of which scale you choose to work at, you will still be able to live a rich and rewardng life.
It’s remarkable to me how we are all living in the same physical reality, yet some people seem to be living in much bigger worlds than others. Some work for a salary, organize gatherings with friends, sew or knit, or read autobiographies of famous people. Others start companies, set up non-profit organizations, make software used by hundreds of thousands, or collaborate with famous people. Their worlds feel much bigger: things that are merely painted items on the backdrop of my stage are props they can interact with on theirs.
An easy way to measure this difference is scale of impact. People can generally control their own actions (most of the time) and maybe cajole a loved one to do as they wish. Some can persuade their friends to say, try out a new place for a meal or sign a petition. Fewer can manage departments, fewer still can lead a multi-national company, and yet fewer still can lead a country. Similarly, anyone can write, but only some can publish novels read by millions. People who have a larger scale of impact are more impressive, because they have influence over a larger part of reality. This generally comes along with developing expertise: the more you learn, the more your reality, i.e. parts of the world you have influence or agency over, expands.
The thing is, though, that reality is fractal. The surface of your bubble is not smooth—it consists of many small bubbles, and the surfaces of those bubbles consist of yet smaller bubbles. Thus, there is another way to increase your area of influence. Rather than increasing the size of your bubble or moving to a larger bubble, you can instead delve into the tiny bubbles along the surface.
One can think of developing expertise as learning to make increasingly precise adjustments to the effects you have on the world. When learning music, you start off trying to play the notes you see on your music sheet. Later on you try to play the notes with the dynamics you’re imagining in your mind. Later still, you work on using dynamics to convey the emotion you want the listener to feel. As you gain mastery, you explore the smaller bubbles, learning finer ways of influencing the world. Just like moving up the scale of impact, this gives you agency over a larger part of the reality—your action space increases. Only when you’ve spent time exploring the nuances of music can you play music that moves people. Only when you’ve spent time exploring the internals of a computer do you have the option of repairing your own laptop. Only when you’ve spent time shopping and comparing prices for your groceries will you know how to find the best deals.
When you engage with reality, your reality expands. You are rewarded with greater agency regardless of whether you move up the scale (zoom out) or explore the details (zoom in). However, zooming out often sounds more impressive than zooming in, because it is more visible and requires less expertise to detect.
It’s easy to compare the number of people reporting to a manager. Also, people who have larger spheres of influence are more likely to be known (you’re more likely to read about a CEO than a junior employee). In contrast, not everyone can evaluate how skilled a teacher is at teaching. Furthermore, a competent teacher is not necessarily going to be more well-known than a teacher who is less so. Or to put it another way, a division manager just sounds more impressive than a kindergarten teacher, even if the teacher is better at managing people.
There is a tradeoff between zooming out and zooming in, because you have a finite amount of time. Also, knowing the details can become unimportant (and possibly a waste of time) when you zoom out far enough. It’s important for a CTO to have technical expertise, but it would be unnecessary for the CTO to be familar with all the nuances of a programming language.
This is a choice you can make, and maybe some would decide to scale up as much as possible. Reality is fractal though, which means that you can live a rich and rewarding life regardless of which scale you choose to work at. There’s always lots of choices. For example, in cooking, you can explore making Mexican dishes, or creative presentation of food, or fusion of unusual flavors, or even finding as many ways as possible to use tofu. (Or you could move up the scale by becoming a chef and opening restaurants, sharing your grandma’s recipes on your website, posting Youtube videos so people can learn to make tasty vegetarian dishes, or building software that recommends recipes based on the ingredients you have on hand.) Reality is a very rich place to explore.
It’s been an absolute delight using excalidraw, thanks for the rec! Everything just works and it looks pretty:)
For perfectionism, I think never being satisfied with where you’re at now doesn’t mean you can’t take pride in how far you’ve come?
“Don’t feel complacent” feels different from “striving for perfection” to me. The former feels more like making sure your standards don’t drop too much (maintaining a good lower bound), whereas the latter feels more like pushing the upper limit. When I think about complacency, I think about being careful and making sure that I am not e.g. taking the easy way out because of laziness. When I think about perfectionism (in the 12 virtues sense), I think about imagining ways things can be better and finding ways to get closer to that ideal.
I don’t really understand the ‘argument’ virtue so no comment for that.
This is an important distinction, otherwise you risk getting into unproductive discussions about someone’s intent instead of focusing on whether a person’s patterns are compatible with your or your group/community’s needs.
It doesn’t matter if someone was negligent or malicious: if they are bad at reading your nonverbal cues and you are bad at explicitly saying no to boundary crossing behaviors, you are incompatible and that is reason enough to end the relationship. It doesn’t matter if someone is trying their best: if their best is still disruptive to your team, that is reason enough to request they be transferred out.
I can’t remember if this essay is where I learned this concept. But remembering this distinction protected me in meaningful ways at least twice.