The Nonlinear Library: LessWrong LW - Can we build a better Public Doublecrux? by Raemon
May 12, 2024
07:20
Link to original article
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Can we build a better Public Doublecrux?, published by Raemon on May 12, 2024 on LessWrong.
Something I'd like to try at LessOnline is to somehow iterate on the "Public Doublecrux" format. I'm not sure if I'll end up focusing on it, but here are some ideas.
Public Doublecrux is a more truthseeking oriented version of Public Debate. The goal of a debate is to change your opponent's mind or the public's mind. The goal of a doublecrux is more like "work with your partner to figure out if you should change your mind, and vice versa."
Reasons to want to do public doublecrux include:
It helps showcase subtle mental moves that are hard to write down explicitly (i.e. tacit knowledge transfer.
There's still something good and exciting about seeing high profile smart people talk about ideas. Having some variant of that format seems good for LessOnline. And having at least 1-2 "doublecruxes" rather than "debates" or "panels" or "interviews" seems good for culture setting.
In addition to being "exciting" and "possible to learn from" to have public figures doublecrux, I think it'd also be nice from a culture setting standpoint. This is a place where people don't play rhetorical tricks to manipulate people - it's a place where people earnestly move towards the truth.
Sidebar: Public Debate is also good although not what I'm gonna focus on here.
I know several people who have argued that "debate-qua-debate" is also an important part of a truthseeking culture. It's fine if the individuals are trying to "present the best case for their position", so long as the collective process steers towards truth. Adversarial Collaboration is good. Public disagreement is good.
I do generally buy this, although I have some disagreements with the people who argue most strongly for Debate. I think I prefer it to happen in written longform than in person, where charisma puts a heavier thumb on the scale. And I think while it can produce social good, many variants of it seem... kinda bad for the epistemic souls of the people participating? By becoming a champion for a particular idea, people seem to get more tunnel-vision-y about it.
Sometimes worth it, but, I've felt some kind of missing mood here when arguing with people in the past.
I'm happy to chat about this in the comments more but mostly won't be focusing on it here.
Historically I think public doublecruxes have had some problems:
1. First, having the live audience there makes it a bit more awkward and performative. It's harder to "earnestly truthseek" when there's a crowd you'd still kinda like to persuade of your idea, or at least not sound stupid in front of.
2. Historically, people who have ended up doing "public doublecrux" hadn't actually really understood or really bought into the process. They often end up veering towards either classical debate, or "just kinda talking."
3. When two people are actually changing *their* minds tend to get into idiosyncratic frames that are hard for observers to understand. Hell, it's even hard for two people in the discussion to understand. They're chasing their cruxes, rather than presenting "generally compelling arguments." This tends to require getting into weeds and go down rabbit holes that don't feel relevant to most people.
With that in mind, here are some ideas:
Maybe have the double cruxers in a private room, with videocameras. The talk is broadcast live to other conference-goers, but the actual chat is in a nice cozy room. This doesn't fully solve the "public awkwardness" problem, but maybe mediates it a bit.
Have two (or three?) dedicated facilitators. More Dakka. More on that below.
For the facilators:
One is in the room with the doublecruxers, focused on helping them steer towards useful questions. They probably try to initially guide the participants towards communicating their basic positi...
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Can we build a better Public Doublecrux?, published by Raemon on May 12, 2024 on LessWrong.
Something I'd like to try at LessOnline is to somehow iterate on the "Public Doublecrux" format. I'm not sure if I'll end up focusing on it, but here are some ideas.
Public Doublecrux is a more truthseeking oriented version of Public Debate. The goal of a debate is to change your opponent's mind or the public's mind. The goal of a doublecrux is more like "work with your partner to figure out if you should change your mind, and vice versa."
Reasons to want to do public doublecrux include:
It helps showcase subtle mental moves that are hard to write down explicitly (i.e. tacit knowledge transfer.
There's still something good and exciting about seeing high profile smart people talk about ideas. Having some variant of that format seems good for LessOnline. And having at least 1-2 "doublecruxes" rather than "debates" or "panels" or "interviews" seems good for culture setting.
In addition to being "exciting" and "possible to learn from" to have public figures doublecrux, I think it'd also be nice from a culture setting standpoint. This is a place where people don't play rhetorical tricks to manipulate people - it's a place where people earnestly move towards the truth.
Sidebar: Public Debate is also good although not what I'm gonna focus on here.
I know several people who have argued that "debate-qua-debate" is also an important part of a truthseeking culture. It's fine if the individuals are trying to "present the best case for their position", so long as the collective process steers towards truth. Adversarial Collaboration is good. Public disagreement is good.
I do generally buy this, although I have some disagreements with the people who argue most strongly for Debate. I think I prefer it to happen in written longform than in person, where charisma puts a heavier thumb on the scale. And I think while it can produce social good, many variants of it seem... kinda bad for the epistemic souls of the people participating? By becoming a champion for a particular idea, people seem to get more tunnel-vision-y about it.
Sometimes worth it, but, I've felt some kind of missing mood here when arguing with people in the past.
I'm happy to chat about this in the comments more but mostly won't be focusing on it here.
Historically I think public doublecruxes have had some problems:
1. First, having the live audience there makes it a bit more awkward and performative. It's harder to "earnestly truthseek" when there's a crowd you'd still kinda like to persuade of your idea, or at least not sound stupid in front of.
2. Historically, people who have ended up doing "public doublecrux" hadn't actually really understood or really bought into the process. They often end up veering towards either classical debate, or "just kinda talking."
3. When two people are actually changing *their* minds tend to get into idiosyncratic frames that are hard for observers to understand. Hell, it's even hard for two people in the discussion to understand. They're chasing their cruxes, rather than presenting "generally compelling arguments." This tends to require getting into weeds and go down rabbit holes that don't feel relevant to most people.
With that in mind, here are some ideas:
Maybe have the double cruxers in a private room, with videocameras. The talk is broadcast live to other conference-goers, but the actual chat is in a nice cozy room. This doesn't fully solve the "public awkwardness" problem, but maybe mediates it a bit.
Have two (or three?) dedicated facilitators. More Dakka. More on that below.
For the facilators:
One is in the room with the doublecruxers, focused on helping them steer towards useful questions. They probably try to initially guide the participants towards communicating their basic positi...