The transition from using SE one-way versus using it two ways is meaningful, of course.
I think if you watch some of the SE example videos (see link), though, you’ll get a fuller idea of what I’ve seen. Anthony Magnabosco’s personal flavor of SE in particular has developed a lot of DC specifics.
I posted this to the SE FB group in December, and it lists some of the similarities I thought they’d find interesting:
“The Center For Applied Rationality (CFAR) has basically just re-invented a universally applicable form of Street Epistemology in what they call “Double Crux.”
A few excerpts from their description:
“the primary strategy is to embody the question “What do you see that I don’t?” In other words, approach from a place of explicit humility and good faith, drawing out their belief structure for its own sake, to see and appreciate it rather than to undermine or attack it”
“model the behavior you’d like your partner to exhibit.”
“use paper and pencil, or whiteboards, or get people to treat specific predictions and conclusions as immutable objects (if you or they want to change or update the wording, that’s encouraged, but make sure that at any given moment, you’re working with a clear, unambiguous statement).”
They then break it down into an explicit algorithm and include some tips not seen in SE about how to focus on the true substance of a belief and how to use your own belief structure in a discussion.”
.
They also found the similarities striking. Anthony Magnabosco has found a lot of wording specifics that help people be even more open, and Violet Bernarde has been focusing on body language refinements, there have been other interesting developments. Good things to take from each other for each of them.
Hi, Dan
The transition from using SE one-way versus using it two ways is meaningful, of course.
I think if you watch some of the SE example videos (see link), though, you’ll get a fuller idea of what I’ve seen. Anthony Magnabosco’s personal flavor of SE in particular has developed a lot of DC specifics.
I posted this to the SE FB group in December, and it lists some of the similarities I thought they’d find interesting:
“The Center For Applied Rationality (CFAR) has basically just re-invented a universally applicable form of Street Epistemology in what they call “Double Crux.”
A few excerpts from their description:
“the primary strategy is to embody the question “What do you see that I don’t?” In other words, approach from a place of explicit humility and good faith, drawing out their belief structure for its own sake, to see and appreciate it rather than to undermine or attack it”
“model the behavior you’d like your partner to exhibit.”
“use paper and pencil, or whiteboards, or get people to treat specific predictions and conclusions as immutable objects (if you or they want to change or update the wording, that’s encouraged, but make sure that at any given moment, you’re working with a clear, unambiguous statement).”
They then break it down into an explicit algorithm and include some tips not seen in SE about how to focus on the true substance of a belief and how to use your own belief structure in a discussion.” .
They also found the similarities striking. Anthony Magnabosco has found a lot of wording specifics that help people be even more open, and Violet Bernarde has been focusing on body language refinements, there have been other interesting developments. Good things to take from each other for each of them.