This is the first I’ve heard of Street Epistemology, or Boghossian’s book A Manual for Creating Atheists where it was apparently introduced. A key difference between it and Double Crux:
From their guide, it looks like Street Epistemology is intended to be an asymmetric game. Only player A knows about Street Epistemology, player A chooses to start the conversation about a topic where player A is confident that they are right and player B is wrong, and the conversation is about the reasons for player B’s beliefs. Player A attempts to change player B’s mind by improving player B’s epistemology. Player A needn’t talk about their own beliefs; there is a short subsection in the guide which addresses this topic, beginning “If asked about your own beliefs you should be prepared to answer.” The guide describes Street Epistemology as being “most useful for extraordinary claims, such as miracles and supernatural phenomena.”
Double Crux is intended to be a symmetric game, where both players know what kind of conversation they’re getting into and both players put their beliefs (and the reasons for their beliefs) on the table in an attempt to improve their models. The object of the game (as its name suggests) is to find a crux that is shared by both players, where either of them would change their mind about the original disagreement if they changed their mind about the crucial point. I previously described Double Crux as being most useful for tricky, important-to-you questions where “digging into your own thinking and the other person’s thinking on the topic is one of the more promising options available for making progress towards figuring out something that you care about.”
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.
Double Crux was largely a re-invention of Street Epistemology
You can find people to practice it with at the Street Epistemology Facebook group. They’re having role-play sessions, making how-to videos, etc.
streetepistemology.com
(This is Dan from CFAR)
This is the first I’ve heard of Street Epistemology, or Boghossian’s book A Manual for Creating Atheists where it was apparently introduced. A key difference between it and Double Crux:
From their guide, it looks like Street Epistemology is intended to be an asymmetric game. Only player A knows about Street Epistemology, player A chooses to start the conversation about a topic where player A is confident that they are right and player B is wrong, and the conversation is about the reasons for player B’s beliefs. Player A attempts to change player B’s mind by improving player B’s epistemology. Player A needn’t talk about their own beliefs; there is a short subsection in the guide which addresses this topic, beginning “If asked about your own beliefs you should be prepared to answer.” The guide describes Street Epistemology as being “most useful for extraordinary claims, such as miracles and supernatural phenomena.”
Double Crux is intended to be a symmetric game, where both players know what kind of conversation they’re getting into and both players put their beliefs (and the reasons for their beliefs) on the table in an attempt to improve their models. The object of the game (as its name suggests) is to find a crux that is shared by both players, where either of them would change their mind about the original disagreement if they changed their mind about the crucial point. I previously described Double Crux as being most useful for tricky, important-to-you questions where “digging into your own thinking and the other person’s thinking on the topic is one of the more promising options available for making progress towards figuring out something that you care about.”
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.
In what sense to you believe that to be true. Do you believe that CFAR was inspired by Street Epistemology?
I didn’t know about this! Thanks for the link!