I like the descriptive point about it being hierarchy-restricted. That sounds at least partially correct. I can think of situations where such meta-conversation wouldn’t be taboo for someone who is high status, such as the CTO in example 1.
However, I can also think of situations where there just isn’t really (enough of) a status hierarchy. As for prescriptive claim that it should be hierarchy-restricted, I’m not sure. I could see things getting out of hand if everyone is allowed to initiate meta-conversation, but that also feels like a solvable problem. You need to establish some sort of norm about how to balance meta-conversation with object-level conversation. I also think that there needs to be a solution for situations without clear status hierarchies.
Accepting that “high status” is what authorizes it might be part of the issue in the first place here. Perhaps that’s what you need to get rid of? “status” is a pattern of authority-deference in a network structure that is weighted with significant balance in one direction. In general, such imbalances are unhealthy and show a bug in the social graph. Strong downvote for accepting hierarchy as normal. Find a way to plan how to make it go away from reality instead, perhaps? Focus on relationship state rather than single-variable “status”, for example.
It’s not so much that I’m endorsing the status hierarchy stuff. It’s more that I’m trying to take the action that has the best consequences. Perhaps your position is that 1) status hierarchy shouldn’t gatekeep meta-conversation, 2) my acting as if it does makes the norm stronger, which is a bad consequence, and therefore 3) I shouldn’t act as if it does. My objection is that (2) is extremely weak given that my action is just an extremely small drop in the bucket. I think it rounds to zero and that the discomfort I’d cause others and myself outweighs it.
Latching on to the “hierarchy” keyword as an object of ire, and completely disregarding “position of trust and accountability”, does a massive disservice to the thrust of the argument.
You can easily repackage the concept as “role-based”, with someone taking the position of mediator or chairperson by collective agreement. The point is that the person is made aware of their responsibilities to promote a better conversation and is expected to be more sensitive to the peculiarities of their role, including accepting in their turn the potential for feedback or meta-meta-conversations.
Specialisation, separation of concerns, and checks-and-balances are neither unhealthy nor show a bug in the social graph. Neither does deferring decision making to a delegated individual. Good networks don’t need to be homogenous.
I am consistently able to pull off being that role for the first time by simply doing this. Not the way I interact here on lesswrong, of course, that would never work, I’m too spicy here. But I gave an example in another thread.
I like the descriptive point about it being hierarchy-restricted. That sounds at least partially correct. I can think of situations where such meta-conversation wouldn’t be taboo for someone who is high status, such as the CTO in example 1.
However, I can also think of situations where there just isn’t really (enough of) a status hierarchy. As for prescriptive claim that it should be hierarchy-restricted, I’m not sure. I could see things getting out of hand if everyone is allowed to initiate meta-conversation, but that also feels like a solvable problem. You need to establish some sort of norm about how to balance meta-conversation with object-level conversation. I also think that there needs to be a solution for situations without clear status hierarchies.
Accepting that “high status” is what authorizes it might be part of the issue in the first place here. Perhaps that’s what you need to get rid of? “status” is a pattern of authority-deference in a network structure that is weighted with significant balance in one direction. In general, such imbalances are unhealthy and show a bug in the social graph. Strong downvote for accepting hierarchy as normal. Find a way to plan how to make it go away from reality instead, perhaps? Focus on relationship state rather than single-variable “status”, for example.
It’s not so much that I’m endorsing the status hierarchy stuff. It’s more that I’m trying to take the action that has the best consequences. Perhaps your position is that 1) status hierarchy shouldn’t gatekeep meta-conversation, 2) my acting as if it does makes the norm stronger, which is a bad consequence, and therefore 3) I shouldn’t act as if it does. My objection is that (2) is extremely weak given that my action is just an extremely small drop in the bucket. I think it rounds to zero and that the discomfort I’d cause others and myself outweighs it.
Latching on to the “hierarchy” keyword as an object of ire, and completely disregarding “position of trust and accountability”, does a massive disservice to the thrust of the argument.
You can easily repackage the concept as “role-based”, with someone taking the position of mediator or chairperson by collective agreement. The point is that the person is made aware of their responsibilities to promote a better conversation and is expected to be more sensitive to the peculiarities of their role, including accepting in their turn the potential for feedback or meta-meta-conversations.
Specialisation, separation of concerns, and checks-and-balances are neither unhealthy nor show a bug in the social graph. Neither does deferring decision making to a delegated individual. Good networks don’t need to be homogenous.
I am consistently able to pull off being that role for the first time by simply doing this. Not the way I interact here on lesswrong, of course, that would never work, I’m too spicy here. But I gave an example in another thread.