Thanks for the summary. Just a quick note: I found that multiple headers & jumping between different “lenses” made it much harder to me to read the post. I guess I’d wish that those blocks would be larger, possibly all the way separated.
Thanks for the feedback! It seems like you’re saying I should first have done “negotiation techniques” then “do these negotiation techniques have a place in rational discourse?” as separate sections. So if we make a table with rows as techniques and columns as lenses, then I should have traversed it column major instead of row major.
Did I misunderstand or miss an angle to what you’re saying?
Thanks for the summary. Just a quick note: I found that multiple headers & jumping between different “lenses” made it much harder to me to read the post. I guess I’d wish that those blocks would be larger, possibly all the way separated.
Thanks for the feedback! It seems like you’re saying I should first have done “negotiation techniques” then “do these negotiation techniques have a place in rational discourse?” as separate sections. So if we make a table with rows as techniques and columns as lenses, then I should have traversed it column major instead of row major.
Did I misunderstand or miss an angle to what you’re saying?
I think I prefer it this way, fwiw.
By “this way” do you mean the way I wrote it or the way Alexei would have preferred?
Sorry, yeah, that was unclear. I think I prefer the way you wrote it.
That’s correct.