Double crux. This is another one of those “maybe I actually understand it but it feels like there’s something I’m missing” things. I get that a crux is something that would change your mind. And yeah, if you’re arguing with someone and you find a crux that would make you agree with them if vice versa and stuff, that’s useful. Then you guys can work on discussing that crux. Is that it though? Isn’t that common sense? Why is this presented as something that CFAR discovered? Maybe there’s more to it than I’m describing?
It turns out that most discussions are not focusing on finding a crux. Having a discussion that does focus on finding the crux and not talking about other things is hard.
Yeah, I do find that to be true. So is the hype moreso “hey, here’s a common failure mode we found” instead of “hey, here’s a new technique we discovered”? Or maybe “hey, here’s a handy reference post and name for a concept you might already have some sense of”?
I think you’re overestimating how much “common sense” is already in-the-water. Even among committed rationalists my experience is that sticking to crux-finding is really hard. I think the techniques aren’t reliably useful, but the default thing people do just doesn’t work at all.
BTW, I’m curious if you’ve read Keep Your Beliefs Cruxy, which I wrote in part to explain my motivations for using doublecrux in real life.
Hm, let me be more specific and then you can tell me if you agree or disagree.
I think it is a recognition vs recall thing where people are able to recognize but not recall. Ie. when you explain what cruxes are and why double cruxing is useful I think people would nod and say “yes, that makes sense” not “oh wow, that’s an interesting new concept”. They’re able to recognize. But in the moment it’s one of those things that most people don’t really think of on their own and utilize.
Maybe I’m wrong though and there is something to this idea of double cruxing that would evoke the latter response. If so I think that I personally don’t know what those aspects are.
BTW, I’m curious if you’ve read Keep Your Beliefs Cruxy, which I wrote in part to explain my motivations for using doublecrux in real life.
I have not but I’m interested and will at least skim through it. Thanks for pointing it out. I didn’t know it existed.
I think I’d say all the ingredients in Double Crux already existed, but
a) it’s actually useful work simply to notice that the status quo doesn’t result in people steering towards cruxes, so you need some kind of innovation to help people steer that way
b) the specific operationalization of the Double Crux technique is a decent attempt at helping people steer that way, even if it’s not quite right, there have been innovations since then, and it’s sort of a training wheels you eventually move on from.
It turns out that most discussions are not focusing on finding a crux. Having a discussion that does focus on finding the crux and not talking about other things is hard.
Yeah, I do find that to be true. So is the hype moreso “hey, here’s a common failure mode we found” instead of “hey, here’s a new technique we discovered”? Or maybe “hey, here’s a handy reference post and name for a concept you might already have some sense of”?
In my experience of attempting to train Double Crux in Dojo/LW meetups getting people to do it well is not easy.
I think you’re overestimating how much “common sense” is already in-the-water. Even among committed rationalists my experience is that sticking to crux-finding is really hard. I think the techniques aren’t reliably useful, but the default thing people do just doesn’t work at all.
BTW, I’m curious if you’ve read Keep Your Beliefs Cruxy, which I wrote in part to explain my motivations for using doublecrux in real life.
Hm, let me be more specific and then you can tell me if you agree or disagree.
I think it is a recognition vs recall thing where people are able to recognize but not recall. Ie. when you explain what cruxes are and why double cruxing is useful I think people would nod and say “yes, that makes sense” not “oh wow, that’s an interesting new concept”. They’re able to recognize. But in the moment it’s one of those things that most people don’t really think of on their own and utilize.
Maybe I’m wrong though and there is something to this idea of double cruxing that would evoke the latter response. If so I think that I personally don’t know what those aspects are.
I have not but I’m interested and will at least skim through it. Thanks for pointing it out. I didn’t know it existed.
I think I’d say all the ingredients in Double Crux already existed, but
a) it’s actually useful work simply to notice that the status quo doesn’t result in people steering towards cruxes, so you need some kind of innovation to help people steer that way
b) the specific operationalization of the Double Crux technique is a decent attempt at helping people steer that way, even if it’s not quite right, there have been innovations since then, and it’s sort of a training wheels you eventually move on from.
Also see Eli’s updated post on how he describes the doublecrux pattern: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hNztRARB52Riy36Kz/the-basic-double-crux-pattern
I see. It sounds like we agree then and there isn’t really anything important about it that I’m missing.
To tell whether or not you are missing something, someone would need to observe what you actually do when you try to do double crux.