Summary
Disagreements often focus on outputs even though underlying models produced those.
Double Crux idea: focus on the models!
Double Crux tries to reveal the different underlying beliefs coming from different perspectives on reality
Good Faith Principle:
Assume that the other side is moral and intelligent.
Even if some actors are bad, you minimize the chance of error if you start with the prior that each new person is acting in good faith
Identifying Cruxes
For every belief A, there are usually beliefs B, C, D such that their believed truth supports belief A
These are “cruxes” if them not being true would shake the belief in A.
Ideally, B, C, and D are functional models of how the world works and can be empirically investigated
If you know your crux(es), investigating it has the chance to change your belief in A
In Search of more productive disagreement
Often, people obscure their cruxes by telling many supporting reasons, most of which aren’t their true crux.
This makes it hard for the “opponent” to know where to focus
If both parties search for truth instead of wanting to win, you can speed up the process a lot by telling each other the cruxes
Playing Double Crux
Lower the bar: instead of reaching a shared belief, find a shared testable claim that, if investigated, would resolve the disagreement.
Double Crux: A belief that is a crux for you and your conversation partner, i.e.:
You believe A, the partner believes not A.
You believe testable claim B, the partner believes not B.
B is a crux of your belief in A and not B is a crux of your partner’s belief in not B.
Investigating conclusively whether B is true may resolve the disagreement (if the cruxes were comprehensive enough)
The Double Crux Algorithm
Find a disagreement with another person (This might also be about different confidences in beliefs)
Operationalize the disagreement (Avoid semantic confusions, be specific)
Seek double cruxes (Seek cruxes independently and then compare)
Resonate (Do the cruxes really feel crucial? Think of what would change if you believed your crux to be false)
Repeat (Are there underlying easier-to-test cruxes for the double cruxes themselves?)
Summary
Disagreements often focus on outputs even though underlying models produced those.
Double Crux idea: focus on the models!
Double Crux tries to reveal the different underlying beliefs coming from different perspectives on reality
Good Faith Principle:
Assume that the other side is moral and intelligent.
Even if some actors are bad, you minimize the chance of error if you start with the prior that each new person is acting in good faith
Identifying Cruxes
For every belief A, there are usually beliefs B, C, D such that their believed truth supports belief A
These are “cruxes” if them not being true would shake the belief in A.
Ideally, B, C, and D are functional models of how the world works and can be empirically investigated
If you know your crux(es), investigating it has the chance to change your belief in A
In Search of more productive disagreement
Often, people obscure their cruxes by telling many supporting reasons, most of which aren’t their true crux.
This makes it hard for the “opponent” to know where to focus
If both parties search for truth instead of wanting to win, you can speed up the process a lot by telling each other the cruxes
Playing Double Crux
Lower the bar: instead of reaching a shared belief, find a shared testable claim that, if investigated, would resolve the disagreement.
Double Crux: A belief that is a crux for you and your conversation partner, i.e.:
You believe A, the partner believes not A.
You believe testable claim B, the partner believes not B.
B is a crux of your belief in A and not B is a crux of your partner’s belief in not B.
Investigating conclusively whether B is true may resolve the disagreement (if the cruxes were comprehensive enough)
The Double Crux Algorithm
Find a disagreement with another person (This might also be about different confidences in beliefs)
Operationalize the disagreement (Avoid semantic confusions, be specific)
Seek double cruxes (Seek cruxes independently and then compare)
Resonate (Do the cruxes really feel crucial? Think of what would change if you believed your crux to be false)
Repeat (Are there underlying easier-to-test cruxes for the double cruxes themselves?)