There’s a pet peeve I have about how people colloquially use the phrase “doublecrux”, that might be worth a full post someday but commenting here for now.
A full doublecrux necessarily begins with a lot of model sharing. If you’ve never considered why you might be wrong about a thing, there may be a lot of ground to cover as your colleague shares a deep, multifacted model that looks at the world quite differently from you. Only afterwards do you have much chance of passing each other’s ITT
So, many doublecrux conversations start with “people just explaining what they think.”
And, often, “explaining what you think” is enough for each person to go “oh, I see where you’re coming from and what I was missing”, and the conversation dissolves.
Which is fine and good! But, that means that >50% of what happens when people say “let’s doublecrux” ends up just looking like… talking.
This is especially confusing if you’re watching a doublecrux (without having doublecruxed before) and trying to grok what the rules or goals are.
I think, to avoid term dilution, it’d be best if doublecrux was reserved specifically for the part of the discussion where each person switches to “passing each other’s Ideological Turing Test” and “taking personal responsibility for identifying why/whether they’d change their own mind”. And then just call the first part of the conversation “model sharing.”
i.e. I’d prefer the colloquial phrase to be “wanna model share, and maybe doublecrux?” over “wanna doublecrux about that?”
There’s a pet peeve I have about how people colloquially use the phrase “doublecrux”, that might be worth a full post someday but commenting here for now.
A full doublecrux necessarily begins with a lot of model sharing. If you’ve never considered why you might be wrong about a thing, there may be a lot of ground to cover as your colleague shares a deep, multifacted model that looks at the world quite differently from you. Only afterwards do you have much chance of passing each other’s ITT
So, many doublecrux conversations start with “people just explaining what they think.”
And, often, “explaining what you think” is enough for each person to go “oh, I see where you’re coming from and what I was missing”, and the conversation dissolves.
Which is fine and good! But, that means that >50% of what happens when people say “let’s doublecrux” ends up just looking like… talking.
This is especially confusing if you’re watching a doublecrux (without having doublecruxed before) and trying to grok what the rules or goals are.
I think, to avoid term dilution, it’d be best if doublecrux was reserved specifically for the part of the discussion where each person switches to “passing each other’s Ideological Turing Test” and “taking personal responsibility for identifying why/whether they’d change their own mind”. And then just call the first part of the conversation “model sharing.”
i.e. I’d prefer the colloquial phrase to be “wanna model share, and maybe doublecrux?” over “wanna doublecrux about that?”