Something I’d like to try at LessOnline is to somehow iterate on the “Public Doublecrux” format.
Public Doublecrux is a more truthseeking oriented version of Public Debate. (The goal of a debate is to change your opponent’s mind or the public’s mind. The goal of a doublecrux is more like “work with your partner to figure out if you should change your mind, and vice vera”)
Reasons to want to do _public_ doublecrux include:
it helps showcase subtle mental moves that are hard to write down explicitly (i.e. tacit knowledge transfer)
there’s still something good and exciting about seeing high profile smart people talk about ideas. Having some variant of that format seems good for LessOnline. And having at least 1-2 “doublecruxes” rather than “debates” or “panels” or “interviews” seems good for culture setting.
Historically I think public doublecruxes have had some problems:
two people actually changing *their* minds tend to get into idiosyncratic frames that are hard for observers to understand. You’re chasing *your* cruxes, rather than presenting “generally compelling arguments.” This tends to get into weeds and go down rabbit holes
– having the audience there makes it a bit more awkward and performative.
...
...
With that in mind, here are some ideas:
Maybe have the double cruxers in a private room, with videocameras. The talk is broadcast live to other conference-goers, but the actual chat is in a nice cozy room.
Have _two_ (or three?) dedicated facilitators. One is in the room with the doublecruxers, focused on helping them steer towards useful questions. (this has been tried before seems to go well if the facilitator prepares). The SECOND (and maybe third) facilitator hangs out with the audience outside, and is focused on tracking “what is the audience confused about?”. The audience participates in a live google doc where they’re organizing the conversational threads and asking questions.
(the first facilitator is periodically surreptitiously checking the google doc or chat and sometimes asking the Doublecruxers questions about it)
it’s possibly worth investing in developing a doublcrux process that’s explicitly optimized for public consumption. This might be as simple as having the facilitator periodically asking participants to recap the open threads, what the goal of the current rabbit hole is, etc. But, like, brainstorming and doing “user tests” of it might be worthwhile.
...
Anyway those are some thoughts for now. Curious if anyone’s got takes.
“Can we build a better Public Doublecrux?”
Something I’d like to try at LessOnline is to somehow iterate on the “Public Doublecrux” format.
Public Doublecrux is a more truthseeking oriented version of Public Debate. (The goal of a debate is to change your opponent’s mind or the public’s mind. The goal of a doublecrux is more like “work with your partner to figure out if you should change your mind, and vice vera”)
Reasons to want to do _public_ doublecrux include:
it helps showcase subtle mental moves that are hard to write down explicitly (i.e. tacit knowledge transfer)
there’s still something good and exciting about seeing high profile smart people talk about ideas. Having some variant of that format seems good for LessOnline. And having at least 1-2 “doublecruxes” rather than “debates” or “panels” or “interviews” seems good for culture setting.
Historically I think public doublecruxes have had some problems:
two people actually changing *their* minds tend to get into idiosyncratic frames that are hard for observers to understand. You’re chasing *your* cruxes, rather than presenting “generally compelling arguments.” This tends to get into weeds and go down rabbit holes
– having the audience there makes it a bit more awkward and performative.
...
...
With that in mind, here are some ideas:
Maybe have the double cruxers in a private room, with videocameras. The talk is broadcast live to other conference-goers, but the actual chat is in a nice cozy room.
Have _two_ (or three?) dedicated facilitators. One is in the room with the doublecruxers, focused on helping them steer towards useful questions. (this has been tried before seems to go well if the facilitator prepares). The SECOND (and maybe third) facilitator hangs out with the audience outside, and is focused on tracking “what is the audience confused about?”. The audience participates in a live google doc where they’re organizing the conversational threads and asking questions.
(the first facilitator is periodically surreptitiously checking the google doc or chat and sometimes asking the Doublecruxers questions about it)
it’s possibly worth investing in developing a doublcrux process that’s explicitly optimized for public consumption. This might be as simple as having the facilitator periodically asking participants to recap the open threads, what the goal of the current rabbit hole is, etc. But, like, brainstorming and doing “user tests” of it might be worthwhile.
...
Anyway those are some thoughts for now. Curious if anyone’s got takes.
Ramble dot points of thoughts I had around this.
I like this idea
When I listen to very high power or smart people debate, what I’m looking for is to absorb their knowledge.
Tacit and semantic.
Instead, as the debate heats up, I feel myself being draw into one of the sides.
I spend more time thinking about my bias than the points being made.
I’m not sure what I’m picking up from heated debate is as valuable as it could be.
If the interlocutors are not already close friends, perhaps having them complete a quick bonding exercise to gain trust?
I image playing on the same team in a video game or solving a physical problem together.
Really let them settle into a vibe of being friends. Let them understand what it feels like to work with this new person toward a common goal.