Being specific is a good rationalist tool and a bad strategy for social relations. The more specific one is, the fewer people agree with them. The best social strategy is to have a few fuzzy applause lights and gather agreement about them.
I’ll try to find a less sensitive political example. Some people near me are fans of “direct democracy”; they propose it as a cure for all the political problems. I try being more specific and ask whether they imagine that people in the whole country will vote together, or that each region will vote separately on their local policies… but they refuse to discuss this, because they see that it would split their nicely agreeing group into disagreeing subgroups. But for me this distinction seems very important in predicting the consequences of such system.
Being specific is a good rationalist tool and a bad strategy for social relations. The more specific one is, the fewer people agree with them. The best social strategy is to have a few fuzzy applause lights and gather agreement about them.
I’ll try to find a less sensitive political example. Some people near me are fans of “direct democracy”; they propose it as a cure for all the political problems. I try being more specific and ask whether they imagine that people in the whole country will vote together, or that each region will vote separately on their local policies… but they refuse to discuss this, because they see that it would split their nicely agreeing group into disagreeing subgroups. But for me this distinction seems very important in predicting the consequences of such system.