[mistermann]

I know the examples in the article are just for illustration, but man that would get annoying pretty fast - common sense scaling back would make it better, but then once again, is everyone on the same page then?

And then we have the non-verbal world, like internet forums where tremendous amounts of interpersonal communication (and misunderstanding, leading to social disharmony) take place millions (billions?) of times per day...how well does this idea realistically transfer to that medium?

[ipadmini]

You can get to a point where you don't need to paraphrase, even when clarifying important details, but that usually happens when you've worked with someone for so long that you understand the intent behind their words close to perfectly.

Resolving misunderstandings on the internet is a good question -- it should be easier given that folks can usually edit what they want to say before publishing, and readers can read and re-read what's written. The __intent to understand__ seems to be the key thing in resolving misunderstandings here, both in online and in verbal communication

[mistermann]

> The __intent to understand__ seems to be the key thing in resolving misunderstandings here, both in online and in verbal communication

Intent to understand is but one of many possible points of failure. The world is infinitely complex, but our minds have this nice feature where they hide the vast majority of that complexity from us. The problem is though, the simplification process is vastly different for each person, not to mention they are not working from the same set of data.

So when an internet discussion takes place, particularly on special topics like politics, the odds of each person considering the topic from the same perspective (with the same desired outcomes, etc) is very low. Add on top of that the fact that most people seem to lack realtime awareness of the simplification process running in their heads, leaving each participant in the discussion with the false impression that they are talking about the(!) facts(!), when the reality is very different.

Situations like this is where some variation of the recommended approach in TFA could perhaps come in handy, but people seem to be not terribly fond of speaking precisely and accurately, especially when it comes to politics.

[ipadmini]

I think the intent to understand isn't a point of failure, but a potential solution (if it goes hand in hand with humility) to the problems you mentioned -- the one where we all come with our own programming and are all susceptible to various biases that further entrench our existing beliefs, and the one where we are unaware of this programming. Ideally we're all rationalists who can hear each other out and come to an understanding, but it's hard to think rationally about politics. (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-i...)

[mistermann]

> Ideally we're all rationalists who can hear each other out and come to an understanding, but it's hard to think rationally about politics.

I wonder if it's not just hard, but maybe even damn near (cognitively) impossible to be rational about politics, and other culture war topics. It seems to do very strange things to the mind.

[rcoveson]

> Teammate: Would you mind sending over this quarter’s product roadmap?

>

> Me: I see, so you want me to………sorry, could you repeat that?

>

> Teammate: Would you mind sending over this quarter’s product roadmap?

>

> Me: You want me to send over this quarter’s product roadmap. Yes, will do!

If I heard this exchange out of context I would sincerely assume it was between a human and a digital assistant circa 2015.

[ipadmini]

Not surprising. When we're short on mental bandwidth or distracted, we tend to act like a computer that's run out of cycles.

https://smallbigideas.substack.com/p/understanding-bandwidth...