[el_jay]

Reminds me of Joscha Bach’s definition of a nerd, from his Lex Friedman podcast episode:

<paraphrase> “The definition of a nerd is someone who thinks conversation is for peer reviewing ideas.” “What do non-nerds think conversation is for?” “Negotiating alignment.” </paraphrase>

A good difference to keep in mind when we want to bend parallel conversations with the alignment negotiators to intersection.

[_def]

That's pretty interesting because while reading the article I often thought "that's not at all what I think/mean when I answer that". I feel like this article describes one specific conversation type

[skrebbel]

I can usually deal with English well enough but I can’t figure out what “negotiating alignment” means. How is alignment a negotiation? Can you/someone maybe describe with some more words what Bach means?

[KineticLensman]

Aligning your views with someone else's may require changes to both sets of views (yours and theirs), which could involve negotiation. Consider two people planning a trip, each compromising slightly to achieve a plan they are both happy with.

[skrebbel]

Hmm but how is that fundamentally different from peer reviewing ideas?

[tremon]

Peers reviewing ideas is but one step above rubber-ducking: the peer does not (necessarily) have ideas of its own, but merely serves to verify how you've formulated yours. At least, that's my interpretation.

[doomjunky]

One is about ideas the other is about values.

[kubanczyk]

"Peer reviewing ideas" is a bad formulation for me.

It's about whether the discussion is general (valid for anyone) or specific (these people, here, now). The latter gives some weight to subjective arguments and arguments from authority, the former does not, and this is a big qualitative difference.

[el_jay]

Simple example:

Alice: “I need you to do X.” Bob: “OK, I’ll do X.”

Not much negotiating, but Bob has aligned to Alice’s request.

More subtle:

Carla: “Do you think we should do X or Y?” Danny: “I’m leaning X but Y might have the following benefits…” Carla: “I’m leaning Y for those exact reasons. Why do you think X?”

And so on, until alignment is reached. Hope this helps!

[skrebbel]

Wait, so the argument is that nerds do not use conversation for stuff like this? I really only get more confused tbh.

[erostrate]

"For nerds, information sharing is the most highly valued form of communication possible."

https://status451.com/2016/01/06/splain-it-to-me/

[seydor]

That's the common definition of debate, no?

[el_jay]

Two kinds of debate: one where the expected outcome is a refinement of ideas, another where the expected outcome is an agreement on future behaviours (“alignment”). If you approach someone who only converses to negotiate alignment, they are likely to take your seeking of peer review feedback as a mindgame designed to make them do more of what you want to do.

For me, this explains why some compulsively managerial types are incredibly averse to conceptual abstraction in conversation: it comes off as a bamboozlement attempt!