Are You a Jerk, or a Liar?
usefulfictions.substack.com
Saved by Mounica Veggalam and
Are You a Jerk, or a Liar?
I suspect that, in general, if two rationalists set out to resolve a disagreement that persisted past the first exchange, they should expect to find that the true sources of the disagreement are either hard to communicate, or hard to expose. E.g.: Uncommon, but well-supported, scientific knowledge or math; Long inferential distances; Hard-to-verbal
... See moreEliezer Yudkowsky • Rationality
Asking vs guessing in relation to the workplace. Pretty sure this connects to stuff Haley Nahman has written but just thought of it when reading Cate Hall
https://usefulfictions.substack.com/p/are-you-a-jerk-or-a-liar
The clear point here is that people operating with incomplete information appear crazy to those who have different information. Your job when faced with someone like this in a negotiation is to discover what they do not know and supply that information.
Tahl Raz • Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It
Thinking based on “who deserves what” blocks compassionate communication.
Marshall B. Rosenberg • Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life: Life-Changing Tools for Healthy Relationships (Nonviolent Communication Guides)
How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen
David Brooks • 46 highlights
amazon.com
Thinking based on “who deserves what” blocks compassionate communication.