Read on Twitter
28 communication rules
[[ emails ]]
1/ write short emails (< 2 lines)
1/ write short emails (< 2 lines)
2/ never offer more than two options
3/ send calendly links
4/ answer emails quickly and people will message you more (same goes for DMs)
5/ be clear about your value proposition
[[ Feedbcak ]]
1/ wrap negative in positive sandwich:
- positive
- negative
- positive
1/ wrap negative in positive sandwich:
- positive
- negative
- positive
2/ give feedback only when requested
3/ make it easy for people to provide feedback. just asking multiple times (do you have any questions or feedback?) works.
4/ when asking for feedback on something, make it clear that the other person could spend a small effort on it & that it's ok to just comment on what's the most interesting to them
[[ Groups and parties ]]
1/ introducing yourself avoids awkwardness
1/ introducing yourself avoids awkwardness
2/ when joining a group conversation, try to spend a couple of minutes figuring out what's going on, and say something relevant that doesn't disturb the flow
3/ prefer long one-o-one conversations to group conversations—it's higher bandwidth + you can make true friends this way
[[ Listening ]]
1/ when a friend complains, don't try to find solutions, listen instead
1/ when a friend complains, don't try to find solutions, listen instead
2/ be active in your listening (asking follow-up questions, nodding, saying "yup", looking into the eyes)
3/ your goal should be to *understand* why this person infers those things. essentially, the goal is to reduce the inferential distance between your model of how he thinks vs. how he actually thinks https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5LASfhhArZ7w/expecting-short-inferential-distances
4/ be clear about definitions. biggest reason people disagree is when they're talking about something different. that's esp. true when discussing things like "AGI", "transformative AI" or "intelligence" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4K5pJnKBGkqqTbyxx/to-listen-well-get-curious
[[ Disagreement ]]
1/ find an event that would make you change your mind about it. that's called a "crux" in the rationalist literature. then see if you can find a "double crux"—an event whose outcome could shift both views in opposite directions https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/exa5kmvopeRyfJgCy/double-crux-a-strategy-for-resolving-disagreement
1/ find an event that would make you change your mind about it. that's called a "crux" in the rationalist literature. then see if you can find a "double crux"—an event whose outcome could shift both views in opposite directions https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/exa5kmvopeRyfJgCy/double-crux-a-strategy-for-resolving-disagreement
2/ ofc those double-cruxes are hard to find, so systematically solving disagreements this way isn't efficient. so keep your beliefs cruxy, aka list and update your personal cruxes regularly
Example with AI policy work: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DJB82jKwgJE5NsWgT/some-cruxes-on-impactful-alternatives-to-ai-policy-work https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BmyoYkr7u2oas4ukn/keep-your-beliefs-cruxy
Example with AI policy work: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DJB82jKwgJE5NsWgT/some-cruxes-on-impactful-alternatives-to-ai-policy-work https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BmyoYkr7u2oas4ukn/keep-your-beliefs-cruxy
3/ it's a terrible idea to argue with people that you don't really know or are not willing to change your mind—the only thing you might win is hurting the other person's ego
4/ emphasise what you agree on, before saying anything you disagree about
5/ avoid the "BUT" fallacy. if someone is saying "yes i agree with you in the broadest sense BUT [insert counter-argument]" it sounds like you're not really listening. instead, replace the "BUT" with an "AND".
6/ people disagree on things because of deeper reasons. non-violent communication recommend to identify what you need, and make explicit what is the action that you would the other person to stop doing to fullfill this need. eg. "I need to talk without being interrupted"
