There’s the classic Double Crux post. Also, here’s a post I wrote, that touches on one sub-skill (out of something like 50 to 70 sub-skills that I currently know). Maybe it helps give the flavor.
If I were to say what I’m trying to do in a sentence: “Help the participants actually understand eachother.” Most people generally underestimate how hard this is, which is a large part of the problem.
The good thing that I’m aiming for in a conversation is when “that absurd / confused thing that X-person was saying, clicks into place, and it doesn’t just seem reasonable, it seems like a natural way to think about the situation”.
Another frame is, “Everything you need to do to make Double Crux actually work.”
A quick list of things conversational facilitation, as I do it, involves:
Tracking the state of mind of the participants. Tracking what’s at stake for each person.
Noticing when Double Illusion of Transparency, or talking past eachother, is happening, and having the participants paraphrase or operationalize. Or in the harder cases, getting each view myself, and then acting as an intermediary.
Identifying Double Cruxes.
Helping the participants to track what’s happening in the conversation and how this thread connects to the higher level goals. Cleaving to the query.
Keeping track of conversational threads, and promising conversational tacts.
Drawing out and helping to clarifying a person’s inarticulate objections, when they don’t buy an argument but can’t say why.
Ontological translation: getting each participants conceptual vocabulary to make natural sense to you, and then porting models and arguments back and forth between the differing conceptual vocabularies.
I don’t know if that helps. (I have some unpublished drafts on these topics. Eventually they’re to go on LessWrong, but I’m likely to publish rough versions on my musings and rough drafts blog, first.)
At the moment, not really.
There’s the classic Double Crux post. Also, here’s a post I wrote, that touches on one sub-skill (out of something like 50 to 70 sub-skills that I currently know). Maybe it helps give the flavor.
If I were to say what I’m trying to do in a sentence: “Help the participants actually understand eachother.” Most people generally underestimate how hard this is, which is a large part of the problem.
The good thing that I’m aiming for in a conversation is when “that absurd / confused thing that X-person was saying, clicks into place, and it doesn’t just seem reasonable, it seems like a natural way to think about the situation”.
Another frame is, “Everything you need to do to make Double Crux actually work.”
A quick list of things conversational facilitation, as I do it, involves:
Tracking the state of mind of the participants. Tracking what’s at stake for each person.
Noticing when Double Illusion of Transparency, or talking past eachother, is happening, and having the participants paraphrase or operationalize. Or in the harder cases, getting each view myself, and then acting as an intermediary.
Identifying Double Cruxes.
Helping the participants to track what’s happening in the conversation and how this thread connects to the higher level goals. Cleaving to the query.
Keeping track of conversational threads, and promising conversational tacts.
Drawing out and helping to clarifying a person’s inarticulate objections, when they don’t buy an argument but can’t say why.
Ontological translation: getting each participants conceptual vocabulary to make natural sense to you, and then porting models and arguments back and forth between the differing conceptual vocabularies.
I don’t know if that helps. (I have some unpublished drafts on these topics. Eventually they’re to go on LessWrong, but I’m likely to publish rough versions on my musings and rough drafts blog, first.)
Yes, that helps, thanks. “Mediating” might be a word which would convey the idea better.