TL;DR—I’m pretty uncertain about the value of reversal tests as a test for determining whether something is an applause light or not.
-- Pretty minor, but I think some nuance about the usage of the reversal test is warranted. I think the idea of an applause light is useful, but I’m uncertain that anything which fails the reversal test should be seen as an applause light, and subsequently discarded as “an empty statement” which “doesn’t convey new information”. I think we should consider not discarding statements just because they fail the reversal test. We should judge statements by the extent to which decision-relevant next steps can be discussed and considered. Not all statements which fail the reversal test don’t convey new information, and thus the reversal test is not a perfect proxy for statements that are empty and can be disregarded.
^This entire paragraph was intentionally written to fail the reversal test. By the reversal test’s standards all of these sentences sounds pretty bad![1]
Yet, was no new information conveyed? If someone who didn’t know about applause lights (like me!) reads this post, it seems completely reasonable for them to come away with some heuristic like, “Wow, this was cool, I’m going to filter statements through the reversal test and consider statements that fail to be ‘empty statements’ that ‘aren’t intended to be action relevant’”. And while I agree it makes sense to prioritise statements that are intended to be action relevant, after some closer examination, I’m uncertain that the reversal test is a reliable way of differentiating between ones that are vs ones that aren’t. Especially if you think there’s some value in considering things like, practical realities around how your statement lands, or things like whether or not someone feels comfortable voicing disagreement or being confrontational in a scenario where there’s a power differential, all of which I think could be considered reasonable justifications for someone to make a statement that might fail the reversal test (but nevertheless conveys the point they wish to make).[2]
But perhaps I’m not really understanding the reversal test or its applications well. Again—I think the idea of an applause light is useful, I’m just less sure about the usefulness of the reversal test as a measure for whether a statement is an applause light or not, and I think the appropriateness of statements that fail the reversal test is pretty context + norm dependent.
-I think no nuance about the usage of the reversal test is warranted.
-I’m certain that anything which fails the test should be seen as an applause light and subsequently discarded as an empty statement which doesn’t convey new information
-I think we shouldn’t consider not discarding statements just because they fail the reverse test.
-We shouldn’t judge statements by the extent to which decision relevant next steps can be discussed and taken seriously.
-All statements which fail the reversal test don’t convey new information, and thus the reversal test is a perfect proxy for statements that are empty and can be disregarded.
Yes, this paragraph was also written to fail the reversal test.
-...it seems completely unreasonable for them to come away with some heuristic like
-...it doesn’t make sense to prioritise statements that are intended to be action relevant
-...I’m certain that the reversal test is a reliable way of differentiating between them
- Especially if you think there’s no value in considering things like, practical realities around how your statement lands, or things like whether or not someone feels comfortable voicing disagreement or being confrontational in a scenario where there’s a power differential,
-all of which I think could not be considered reasonable justifications for someone to say something that might fail the reversal test (but still conveys the point they wish to make)
TL;DR—I’m pretty uncertain about the value of reversal tests as a test for determining whether something is an applause light or not.
--
Pretty minor, but I think some nuance about the usage of the reversal test is warranted. I think the idea of an applause light is useful, but I’m uncertain that anything which fails the reversal test should be seen as an applause light, and subsequently discarded as “an empty statement” which “doesn’t convey new information”. I think we should consider not discarding statements just because they fail the reversal test. We should judge statements by the extent to which decision-relevant next steps can be discussed and considered. Not all statements which fail the reversal test don’t convey new information, and thus the reversal test is not a perfect proxy for statements that are empty and can be disregarded.
^This entire paragraph was intentionally written to fail the reversal test. By the reversal test’s standards all of these sentences sounds pretty bad![1]
Yet, was no new information conveyed? If someone who didn’t know about applause lights (like me!) reads this post, it seems completely reasonable for them to come away with some heuristic like, “Wow, this was cool, I’m going to filter statements through the reversal test and consider statements that fail to be ‘empty statements’ that ‘aren’t intended to be action relevant’”. And while I agree it makes sense to prioritise statements that are intended to be action relevant, after some closer examination, I’m uncertain that the reversal test is a reliable way of differentiating between ones that are vs ones that aren’t. Especially if you think there’s some value in considering things like, practical realities around how your statement lands, or things like whether or not someone feels comfortable voicing disagreement or being confrontational in a scenario where there’s a power differential, all of which I think could be considered reasonable justifications for someone to make a statement that might fail the reversal test (but nevertheless conveys the point they wish to make).[2]
But perhaps I’m not really understanding the reversal test or its applications well. Again—I think the idea of an applause light is useful, I’m just less sure about the usefulness of the reversal test as a measure for whether a statement is an applause light or not, and I think the appropriateness of statements that fail the reversal test is pretty context + norm dependent.
Sentences reversed:
-I think no nuance about the usage of the reversal test is warranted.
-I’m certain that anything which fails the test should be seen as an applause light and subsequently discarded as an empty statement which doesn’t convey new information
-I think we shouldn’t consider not discarding statements just because they fail the reverse test.
-We shouldn’t judge statements by the extent to which decision relevant next steps can be discussed and taken seriously.
-All statements which fail the reversal test don’t convey new information, and thus the reversal test is a perfect proxy for statements that are empty and can be disregarded.
Yes, this paragraph was also written to fail the reversal test.
-...it seems completely unreasonable for them to come away with some heuristic like
-...it doesn’t make sense to prioritise statements that are intended to be action relevant
-...I’m certain that the reversal test is a reliable way of differentiating between them
- Especially if you think there’s no value in considering things like, practical realities around how your statement lands, or things like whether or not someone feels comfortable voicing disagreement or being confrontational in a scenario where there’s a power differential,
-all of which I think could not be considered reasonable justifications for someone to say something that might fail the reversal test (but still conveys the point they wish to make)