Comment by jezm on What is the point of 2v2 debates? · 2024-09-02T11:41:33.576Z · LW · GW

I'm usually frustrated by these kinds of debates — individuals never get a chance to go into much depth because their time is so short, and I want to hear counters to the better points raised before they are dropped for lack of time.

But I thought a 2:2 was a large improvement over a 3:3 (which is what most debates in the past I'd seen). I didn't mind it. There was some depth.

I think for a general (non-less-wrong) audience, a 1:1 debate can have a trap that it's perceived more about the individuals and their personalities than the issue itself. A 2:2 feels (to me) like it keeps the issue in focus significantly more in perception than the people talking. Or at least, there's lower risk that an entire movement is viewed under one personality. I could be wrong.

In theatre I've seen this with 2-person scenes vs 4-person scenes. The 2-person scene is typically significantly more than double in potential for intimacy and feeling.

Comment by jezm on This is my 100ᵗʰ post on Less Wrong · 2021-03-10T02:05:26.457Z · LW · GW

I'm always about a month behind on reading these posts (via RSS), so I don't typically comment, but your posts have been a highlight, lsusr. Thank you for sharing.

Comment by jezm on Conversation, event loops, and error handling · 2021-01-22T00:06:23.207Z · LW · GW

I love seeing crossovers between subjects like this, thanks Adamzerner.

People often complain about how rare it is to feel listened to, and I think this is a big part of it. You need to keep your stack small so that you’re shaping and pacing your own lines from their reactions. Listening is a key part of conversations even when you’re the one.... speaking.

I had a mild revelation last year in Improv class where they taught us “error handling” in the form of ”watch whether your partner’s face lights up” whenever you say a line.

It made me realise I was only listening to the words that people were saying in my “error handling” (do they say they understand/are-interested?). But doing this exercise we were ignoring the words entirely (do they look like they’re following/interested?). It turned out to be a lot more accurate and useful because people often wont admit that they’re lost or try to be polite, and it doesn’t slow down conversations as much as asking whether they understand. It’s so simple yet I was blind to it for most of my life.