5 ms·

Sad news. My favorite Bob Taylor story is about the "class 1" versus "class 2" disagreement. Not sure which is which, but in the preferred case, the two parti

Sad news. My favorite Bob Taylor story is about the "class 1" versus "class 2" disagreement. Not sure which is which, but in the preferred case, the two parties are able to state each other's position to the other's satisfaction. One of his tricks as a manager was to help the parties get to that state. This is either from Rheingold's Tools for Thought or Doug Smith's book. update: kind of but not exactly like this great scene from Horace & Pete https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iRM1iN-3a4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iRM1iN-3a4

GuiA 9y ago
In the 1970s at Xerox PARC, regularly scheduled arguments were routine. The company that gave birth to the personal computer staged formal discussions designed to train their people on how to fight properly over ideas and not egos. PARC held weekly meetings they called "Dealer" (from a popular book of the time titled Beat the Dealer). Before each meeting, one person, known as "the dealer," was selected as the speaker. The speaker would present his idea and then try to defend it against a room of engineers and scientists determined to prove him wrong. Such debates helped improve products under development and sometimes resulted in wholly new ideas for future pursuit. The facilitators of the Dealer meetings were careful to make sure that only intellectual criticism of the merit of an idea received attention and consideration. Those in the audience or at the podium were never allowed to personally criticize their colleagues or bring their colleagues' character or personality into play. Bob Taylor, a former manager at PARC, said of their meetings, "If someone tried to push their personality rather than their argument, they'd find that it wouldn't work." Inside these debates, Taylor taught his people the difference between what he called Class 1 disagreements, in which neither party understood the other party's true position, and Class 2 disagreements, in which each side could articulate the other's stance. Class 1 disagreements were always discouraged, but Class 2 disagreements were allowed, as they often resulted in a higher quality of ideas. Taylor's model removed the personal friction from debates and taught individuals to use conflict as a means to find common, often higher, ground. The Myths of Creativity, David Burkus
- mncharity 9y ago
  NYT> The meetings were known as Dealers [...] No-holds-barred discussions and debates would ensue, and no one profited more from them than Mr. Taylor. [emphasis added] "no holds barred" - used to convey that no rules or restrictions apply in a conflict or dispute. Perhaps this Burkus quote would make a good comment on the NYT article page? EDIT: or not - see "This [Burkus quote] is overdrawn and misses the process and the intent." alankay1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14115147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14115147
- 19eightyfour 9y ago
  We ought to do this on HN. Every week select someone to present and idea and we can all learn together how to fight over ideas and not egos. I think it would be really healthy and productive for the community.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    In a way, we have something like this almost daily on HN. Regulars often end up back-and-forthing with other HNers about a topic they disagree on :).
- alankay1 9y ago
  This is one of those stories that has distorted over time. "Dealer" was a weekly meeting for many purposes, the main one was to provide a vehicle for coordination, planning, communication without having to set up a management structure for brilliant researchers who had some "lone wolves" tendencies. Part of these meetings were presentations by PARC researchers. However, it was not a gantlet to be run, and it was not to train people to argue in a constructive way (most of the computer researchers at PARC were from ARPA community research centers, and learning how to argue reasonably was already part of that culture). Visitors from Xerox frequently were horrified by the level of argument and the idea that no personal attacks were allowed had to be explained, along with the idea that the aim was not to win an argument but to illuminate. Almost never did the participants have to be reminded about "Class 1" and "Class 2", etc. The audience was -not- determined to prove the speaker wrong. That is not the way things were done.
pizza 9y ago
reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem > Aumann's agreement theorem says that two people acting rationally (in a certain precise sense) and with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree.
- kybernetikos 9y ago
  If they have common priors which is almost never the case. Most disagreements are to be found in the priors, which is why defining terms and trying to agree what the relevant priors are can be very useful.
protomyth 9y ago
Being able to state another's position correctly even when you don't agree with it is also a wonderful learning tool. Not only do you understand their mindset, but it also tests your own mindset for any holes in your thinking and provides a direction to move your thoughts if warranted. The problem is making sure you are actually stating someone's opinion correctly and not just paying it lip-service. I can see how having a 3rd party would be really, really helpful.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  >The problem is making sure you are actually stating someone's opinion correctly and not just paying it lip-service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan#Ideological_Turing_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan#Ideological_Turin... tl;dr - Take the standard turing test that attempts to distinguish between human and computer generated text, and change the parameters slightly so that it attempts to distinguish between "this is what I believe" and "this is what my opponents believe".
- thorgutierrez 9y ago
  Yes, Anatol Rapaport's rules are very useful for constructive debate. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo... How to compose a successful critical commentary: 1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way. 2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
- amelius 9y ago
  Well, the point is to state another's position to their satisfaction.

GuiA 9y ago

In the 1970s at Xerox PARC, regularly scheduled arguments were routine. The company that gave birth to the personal computer staged formal discussions designed to train their people on how to fight properly over ideas and not egos. PARC held weekly meetings they called "Dealer" (from a popular book of the time titled Beat the Dealer). Before each meeting, one person, known as "the dealer," was selected as the speaker. The speaker would present his idea and then try to defend it against a room of engineers and scientists determined to prove him wrong. Such debates helped improve products under development and sometimes resulted in wholly new ideas for future pursuit. The facilitators of the Dealer meetings were careful to make sure that only intellectual criticism of the merit of an idea received attention and consideration. Those in the audience or at the podium were never allowed to personally criticize their colleagues or bring their colleagues' character or personality into play. Bob Taylor, a former manager at PARC, said of their meetings, "If someone tried to push their personality rather than their argument, they'd find that it wouldn't work." Inside these debates, Taylor taught his people the difference between what he called Class 1 disagreements, in which neither party understood the other party's true position, and Class 2 disagreements, in which each side could articulate the other's stance. Class 1 disagreements were always discouraged, but Class 2 disagreements were allowed, as they often resulted in a higher quality of ideas. Taylor's model removed the personal friction from debates and taught individuals to use conflict as a means to find common, often higher, ground. The Myths of Creativity, David Burkus

mncharity 9y ago
NYT> The meetings were known as Dealers [...] No-holds-barred discussions and debates would ensue, and no one profited more from them than Mr. Taylor. [emphasis added] "no holds barred" - used to convey that no rules or restrictions apply in a conflict or dispute. Perhaps this Burkus quote would make a good comment on the NYT article page? EDIT: or not - see "This [Burkus quote] is overdrawn and misses the process and the intent." alankay1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14115147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14115147
19eightyfour 9y ago
We ought to do this on HN. Every week select someone to present and idea and we can all learn together how to fight over ideas and not egos. I think it would be really healthy and productive for the community.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  In a way, we have something like this almost daily on HN. Regulars often end up back-and-forthing with other HNers about a topic they disagree on :).
alankay1 9y ago
This is one of those stories that has distorted over time. "Dealer" was a weekly meeting for many purposes, the main one was to provide a vehicle for coordination, planning, communication without having to set up a management structure for brilliant researchers who had some "lone wolves" tendencies. Part of these meetings were presentations by PARC researchers. However, it was not a gantlet to be run, and it was not to train people to argue in a constructive way (most of the computer researchers at PARC were from ARPA community research centers, and learning how to argue reasonably was already part of that culture). Visitors from Xerox frequently were horrified by the level of argument and the idea that no personal attacks were allowed had to be explained, along with the idea that the aim was not to win an argument but to illuminate. Almost never did the participants have to be reminded about "Class 1" and "Class 2", etc. The audience was -not- determined to prove the speaker wrong. That is not the way things were done.

pizza 9y ago

reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem > Aumann's agreement theorem says that two people acting rationally (in a certain precise sense) and with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree.

kybernetikos 9y ago
If they have common priors which is almost never the case. Most disagreements are to be found in the priors, which is why defining terms and trying to agree what the relevant priors are can be very useful.

protomyth 9y ago

Being able to state another's position correctly even when you don't agree with it is also a wonderful learning tool. Not only do you understand their mindset, but it also tests your own mindset for any holes in your thinking and provides a direction to move your thoughts if warranted. The problem is making sure you are actually stating someone's opinion correctly and not just paying it lip-service. I can see how having a 3rd party would be really, really helpful.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
>The problem is making sure you are actually stating someone's opinion correctly and not just paying it lip-service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan#Ideological_Turing_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan#Ideological_Turin... tl;dr - Take the standard turing test that attempts to distinguish between human and computer generated text, and change the parameters slightly so that it attempts to distinguish between "this is what I believe" and "this is what my opponents believe".
thorgutierrez 9y ago
Yes, Anatol Rapaport's rules are very useful for constructive debate. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo... How to compose a successful critical commentary: 1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way. 2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
amelius 9y ago
Well, the point is to state another's position to their satisfaction.