5 ms·
Rational Ritual: Why everyone needs to know what everyone knows (2020)
- 082349872349872 3y agoTo be pedantic, ritual solves the common knowledge problem (as three-way handshake does for TCP: ensuring both sides know the other has seen a SYN) and adding rationality to ritual allows one to assume that beyond the core of actual common knowledge, there is an extension of potential common knowledge: things that parties may not be intuitively aware they agree upon off the tops of their heads, but would indeed find they'd arrive at a common (and unique?) solution should they start from the actual common knowledge and apply rational inferences. In principle, adding rationality should allow one to allow one to reduce the ritual content to a minimum (eg "we hold elections every 4 years whose results determine the leader of the executive branch"?)...
- mistermann 3y ago> In principle, adding rationality should allow one to allow one to reduce the ritual content to a minimum (eg "we hold elections every 4 years whose results determine the leader of the executive branch"?)... Surely you're not implying our current political systems are rational are you?
- 082349872349872 3y ago(a) the political system example was meant to be of the shared, ritual, content (b) events of 6.i.2021 in the US suggest that although such knowledge is certainly common, belief in it may not exactly be universal
- mistermann 3y agoWhich is a sign for hope imho.
- 082349872349872 3y agoI'm not sure I understand; care to explicate?
- mistermann 3y agoThe January 6 people, like most Americans (and even more so: observers of America), realize what "democracy" is described/implied to be, is not what it actually is: a mirage, an illusion, a magic act. And their.....unique personality types did not prevent them from doing "the right thing", which is to simply complain about it endlessly online, expecting the illusion to fix itself, to put itself out of business. What resulted was a hilarious debacle of course, but at least they're trying.
- 082349872349872 3y agoOK, I was guessing half right then — so what should we replace the illusion with, if anything?
- mistermann 3y agoConsider the rise of science in society. And yet despite us now having science, so many problems remain. Perhaps science isn't the end game after all, as scientists and their fan base would have us believe.
- 082349872349872 3y agoOK, stipulated: let's replace democratic politics and scientific research. With what?
- mistermann 3y ago> let's replace...scientific research That doesn't seem like a very good idea to me - I will vote to object. > let's replace democratic politics...With what? Consider how all problems in the world are solved: analyze the problem, develop a solution. Bad news though: analyze democracy and suggest solutions, you just became an employee of Putin (or, some other meme), and no one will be able to take you seriously. So it seems we have nested problems here.
- hliyan 3y ago> The desire for “common knowledge” - for knowing that I know what others know, and that they see what I see - is deeply human. Can we not explain this more simply as an evolutionary adaptation -- that species where individuals feel a strong need to share new information have a survival advantage?
- bee_rider 3y agoIs that simpler? Everything “deeply human” has evolved at some point I guess.
- gweinberg 3y agoSure, but the reverse is not true. I wouldn't call something "deeply human" if I'd expect intelligent space aliens to all be the same way.
- taway1237 3y agoI would call most intelligent space aliens from movies "deeply human". Which makes sense, they were created by humans to tell stories to other humans. So I guess being human is not a prerequisite to being "deeply human". I wonder if real space aliens, if they exist, are in fact like this. The closest earthly thing we have to intelligent aliens - octopi - are not.
- yamrzou 3y agoRelated: The Costly Coordination Mechanism of Common Knowledge (2018) — https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9QxnfMYccz9QRgZ5z/the-costly-coordination-mechanism-of-common-knowledge https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9QxnfMYccz9QRgZ5z/the-costly... The Elephant, the Emperor, and the Matzo Ball (2016) [video] — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eay1-m7RpoU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eay1-m7RpoU
- spangry 3y agoGenerating a common understanding can be a really powerful way to avoid misunderstandings. Have you ever had a meeting at work where everyone seems to agree on some course of action, only for everyone to leave the meeting with slightly different ideas in their heads resulting in an uncoordinated mess later? Ensuring a common understanding prevents this problem. The simplest technique I've found for generating a common understanding is sharing / projecting my screen and then taking live meeting notes that everyone in the meeting can see. So when someone is talking they can immediately spot if I've misunderstood something and correct it. If they don't correct my notes the implication is that what I wrote down is an accurate reflection of what they meant. Because everyone else in the meeting sees the correction (or lack of correction) they too now share in this common understanding. It is now impossible for us to walk out of the meeting with different ideas in our heads, and also prevents people from later dishonestly claiming that they meant something different from what was written down in my live meeting notes.
- maroonblazer 3y agoAt the risk of sounding like a shill for "Teams" - a product I generally struggle with - one great feature is the ability to capture notes in real time that everyone in the meeting can see. No screen sharing required. Goes a long way towards ensuring everyone's on the same page with whatever was discussed/outcomes agreed to.
- spangry 3y agoIf that's a manual thing then it will work. Automatic transcription won't have the same effect. The trick to this live note taking is that I'm essentially allowing people to read my mind by externalising my thoughts where everyone can see them. The speaker, by correcting or not correcting my externalised thoughts, indicates to everyone whether or not my thoughts match their thoughts.
- maroonblazer 3y agoRight. When I was at IBM they had a 3-day, in-person, course where you learned and practiced facilitation skills. It was a great experience and equipped me with a set of skills I've used and continue to hone to this day. One of those tools being that you capture/summarize the discussion in a public display that everyone can see. You check in with the group with something like "Does this accurately capture what was just discussed/decided?" Everyone has a chance to refine it to meet their understanding and/or we discover that we're not aligned, which engenders more discussion until we are.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Obscurity4340 3y agoBest way to get on the same page with someone is to go around and simply ask: what do you think about xyz. Its such a rare thing for people to come right out with either "what do you think/feel about" depending on what facet you're trying to address. Also thought experiments are fun. Feed people the data and they'll give you everything you want and need to know. But you must care genuinely and be with them and reassure them its ok to talk Edit: kids are really good at this, like the "Why" rabbit hole or just like blurting out what the feel or they sense others are feeling. The non-prosecutorial curiosity is absolutely key tho. You must be approachabke and a good confidante or nobody will engage with you to the fullest potential.
- kqr 3y agoI suspect thought experiments work because they force people to be concrete. "What do you think about increasing alignment by working toward a more transparent meeting culture?" is a question where the same answer could mean a million different things. "Hypothetically, if I expected you to be in all management meetings tomorrow, which of your other tasks would suffer?" will elicit a more detailed and meaningful response.
- Obscurity4340 3y agoExperiments are fun, I would argue lotteries are in some sense a collective thought experiment/fantasy. What would I do if I eliminated all stupid financial constraints that redirect my efforts frim high value big picture stuff away from mundane bullshit like how do i not starve or stave off the wolves from the door Edit: I suspect framing plays a large part in all this...
- dkarl 3y ago> Once that threshold is jumped, things can move very quickly You can see the same dynamic in how scandals unfold in small towns. Everybody knows that married person X is having an affair with married person Y, everybody knows that everybody knows that X is having an affair with Y, but nothing happens until a social consensus is reached that X and Y are going to be shamed for it. It can go on indefinitely with people only whispering about it. And then everything happens seemingly all at once. X loses their job, Y has to resign from the school board, X's marriage breaks up, Y's children get shunned at school. Before the threshold is reached, people whisper about it, but anyone who speaks too loudly or disapproves too publicly is seen as acting in bad taste. People cringe and turn away from them. Nobody wants to be that person. But as soon as the dam breaks, condemning X and Y becomes the town sport, pursued recreationally by all and competitively by many.
- mistermann 3y ago> You can see the same dynamic in how scandals unfold in small towns. Everybody knows that married person X is having an affair with married person Y, everybody knows that everybody knows that X is having an affair with Y, but nothing happens until a social consensus is reached that X and Y are going to be shamed for it. See also: war on planet Earth, and the various just so narratives we all tell each other so no one has to take any serious responsibility for the debacle.
- Animats 3y agoWell, yes. This is yet another pundit who re-invented the wheel. The idea of a common background culture reference is useful. At one time, the common background culture in the Judaeo-Christian countries comprised the Christian Bible and a superficial knowledge of Roman and Greek culture. That's what people used as a source of references, from Noah to Caesar. Today, it's popular culture, and references are to Star [Trek|Gate|Wars] and Harry Potter. "What would Captain Kirk do?" As for a common culture for decision making, that's something the military trains for. Part of officer training is to make sure that everyone knows what everybody does in the common cases. So, when something unexpected comes up, everybody does approximately the right thing before they have a chance to coordinate. "Right way, wrong way, Army way".
- h2odragon 3y agosee also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Report_from_Iron_Mountain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Report_from_Iron_Mountain
- 082349872349872 3y agocf "credible commitment" in Game Theory. eg, for a "mutual" rendezvous game: "I am in grid square H3 and am destroying my radio in 3.. 2.. 1... <squelch>"
- zoogeny 3y agoThis is tangential to an idea I have been pondering for almost a decade. I had a thought experiment of a Pharaoh on a procession exactly like the one described in this article. As the Pharaoh is carried in a litter on the shoulders of servants the entire population lines the streets and bows to the Pharaoh as he passes. I thought about: why does each person bow? Maybe some bow because they are scared of the soldiers. Maybe some bow because they want to look like a good citizen. Maybe some bow because they believe the Pharaoh is a literal God. That is, everyone bows for a different reason. The idea that stands out to me is that the Pharaoh doesn't care why any individual bows. The collective effect of each person bowing is somehow independent from the individual reasons for each person to bow. To me, this strikes at a slightly deeper meaning than "common knowledge". Because the knowledge isn't collective in one sense (I don't know the reasons my neighbors are bowing) but it is collective in another sense (we are all participating in the worship of a single figure).