✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

Decoupling vs Contextualising Norms — LessWrong

lesswrong.com · 5,626 words · saved by 1 readers

One of the most common difficulties faced in discussions is when the parties involved have different beliefs as to what the scope of the discussion should be. In particular, John Nerst identifies two styles of conversation as follows : Let's suppose that blue-eyed people commit murders at twice the rate of the rest of the population. With decoupling norms, it would be considered churlish to object to such direct statements of facts. With contextualising norms, this is deserving of criticism as it risks creates a stigma around blue-eyed people. At the very least, you would be expected to have issued a disclaimer to make it clear that you don't think blue-eyed people should be stereotyped as criminals. John Nerst writes (slightly edited): "To a contextualiser, decouplers’ ability to fence off any threatening implications looks like a lack of empathy for those threatened, while to a decoupler the contextualiser's insistence that this isn’t possible looks like naked bias and an inability t

x Decoupling vs Contextualizing Norms — LessWrong Decoupling vs Contextualizing Communication Cultures Conversation (topic) Frames Rationality Curated 185 Decoupling vs Contextualizing Norms by Chris_Leong 14th May 2018 6 min read 54 185 John Nerst: "To a contextualizer , decouplers’ ability to fence off any threatening implications looks like a lack of empathy for those threatened, while to a decoupler, the contextualizer's insistence that this isn’t possible looks like naked bias and an inability to think straight" [1] . Decoupling vs Contextualizing Norms: A cultural divide A particularly t

Explore this link on the map →

related reading