= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
michaelcurzi comments on Minicamps on Rationality and Awesomeness: May 11-13, June 22-24, and July 21-28 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (239)
So it's more about the form of the conversations, and less about the content?
A problem I have with in-person group conversations is that I'd occasionally find that whoever is speaking is rambling or just not being as interesting as I hope, and wish there was some way to politely signal the person to make their point quickly and give someone else a turn. And then when I get a chance to speak, I'd fear that I'm not being as interesting as I had expected to be when I decided to speak up, and other people are thinking that I should stop talking.
I'm curious if other people have had this problem and how they dealt with it.
Basically. But I think the form of the conversations leads to much better content, and more depth of exploration, and clearer / faster communication.
I honestly find that this is difficult. I think it's easier to learn how to politely interrupt, or just be careful about the groups one hangs out in, or speak in smaller groups.
That is interesting. I try to keep my points short, when possible. I think short points also facilitates better communication; shorter back-and-forth periods enable people to ask for the specific information they need, and closes inferential gaps.