Curated.
When I first read it a few years ago, this blogpost quickly became foundational to how I think about culture. I recently pinged Malcolm about crossposting it because I thought it was essential to have on the Communication Cultures tag.
First, I think "Tell Culture" is pretty good when done right, and I think Malcolm correctly identified some important failure modes it was likely to fall into. I'm not 100% sure whether "Reveal Culture" is quite the platonic ideal of the culture, but I do think it's a net-improvement. And fleshing out the gears has solidified my distinctions between Guess, Ask and other variant cultures that play with similar clusters of norm.
I think my only serious criticism of "Reveal Culture" is that the name is a bit more clunky. I think it's a slight improvement of "Tell" because it avoids the impulse to think "Tell culture means I'm allowed to tell people what to do". But, it's two syllables long, and it's not quite intuitive the way "Interrupt Culture" is.
Culture In General
I think more importantly, this post lays out some key mechanics of "what is necessary to have a culture." And this has shaped all my thinking since about various types of cultures I've wanted to build or understand. The post was a key piece of my "Rationalist Culture Lit Review" in The Real Hufflepuff Sequence Was The Posts We Made Along The Way, because it helped me make sense of all the other "communication culture" posts.
Worth including both for "Reveal Culture" as a concept, and for the more general thoughts on "what is required for a culture."
People I know still casually refer to Tell Culture, and I still wish they would instead casually refer to Reveal Culture, which seems like a frame much less likely to encourage people to shoot themselves in the foot.
I still end up using the phrase "Tell Culture" when it comes up in meta-conversation, because I don't expect most people to have heard of Reveal Culture and I'd have to stop and explain the difference. I'm annoyed by that, and hope for this post to become more common knowledge.
Incredibly thought-provoking.
Thank you.
Reading this made me think about my own communication styles.
Hmm.
After some quick reflection, among people I know well I think actually oscillate between two — on the one hand, something very close to Ray Dalio's Bridgewater norms (think "radical honesty but with more technocracy, ++logos/--pathos").
On the other hand, a near-polar opposite in Ishin-denshin — a word that's so difficult to translate from Japanese that one of the standard "close enough" definitions for it is..... "telepathy."
No joke.
Almost impossible to explain briefly; heck, I'm not sure it could be explained in 7000 words if you hadn't immersed yourself in it at least a substantial amount and studied Japanese history and culture additionally after the immersion.
But it's really cool when it works.
Hmm... I've never really reasoned through how and why I utilize those two styles — which are so very different on the surface — but my quick guess is that they're both really, really efficient when running correctly.
Downside — while both are easy and comfortable to maintain once built, they're expensive and sometimes perilous to build.
Some good insights in here for further refinement and thinking — grateful for this post, I'll give this a couple hours of thought at my favorite little coffee bar next weekend or something.
Mmm, appreciating your comment and very curious to hear what reflections emerge as you digest it more :)
This is great! I particularly like the bit about superficially adopting one set of norms without realizing that you are still running with a different set of assumptions; it's a thing that seems to pop up in lots of different contexts. E.g. running with the assumption that you always need to look like a fast learner, and then trying to adopt norms of behaviors that look less like this, in order to demonstrate how fast you learned that this is bad. Some Christians also talk about how some seemingly humble behaviors are actually manifesting pride over how humble you are.
Another example that I've heard is that of stereotypical hippie communes that decided to found themselves on principles of free love and communal property, without realizing how many monogamous and personal owenership -type assumptions their subconscious was actually still operating on.
But in practice, most people who think they’re “doing Tell Culture” have been holding assumptions that look much more like Ask Culture.
This seems very plausible to me, but since I have not been exposed to a lot of Tell Culture "in the wild", a concrete example would be useful.
Others are welcome to offer concrete examples! I was mostly hearing about this second hand from Bay Area rationalists myself :P
I don't know that I've run into this lately, but I think I've also selected on having friends who are generally considerate of each other. My local culture is fairly reveal-like, but has a fair amount of effort put into things like "here's me saying what's important to me, but I want to be clear this is not an obligation on you." (We keep saying "not an obligation" even though it's generally well understood, and I think that's a good equilibrium because it prevents things from accidentally drifting into the Tell Culture failure modes)
I've been asked to self-review this post as part of the 2020 review. I pretty clearly still stand by it given that I was willing to crosspost it from my own blog 5 years after I originally wrote it. But having said that, I've had some new insights since mid-2020, so let me take a moment and re-read the post and make sure it doesn't now strike me as fatally confused...
...yeah, no, it's good! I made a couple of small formatting and phrasing edits just now but it's otherwise ready to go from my perspective.
The post is sort of weirdly contextual in that it's partially attempting to clarify something someone else wrote and respond to critiques of how that thing was received. I'd want to have it reviewed for editing by someone who didn't read any of the original posts to make sure it stands on its own (which the post itself notes it was intended to do!)
(We also may want to check in with Logan-formally-known-as-Brienne whether they want to be renamed and repronouned; I'll leave that to the editors.)
Could anyone please provide clear examples for this, maybe even exact variations on the ones given in the tell culture post, to make the distinction clearer? I'm having trouble translating the first-principles definition to concrete uses.
Taking a look at examples from the origina:
- Tell: "I'm beginning to find this conversation aversive, and I'm not sure why. I propose we hold off until I've figured that out."
- "I didn't sleep well last night and am feeling frazzled and irritable today. I apologize if I snap at you during this meeting. It isn’t personal."
- "I just realized this interaction will be far more productive if my brain has food. I think we should head toward the kitchen."
- "It would be awfully convenient networking for me to stick around for a bit after our meeting to talk with you and [the next person you're meeting with]. But on a scale of one to ten, it's only about 3 useful to me. If you'd rate the loss of utility for you as two or higher, then I have a strong preference for not sticking around."
All of these feel fairly solid as reveal-culture statements. But, I have heard people do variants on these that are like:
"I'm finding this conversation aversive." No elaboration or followup to take on the emotional labor of fixing it, or bidding to share the emotional labor. Sometimes said with cold expression, that sounds a little like a threat.
And I think that's the sort of thing "Reveal" culture is pushing against.
Thanks for the answer! If I understand you correctly, you're saying that these statements from the tell culture post are reveal culture statements as well? If so, I'm still failing to see the difference between tell and reveal cultures - it sounds like reveal culture is just some clarification on tell culture, if it indeed agrees with the examples given in the tell culture post.
I mean, that’s what he said reveal culture was.
The point is that in real life, people heard the phrase ‘tell culture’ and went off to do something unhelpful, and the goal of ‘reveal culture’ was to make it more likely for people hearing about it to go on to do something helpful.
I've noticed that the Reveal Culture examples / Tell Culture done right resemble greatly the kinds of communication advocated in the many strands of conflict/communication training I've taken. Connecting your requests to needs, looking for interests instead of positions, seeing the listener's perspective, etc.
For instance, the Tell Culture example example "I'm beginning to find this conversation aversive" is quite close to the example from my training "I notice I'm having a reaction," except that it's closer to being judgmental. For comparison, here's a quote I have in Anki, I believe from the book "Difficult Conversations": "When doing active listening, strategies for making the tension explicit include signaling that you're having a reaction, sharing how you're feeling, and postponing the conversation because of emotions."
The people who gave Malcolm's friend the "Crocker's Rules" impression were probably failing to not mix in judgments into their tells. I recently taught a workshop on this, which reminded me just how hard this is for many people.
It's become very apparent to me that one person with high communication skills can go a long way towards making up for deficits in all whom they interact with. If Reveal Culture/Tell Culture as you understand it really is recommending adopting some of the habits recommended by books like NVC and Difficult Conversations, then I do see this as primarily being about skill, not culture, although learning these skills can be quite deep and can entail some personality changes. One possible reconciliation: having a default preference toward sharing your inner world and accepting those of others may make people much more tolerant of unskilled attempts to do so, where people inadvertently give their positions and judgments instead of their observations, feelings, and needs.
Having skills and using them in a particular context aren't the same thing. When talking with rationalists I'm using language out of Circling a lot. I do have the skills to use them. On the other hand those language patterns don't come easily when talking with my family. There are different cultural norms for the family conversations that do lead me to interact differently in them.
So I’m going to use Majuscule Singular to talk about the [P]latforms and lowercase (usually plural) to talk about the cultures themselves. I think this is just good thinking practice.
(crossposted from malcolmocean.com; originally published June 2015)
I have things to say about the Ask/Guess/Tell Cultures model, and an addition/amendment to propose: Reveal Culture. Shifting cultures is hard, so what you’re about to read is not going to have a quality of “let’s all go do this!” I do think it’s worth talking about a lot more, and working on gradually and creatively with others who are game to experiment with culture-crafting.
This post is going to assume that you’re familiar with the Ask/Guess Culture model at the very least. I don’t want to have to explain the whole concept from scratch. The post is written with a Tell Culture familiar audience in mind, although I think it would be worth reading without it. I will talk about each in turn and my understanding of how they work, so you understanding them well is not a prerequisite for this post.
I do want to note that I think it makes more sense to talk about “ask cultures” or even “Guess-based cultures” though, rather than in the singular. This is helpful for keeping salient the fact that there are many very different cultures built upon the platform of Ask or of Guess.
So I’m going to use Majuscule Singular to talk about the platforms and lowercase (usually plural) to talk about the cultures themselves. I think this is just good thinking practice.
Why am I using a new term?
I want to talk about a new cultural platform: Reveal Culture.
It has similarities to Tell Culture, but I’m choosing a new name for three reasons:
I’ll talk later about why I’ve chosen the name “Reveal”. Right now I want to talk about the structure of the models.
Why are they called “cultures” and not just “styles” or “strategies”?
In internet discussions, there have been proposals to refer to Ask/Guess/Tell as (variably) styles, strategies, skills, techniques, habits or something else (rather than “cultures”). In some cases, I think that this suggestion arises out of an oversimplification of how they actually work, although Brienne pointed out to me that there’s at least one good reason to avoid the term ‘culture’: “because ‘culture’ is way too close to ‘tribe’, and it makes people focus on cheering or defense.”
Unfortunately, those other terms aren’t sufficiently complex to model the dynamics. There are indeed skills and techniques associated with these different cultures, but it’s not enough to have skills. Or even rules. Cultures are built on shared underlying assumptions.
Ask cultures don’t work if you’re missing the part that says “it’s totally 100% okay to say no.” The conversational strategies associated with ask cultures require that shared assumption. All guess cultures, too, have shared assumptions at their core (although perhaps very different norms about how specific information is communicated). As do reveal cultures.
These assumptions, laid out below, have to do with what you can trust in the other person. To the extent possible, #1 in each case has to do with the other person’s needs/wants, and #2 has to do with your own needs.
Ask Culture assumptions of trust
Guess Culture assumptions of trust
(Many Guess-based cultures perhaps have other assumptions that are founded in part on the above two, such as “if you ask me directly for something, I assume that it’s either of grave importance or that you’re expecting that the answer is an easy ‘yes’.”)
Reveal Culture assumptions of trust
I think that if you can’t non-naively make these assumptions a decent amount of the time, then you don’t have a foundation for a Reveal-based culture. If, in a given situation, for a given piece of information, you can’t actually trust the #2 thing, then you don’t share that information.
So what about Tell Culture?
You may have noticed that the aforementioned Tell Culture wasn’t included in my list of assumptions of trust. I think that its assumptions are in theory about the same as Reveal. But in practice, most people who think they’re “doing Tell Culture” have been holding assumptions that look much more like Ask Culture.
…which does not work very well. But that’s what happening, and I’m not the only one who’s noticed.
Ben Compass Rose Hoffman wrote:
In case you missed it, let me repeat the first 8 words of that:
I expect that nobody would say that my assumptions written above for Ask and Reveal sound like Reveal is just a variant on Ask.
But this is a common perception that people have come to have about Tell Culture. And honestly, I think that if you’re observing what lots of people are doing, it’s a fairly accurate assessment. If you take a bunch of asky people and you propose they try “Tell Culture” as described, you’ll basically get a culture that is still fundamentally operating on Ask Culture assumptions, except where people use statements instead of questions, and are a lot more blunt about their own perceived needs. (I'm not sure what would happen with guessy people, but I'd be curious to find out!)
So I’m going to use “Tell Culture” to refer to this thing where people are doing Ask Culture but differently. Which, after all, is basically what the word already refers to for most people who are familiar with it in practice. Which is maybe a thousand people at most. (More like 10k-100k have read the LessWrong post, but I’m thinking only of people who have actually had interactions that were seriously guided by the TC post)
Anyway, based on careful reading of the original article, as well as what Brienne has published elsewhere and my personal conversations with her, I’m confident that that’s not how she is understanding Tell Culture. But that’s the experience that a lot of people are having.
What experience are people having of Tell Culture?
After the original Tell Culture article went up, a lot of people in my circles in the SF Bay Area became attracted to the idea of Tell Culture as a mode of communication, and began trying to use it. And I’m all for trying new things! But as I’ve said above, you need to have the corresponding assumptions in place for it to work. And the assumptions are about trust, which has to be created, not taken for granted.
Yet people are presuming that they can use the communication style and in some cases expecting it to be reciprocated, even though the trust isn’t there. A mutual friend of ours wrote:
You can declare yourself to be operating by certain rules. Crocker’s Rules means declaring “don’t worry about offending me, just give it to me straight.” You can’t declare trust.
(Aside: if someone you knew to be really sensitive, insecure & reactive announced that they wanted blunt feedback because Crocker’s Rules, you might still not actually trust them to effectively handle blunt feedback, and therefore you might not give it, depending on your prediction of the impact. This is sane. If possible, you'd probably at least try to get out of the double bind by giving them the probably-challenging feedback that you don't feel able to take them up on their declaration of Crocker's Rules in general. See also my article on Crocker's Rules as a hack for simulating deep trust.)
To compare, imagine if a bunch of Guess Culture people decided they wanted to switch to predominantly ask-style communication. So they start asking each other for things more often, and they start saying no more often. Sometimes. But if some people are still carrying guess-assumptions, then either they won’t really be able to refuse requests, or they won’t be able to comfortably allow others to refuse. And this, naturally, breaks Ask Culture. Because if you can’t actually trust that people will ask for what they need and refuse requests that don’t work for them, then you need to start inferring/guessing again.
So what about the Reveal Culture assumptions? Can we adopt those? Some of us, perhaps, with some people we know. It can take as much inference skill as is needed to flourish in a guess culture to know what actually makes sense to say, to a given person, at a given moment.
But not everybody. The topvoted comment on the Tell Culture LW article says:
The assumptions that that commenter is making are incompatible with the Reveal Culture assumptions. The main issue that stands out to me is that they are assuming that that the system operates primarily with a zero- or negative-sum payoff matrix, and that it is therefore possible to “defect” and achieve personal gain at the expense of the group. This is true in lots of contexts, and arguably Reveal Culture therefore doesn’t totally work there. But that doesn’t mean it can’t work somewhere.
Ben Hoffman agrees with me that Reveal Culture assumptions imply a positively-correlated model of interpersonal engagement—your benefit is a benefit for me, and vice versa. Given that, of course I want to give you more information, and true information. Not all information, because that’s obviously impossible, so I’m going to end up choosing. Factors that affect the decision-making would include:
…and I think that in a lot of cases, you end up realizing that it actually doesn’t make sense to reveal something. I’ve written about what it’s like to get over fear-of-revealing though so that you can actually assess that question more rationally. And building deeper trust between people—not just you and the particular person you’re talking to, but the whole community/context within which your relationship exists—helps to make it possible to safely err on the side of revealing too much. But if you don’t have that trust, then it won’t work.
In closing: Why “Reveal” Culture?
Because the relevant information is internal.
Because “reveal” speaks to the vulnerability that is involved, even if you’re in a positive-sum context.
Because you can tell someone to do something, but you can’t reveal someone to do something.
Because rather than throwing something at someone and putting the burden on them to deal with what they’ve just been told, “reveal” evokes an image of someone sharing something carefully, while holding it close to themselves, letting the other person look at it only as much as they want to.