LESSWRONG
LW

Curated

293

Make More Grayspaces

by Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
19th Jul 2025
16 min read
65

293

Curated

293

Make More Grayspaces
56samuelshadrach
17Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
4Caleb Biddulph
46Cole Wyeth
21Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
10Garrett Baker
8Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
4Garrett Baker
18Raemon
1yams
11Garrett Baker
1yams
2Garrett Baker
8Screwtape
6Cole Wyeth
3Screwtape
2Screwtape
8habryka
4Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
5Edwin Evans
17Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
1samuelshadrach
5Cole Wyeth
3Purplehermann
14romeostevensit
16philh
2CronoDAS
13R S
12jimmy
5Cole Wyeth
2jimmy
7Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
6jimmy
4Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
5jimmy
9Ben Pace
8Gram Stone
7cousin_it
3Linda Linsefors
2[comment deleted]
2Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
6Linda Linsefors
5Jasnah Kholin
4Linda Linsefors
9Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
1Jasnah Kholin
5dirk
2Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
4abstractapplic
4Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
4CronoDAS
3mazelitpotz
3rain8dome9
3Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
3David Joshua Sartor
7Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
4Raemon
2Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
2Sinclair Chen
1Da_Peach
1Bigbearbo Lin
1Alephwyr
-40RickyDMMontoya
10Garrett Baker
7Screwtape
5Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
New Comment
65 comments, sorted by
top scoring
Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 12:24 PM
[-]samuelshadrach2mo*56-1

You are one of my favourite writers on lesswrong. That being said, there is something about your writing that irks me a lot.

Your writing seems to imply that the end goal for you personally is to convert every person you meet into a high trust culture, where they never carry their sword with them. I don't know if this is what your actual goal is, but it is the vibe your writing gives out.

On the margin, I do want more people to do the work you are doing. I don't want everyone to do the work you are doing though, and I would see it as actively destructive to the future of the world if you were successfully recruiting everyone to your work.

I want some people to carry their sword in hand and fight fire with fire. If someone threatens to kill you, consider threatening to kill their family in return. If they threaten to create new dangerous technology, consider threatening to nuke their country out of existence.

We are less than 10 years away from the possible extinction of the human race. Most of us have accepted as normal that our lives depend on crude oil extracted from other countries at threat of nuclear war. Some of us have spies in our midst who report to foreign governments or our own govt.

People are low trust because ground reality is low trust. Someone has to live in this reality in order to fight.

There is a wisdom to making such decisions, but IMO that wisdom is not to permanently abstain from violence like you suggest.

I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine. - John Quincy Adams


Update: Continued in DMs due to lesswrong ratelimiting. Posted below with permission.

Samuel

It is possible I’m assuming things about you that are not true, in my reply to your post.

Your writing gives the vibe that high trust cultures are default good, without acknowledging that sometimes actually low trust culture is good. If the underlying reality is low trust, maybe you should use norms that work for low trust culture. Do you agree?

Also what’s happening globally affects what’s happening locally, I prefer fixing what’s happening globally first, over fixing what happens locally. Do you agree this makes sense?

Duncan

(Dunno how much I'll be able to participate in a back and forth)

I think you're bucketing "good" and "appropriate" in a way that doesn't make sense to me.

Analogy: surgery is extremely helpful and often indicated. That doesn't make it non-damaging or non-painful. The damage and the pain of surgery are always bad; they're just heavily (heavily!) outweighed by the goodness of the resulting improvement to health.

Low-trust is worse than high-trust. It just ... is. Objectively. In the same way that surgery involves physical trauma and pain. Constantly spending resources in a red queen race is bad. Constantly being on alert is bad. Cortisol is bad. Violence is bad.

Nevertheless, low-trust behaviors are quite often the obviously correct way to go. You should absolutely carry a sword if you expect to be accosted by highway robbers, and you should carry a sword if there are wild animals in the woods that cannot be coordinated with, and you should carry a sword if everyone else is carrying a sword even if actual violence is rare because (probably) the sword-carrying is part of the local low-violence equilibrium and you don't want to broadcast that you're uniquely vulnerable.

But all of that doesn't make carrying a sword not effortful. Carrying a sword is more costly (period) than not carrying one, in the sense that it requires you to spend energy and be wary and alert and spend time practicing bladecraft and live with higher cortisol downstream of stressful high suspicion, etc. etc. etc.

I am not and have never advocated "unilaterally disarm, it'll be great!" I am not and have never advocated "expose yourself to the predictable attacks of your enemies!" I have never written anything that could reasonably be construed as meaning "there aren't monsters out there." Something like a full third of my writing is talking about the myriad and omnipresent threats we have to navigate.

The presence of monsters is what makes low-trust culture net good. Better than naive, unsustainable high-trust culture moves that just get you robbed and raped and killed. Often, disarmament is a fabricated option (this is explicitly mentioned in the grayspace post, among others).

But a) if you take each behavior set in isolation, high-trust is just incredibly obviously better than low-trust along like six different axes. It's objectively, ridiculously better, which is why Adams wanted it for his children and his grandchildren.

And b) if you lose track of this fact, and start thinking "this low-trust stuff is just good, on its own!" rather than remembering "ah, right, these are costly-but-appropriate responses to an unpleasant reality," then you start to lose track of which direction you ought to be heading, and which way you ought to be nudging your society. You start to be less capable of noticing when you can relinquish your vigilance. People can end up romanticizing violence and mistrust, and start thinking that it's better to be the biggest warlord than to live in a utopia.

It isn't.

As for fixing global problems versus fixing local ones, I don't think I agree that there's anything like a dichotomy there? If you can fix a problem globally, that saves you from having to continually cut back weeds at the boundaries of your garden. But also often you can't fix something globally, and so it's better to make a garden. And also often both paths are technically available, but you only have the resources to do things at small scale (and sometimes successfully pulling it off at small scale is how you build momentum for the global solution).

Samuel

Holy shit this is a pretty good reply.

I agree with everything you said. Thanks for taking the time to write this.

Feel free to copy paste this back to the thread, I just DMed because lesswrong has rate limited me. Their current voting system rewards groupthink ime, although that’s not their intention.

Duncan

I think I'm not expecting to copy-paste it myself but if you find yourself in a window where you have nothing else to comment and you want to, feel free. Blanket permission; you can treat the above text as public.

Samuel

Thanks, understood

Reply3
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)2mo*1716

I think that if you were to poll people in this general bubble "hey, does Duncan put swords away too readily?" you would overwhelmingly hear back "wtf? No, the opposite; he's too ready to carry and draw swords by default."

(One of my more popular and also more controversial posts was titled "Killing Socrates" and was in part about how maybe it was actually good that they literally killed Socrates.)

i.e. I think something has been missed or projected; I notice I am confused.

Late edit: The Adams quote seems to be not at all an argument in favor of your position; Adams is pointing at "yeah, obviously we still have problems that require swords but the whole point is to make that less and less the case over time."

Reply
[-]Caleb Biddulph1mo41

I can't upvote it directly, but thanks to Duncan for the detailed and interesting comment!

Reply
[-]Cole Wyeth2mo4640

I liked this post, though as a former MMA instructor, I think it’s worth raising a potential risk of gray spaces: many traditional martial arts seem to be very isolated and sometimes stagnant, and I think part of this is that their rituals eat them alive. You might have to train for three years to spar with a black belt, and then it’s within a very specific set of rules. That means that even serious fighters  arent allowed to come in and kick people around (it’s too much work for them to get to that point) and bad ideas / techniques can become entrenched. 

Reply
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)2mo*2112

I completely agree that stagnation can happen, but I think there are multiple cases:

  • Stagnation happens and people become less effective at fighting, which was what they were there to do
  • Stagnation happens and people become less effective at fighting, but they actually weren't there to fight, they were there for some combination of discipline and exercise and community and camaraderie, and even though they themselves might think that it was "about" fighting, it wasn't, and they're actually doing quite well on the axes they genuinely care about

In my mind, this is more of a communication issue and a self-knowledge issue than an "actual" problem?  In that both types of academies seem valid to me, and it's just kind of a shame that the latter kind hasn't found a way to be honest yet (and this creates a lemons problem for people seeking the first kind).

Late edit: boy howdy do the vote ratios between these two comments (and the lack of subsequent acknowledgement or discussion) affirm rather than contradict my sense of LessWrong not being a great place for co-thinking.  (This isn't Cole's fault.)

Reply
[-]Garrett Baker1mo102

In my mind, this is more of a communication issue and a self-knowledge issue than an "actual" problem?

Seems like it depends on what you want. When I see discussions of community here on LessWrong (and especially comparisons to dojos) I imagine the implicit claim is "and this is how we build a rationality community, which is able to get its members to accomplish their goals". In this circumstance, you may say "well many LessWrongians actually mostly just want community for community's sake, so they lie in the second case".

However for those of us who do actually want a rationalist community (that is, the former case), this indeed does seem like a problem. If you offer the trade "you can add more grayspaces meaning you will build a stronger community, but get worse at accomplishing your explicit goals", this does not seem so nice, even if there are some who would eat that trade up.

Edit: I do also think its worthwhile thinking about how this grayspaces concept could be modified to mitigate the fault Cole sees. Even in the typical case, usually people in a dojo are there for some mix of the two reasons.

Reply
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)1mo80

When I see discussions of community here on LessWrong (and especially comparisons to dojos) I imagine the implicit claim is "and this is how we build a rationality community, which is able to get its members to accomplish their goals". In this circumstance, you may say "well many LessWrongians actually mostly just want community for community's sake, so they lie in the second case".

Yeah, my biggest issue with LessWrong (and the broader rationality community generally) is that there seems to me to be much more of a focus on growth and inclusion and togetherness (at the expense of quality) than, like, Actual Standards (that would require telling some people that they're not pulling their weight and can't be in the garden anymore).

^ That's an exaggeration; one person can think the boundary ought to be at level X of effort/intensity/prowess/commitment/whatever, and another person can think it ought to be at 1.5X, and it's not immediately obvious which of these people is correct.  But I at least have found that engaging with nominal "rationalists" tends to drag me down rather than helping me accelerate up/forward.

Reply
[-]Garrett Baker1mo41

In that case I think this should have been your response to Cole.

I'd be curious to hear what particular ways you think the rationalist community is prioritizing "growth and inclusion and togetherness (at the expense of quality)", in part because I wonder whether you aren't just looking at the parts of the rationality community which are already actually grayspaces. Eg public meetups, or LessWrong itself. And perhaps what you may actually want is more black-belt spaces around here.

Eg if your problem is with the userbase of LessWrong in particular, I think its hard to make a public forum have the level of isolation you'd need to make the user-base black-belt quality. Especially if you don't have any objective (or trusted subjective) measures of what "black-belt quality" means. Therefore LessWrong can only ever be a grayspace.

Reply
[-]Raemon1mo183

I don't think this argument is exactly true – we review and reject like 30 people a day from LW and accept 1-3, and most of the time we aren't that optimistic about the 1-3, and it's not that crazy that we switch to the world where we're just actually pretty selective.

(I think you are nonetheless pointing at an important thing where, when you factor in a variety of goals / resources available, it probably makes more sense to think of LessWrong as a grayspace. Although I think Duncan also thinks, if it were trying on purpose to be a grayspace, there would be more active effort guiding people towards some particular way of thinking/conversing)

Also, Duncan's written a fair amount about this both in blogposts and comment-back-and-forths and I'm feeling a bit of sadness of "this convo feels like by default it's going to rehash the Duncan LW Concerns 101 conversation" instead of saying something new. 

Some recap:

  • Concentration of Force
  • Duncan Sabien on Moderating LessWrong 
Reply11
[-]yams1mo10

Nit: selection effects can lead to a de facto black belt setting, as I think some would consider LW 1.0 or early LW 2.0.

As the paths here become broader, more numerous, it becomes a gray space.

[I don’t have a strong view on the Actual History; I just want to tell a plausible story pushing back against ‘can only ever be’.]

Reply
[-]Garrett Baker1mo1115

Seems false for LessWrong 1.0, I’ve read much of the comments on the old Eliezer posts, and they are far far worse than the present forum. I have less to say on early LessWrong 2.0.

I know you said you don’t have a strong view on the actual history, but the actual history does seem pretty central to your argument here. You are free to choose some other argument for your conclusion however.

Reply2
[-]yams1mo10

No - I really did just mean it as an example scenario, and you can plug in ‘x forum’ for ‘lw’. It was a mistake to use something in my example so close to the object level thing being discussed, but I think the argument ‘[forums founded by small communities] can benefit from selection effects that make them something other than gray spaces’ goes through.

I’m objecting to the ‘only ever’ in your initial statement as too strong.

Maybe SL4, Extropians, or something else is better here (like my former-favorite internet music space, llllllll.co, where all the senior members have now moved to Discord).

I think if I’d used a different example you’d be (rightly) dinging me for relevance rather than accuracy, but I really did mean to say the maybe-irrelevant thing and then reached too far for an existence proof (or not far enough, depending on how you see it).

Reply
[-]Garrett Baker1mo20

I agree that if nobody knows about your forum other than the black-belts, then your forum will be black-belt quality.

Reply1
[-]Screwtape1mo80

For my two cents, I enjoy dinner parties full of rationalists where we talk about fanfiction and D&D and bread recipes. I would also enjoy having a dojo full of rationalists where I trained how to think faster and make fewer obvious mistakes. Trying to do that with roughly the same people seems likely to work just fine. Trying to do that at the same time (that is, train thinking faster while eating dinner and talking about D&D) sounds like it would not work.

My guess is I'm not disagreeing with Duncan or Garrett here.

I don't know if I'm disagreeing with Cole. I actually have an idiosyncratic beef with MMA specifically around its very specific set of rules (at least in the MMA scenes I've run into) which made it worse at teaching me to fight than some other arts, though I do think MMA is probably more useful than a randomly selected more ritualistic martial art.

Probably this can be fixed by evaluations- I do like the idea of tossing a few masters from different arts into a ring and seeing what happens, I just think in practice a lot of reasonable-at-first-blush-sensible rules around how that gets done wound up distorting things.

Reply
[-]Cole Wyeth1mo60

I’m kind of skeptical of this claim because in my experience MMA schools are literally mixed and will take stuff from many different systems, and do tend to be mostly focused on winning real fights. But I would be interested in hearing where you think this falls short.

Most people who train MMA are not training to become professional fighters, so I don’t think the rules of the sport tend to effect the training system that much.

Where I trained, we did ground fighting, kickboxing style sparring, takedowns, and then eventually combined everything, and including in live sparring. Also a little weapons defense. That’s been my experience at most MMA gyms I visited, with some minor variation. I don’t know how a system can train more realistically and still be safe - like Krav Maga guys talk about going for the eyes and argue MMA isn’t hardcore enough basically, but we actually also trained that kind of thing a bit and the reality is you just can’t actually go for the eyes in a sparring match so you mostly focus on the other stuff.

Reply
[-]Screwtape1mo30

Your skepticism seems warranted! I can't tell how the rules of the sport affect the training system, and I haven't studied MMA in depth so maybe it has more answers to problems which I just didn't find.

the reality is you just can’t actually go for the eyes in a sparring match so you mostly focus on the other stuff.

Yeah, that's the kind of reasonable-at-first-blush rules that come to mind. This is a tangent to the grayspaces post and if we get more than another back and forth into this I might just try to write this up as its own post. I don't think what I've said above or what I'm saying in this comment should be convincing. Training to completion against a resisting opponent usually means training with moves that won't put someone in the hospital. I don't know that's the wrong tradeoff, training against a resisting opponent is pretty useful.

The circumstances I needed martial arts for were mostly across a weight difference, with varying number of opponents, in an environment full of hard abrasive surfaces. There was a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu class that said it was pulling in some MMA techniques (yeah, I know calling MMA a style is a bit weird, pretty sure it was mostly Muay Thai) I tried to learn from, and it proved a trap. Later on I learned a bit more about MMA and the parts that felt like traps seemed to come from assumptions like the ground being okay to land on.

Circling back to the grayspaces-as-worrying-insulation-from-tests; if I imagine a bunch of skilled scientists and a bunch of skilled debaters talking about who has better discussion norms, I could see the scientists saying "look, we're not going to spar with you by your rules, and we're not going to let you come in and spar with us either unless you spend some time understanding what we think sucks about your rules." Maybe the scientists have allowed themselves to become too insulated from someone asking the right questions or from outside perspectives. That does seem like it can happen! But also the debaters are focused on a different purpose and that could be an actual problem.

Reply
[-]Screwtape1mo20

Meh, the debate team and the scientists know they're aiming at different things, that's not a great example on my part.

Reply
[-]habryka1mo81

Late edit: boy howdy do the vote ratios between these two comments (and the lack of subsequent acknowledgement or discussion) affirm rather than contradict my sense of LessWrong not being a great place for co-thinking.  (This isn't Cole's fault.)

Did I miss something? Curious what the observation was. 

(the current vote totals are like 38/28 and 12/7 for me, which seem unremarkable).

Reply
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)1mo40

For a while it was like 31/21 and 2/0 with no further commentary.

Reply
[-]Edwin Evans1mo50

@Duncan Sabien (Inactive): given the updated totals @habryka mentioned does this increase your sense of LessWrong being a great place for co-thinking? 

(Current totals are 42/39 and 16/11.)

Reply
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)1mo*171

LessWrong is still a really rough place for me to try to do anything other than "present complete thoughts that I am thoroughly ready to defend."

The fact that some other comments trickled in, and that the vote ratios stabilized, was definitely an improvement over the situation in the first 36h, but I think it's not super cruxy?  It was more of a crisp example (at the time) of the larger gestalt that demoralizes me, and it ceasing to be an example doesn't mean the gestalt went away.

One of the things that hurts me when I try to be on LessWrong is something like ....... 

  1. A person will make a comment that has lots of skewed summaries and misinterpretations and just-plain-wrong claims about the claims it says its responding to (but it's actually strawmanning)
  2. Someone else will make an effortful rebuttal that corrects the misconceptions of the top-level comment and sometimes even answers the steel version of its complaint
  3. The top comment will continue to accrue upvotes at a substantially faster clip than the lower comment, despite being meaningfully wrong, and it won't ever get edited or fixed and it just keeps anchoring people on wrongthoughts forever
  4. The lower comment gets largely ignored and often people don't even engage with it at all

...all of which lives in my soul as a sort of despair that might be described as "yeah, so, if you want to give people a platform upon which to strawman you and then gain lots of local status and also infect the broader crowd very efficiently with their uncanny-valley version of your ideas such that it becomes even harder to actually talk about the thing you wanted to talk about ... post it on LW!"

A whole other way to gesture at the same problem is something like, out in the real world I often find myself completely alone against the mob, fighting for either [truth] or [goodness] or both.  And that's fine.  The real world makes no promises about me-not-finding-myself-alone.

But LessWrong, by its name and mission and sometimes by explicit promise or encouragement, is "supposed" to be the sort of place where I'm not completely alone against the mob.  For one thing, the mob is supposed to be good instead of bad, and for another, there are supposed to be other people around who are also fighting the good fight, and not just me all by myself.

(There's some hyperbole here, but.)

Instead, definitely not all the time but enough times that it matters, and enough times that it's hurt me over and over again, and enough times that it produces strong hesitation, I've found myself completely alone with even high-status LWers (sometimes even senior mods!) just straightforwardly acting as the forces of darkness and madness and enacting mindkilledness and advocating for terrible and anti-epistemic things and it just hurts real bad.  The feeling of betrayal and rug-pulled-out is much worse because this was supposed to be a place where people who care about collaborative truth-seeking could reliably find others to collaborate with.

I can find people to think productively with on LessWrong.  But I can't rely on it.  More than 20% of the time, it goes badly, and "do an expansive and vulnerable thing in an environment where you will be stabbed for it one time out of five" just ... kinda doesn't work.

Reply1
[-]samuelshadrach1mo10

I have tried thinking about what’s the best way to avoid the groupthink that exists on most social media forums and also on lesswrong. I’m not yet convinced it can be solved at the level of software, the underlying social graph is fucked up.

There is no agreed upon definition of “good” on lesswrong. Theres people pro and against:

  • various AI alignment research agendas
  • various AI governance agendas
  • human genetic engineering
  • utilitarianism
  • longtermism
  • transhumanism of various types - such as human genetic engg, whole brain emulation, etc

Getting questions like this right or wrong is going to affect everything. Literal billions of people may well end up living or dying based on how these discussions go. (And yes I mean present day people, not hypothetical future people.)

I’m morally against a majority of the ideas proposed on lesswrong so I’m well aware it’s a hostile place for me.

I understand you are not here to discuss longtermism or whatever, but I’m just making you aware that’s what the “mob” also does at this place so ofcourse the same behaviour carries over to your replies.

Reply
[-]Cole Wyeth1mo50

I don’t really have firsthand knowledge of the academies which are not focused on fighting - I always assumed they wanted to be about fighting, so i found this an interesting point, though I can’t really assess its accuracy. Plenty of the students who ended up in MMA from other traditions did seem to be looking for real fighting skills, but that’s possibly a selection bias.

Reply
[-]Purplehermann1mo30

Dojo storming.  Tournaments.

Essentially ritualistic exposure to the outside world, with different norms from internal interaction

Reply
[-]romeostevensit1mo145

This reminds me of the quip that a lot of white cultures don't seem to have a signifier for 'real talk' and are very hamstrung on going down simulacra levels as a result.

Reply
[-]philh1mo1611

I'd be curious to hear about the signifiers for 'real talk' that other cultures have.

Reply
[-]CronoDAS1mo20

Seconded.

Reply
[-]R S2mo1310

I always wondered if other people understood this 

I've experienced this at work and it's just one of those horrible things where I feel so lonely due to being unable to explain it to people (in a politically correct way) 

Like I don't hate the guy who would always pull his sword on me 

Because I deeply understand him because I was closer to him in the past 

And my father was him 

But also I can't work with that guy and do my best work

Reply
[-]jimmy2mo123

Hm. I guess it depends on whether you expect people to carry their swords in the "clean space".

To the extent that your sword is heavy and you want to be able to put it down and explore the city alone at night, the gates must be quite restrictive. To the extent that your sword is just part of you, and you're constantly surrounded by a supermajority of full members, on boarding can happen in place.

The jiu jitsu gym I go to is more of the latter. There is a beginners class, but it's not mandatory and many people jump straight into the "all levels" class from day one. It's just hard to be that disruptive, because you'll quickly find that your attempts to disrupt things don't work.

There's a place for both, obviously, but I tend to find myself nudging people to find ways to "make their swords parts of themselves" and to find ways to make it easy to carry the capacity to defend oneself.

Reply2
[-]Cole Wyeth1mo50

Jiu jitsu is a thing where if you haven’t trained jiu jitsu you can be big and athletic and aggressive and still end up getting strangled by someone half your size who is possibly even female, because people just don’t know how to move on the ground unless they’ve trained jiu jitsu (or judo at a high level). So this is unusually true about jiu jitsu 

Reply
[-]jimmy1mo20

Yeah, there's a strong signal there. I think it transfers though. If the culture you're trying to protect is actually good at engaging cooperatively and non-threateningly, Alexis can handle Bryce too.

The situation described is where Alexis tries to touch someone who doesn't want to be touched, and where an observer can't tell that her intent was good. If you have real skill in the community, and you limit/track the newcomers like Bryce, then Alexis will probably know to ask consent before touching Bryce -- and the community will recognize what's happening.

There's an assumption there that you can have high trust cooperative societies without learning how to deal with people who don't want to be touched, and I'm skeptical. I think the way you get to a secure community is by learning to handle insecurity, not by trying to prevent contact with it.

Reply
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)1mo70

There's an assumption there that you can have high trust cooperative societies without learning how to deal with people who don't want to be touched,

 

...no?  Not sure where that came from, and certainly wasn't intended, anyway.

The question is who bears the burden of an unusual sensitivity, like being traumatized by touch. In our society, if you offer someone a candy bar containing peanuts, you are not treated like an asshole if the person has a previously undisclosed peanut allergy; the people with peanut allergies assume the burden of informing and everyone else assumes the burden of accommodating—but not preemptively.  Not until told.

(You are treated like an asshole if you offer peanuts after everybody's been looped in.)

Similarly, in a high-trust society with healthy amounts of casual touch (i.e. an order of magnitude more touch than modern American society), those people who either want or need less touch just ... note this, and then everybody else nods and cooperates, the same way that we nod and cooperate with peanut allergies.

The problem is when you end up in this confusing ambiguous space where people are sporadically punished for behaving in perfect accordance with common knowledge norms, if the person with the special needs is sufficiently sympathetic and decides to paint the other person as an asshole.

(A norm in which Alexis explicitly checks in because they know Bryce is acclimating makes a lot of sense, but a general norm in which you're expected to secure verbal consent for casual touch is actually super bad in ways that I've spelled out a bunch of other times and probably won't rehash here.  Its badness unfortunately hasn't stopped (especially left-leaning parts of) our culture from driving pretty hard in that direction, leading to our present epidemic of chronic undertouch (and downstream effects like homophobia and increased emotional labor within romantic relationships and teenage depression, etc etc etc.))

Reply1
[-]jimmy1mo6-6


...no?  Not sure where that came from, and certainly wasn't intended, anyway.

Hm. My bad then, sorry for the misinterpretation.

It came from your description of Alexis failing to deal well with Bryce as if Alexis couldn't be expected to notice his desire to not be hugged. Because if you can expect people to know not to hug people who don't want to be hugged, this isn't an issue. Alexis just say "Oops, sorry", and the community says "That's okay. Just pay more attention next time. Bryce is new, remember?".

(A norm in which Alexis explicitly checks in because they know Bryce is acclimating makes a lot of sense, but a general norm in which you're expected to secure verbal consent for casual touch is actually super bad

My first response is "Agreed. I'm suggesting the former."

On second thought, the subtle differences might be where we differ. Or maybe not. We'll see, I guess.

I'm not much a fan of overly specific rules like "You have to ask consent before having sex, but not before hugging -- unless they're new, then you ask consent for that too". I generally think it generally makes more sense to judge on an individual level "Does this person want to engage with me in this way". If I'm getting the sense that they don't, or they might be so upset that a genuine "I'm sorry" doesn't cut it, I'll ask first -- even if it's just "Can I ask you a question?". I think "Look bro, we hug here, so you're in the wrong" isn't the kindest of responses after you've just tried to hug someone who doesn't want to be hugged, and not the most likely to get him to lower his sword.

I agree that healthier cultures can tolerate hugs and punch bugs without flipping out if someone makes an honest mistake, but it also seems to me that healthier cultures can tolerate discomfort with hugs and swatting someone's arms away when they start to give an unwanted hug. When you paint a picture of a "clean space" where Alexis both fails to notice that the new guy doesn't want a hug and she can't just apologize and trust it will be accepted, I don't think "This clean space must be protected by keeping Bryce out", I think "This place needs some work".

Reply
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)1mo41

I think "Look bro, we hug here, so you're in the wrong" isn't the kindest of responses after you've just tried to hug someone who doesn't want to be hugged, and not the most likely to get him to lower his sword.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't say that.  I might say something like "oh, yeah, the reason this happened is that we hug around here; if you need to not be hugged that's totally fine and something people can adjust to but you gotta give them the heads up, sorry for the unpleasant surprise."

When you paint a picture of a "clean space" where Alexis both fails to notice that the new guy doesn't want a hug and she can't just apologize and trust it will be accepted, I don't think "This clean space must be protected by keeping Bryce out", I think "This place needs some work".

Uh, I notice you keep (mildly) strawmanning me.  This is like the third time now that you've taken something I said and rounded it to a dumber, worse thing?

Reply
[-]jimmy1mo52


Yeah, I wouldn't say that.


I know, and I didn't mean to imply that you would. I did explicitly say that maybe we don't differ here.

Part of the reason for such an exaggerated caricature was in hopes of making it clear that "I don't think you'd actually say this"/finding common ground. The other part is to highlight the direction of error. Because while the exaggerated version is obvious, the dynamics themselves are very much not, which means that all sorts of intelligent people end up making these mistakes in more subtle ways.

I'd still say things differently in such a situation, though crossing the inferential distance in a comment probably isn't going to happen. This Monday and next I have a couple posts on this topic (as part of a larger sequence) which explain where I'm coming from as it relates here. If you're interested in reading them, I'm curious what your response would be.


Uh, I notice you keep (mildly) strawmanning me.

I prefer the term "Failing the ITT" :)

I'm happy to accept corrections/clarifications, and sorry it came off like putting words in your mouth. I know I phrased it in a way to accentuate what I see as a problem with the picture you paint, but I genuinely don't know how this differs from what you describe. I have a hard time imagining you saying that the person being hugged did want the hug, or that the person hugging did notice, etc, so I'm not sure where the misrepresentation is. Rereading, you only applied the names Alexis/Bryce to the "Asks a seemingly innocent question" example, but that doesn't seem like a substantive mistake?
 

Reply
[-]Ben Pace1mo97

Curated! This is a helpful articulation of a key step in building and maintaining a culture that I haven't conceptualized before. Now I worry I've been screwing up loads of my attempts at building cultures (and worried I've messed up some cultures that I thought I'd participated in as central members of, like Duncan felt in the first few years of his martial arts dojo). I'll need to think on this more. Thanks for this well-written piece (and for it's relative shortness).

Reply
[-]Gram Stone1mo84

Without, Azathoth forbid, implying too much depth here, this reminded me of that episode of Avatar: The Last Airbender where Toph sneaks up on Zuko while he's sleeping to talk privately because she thinks he might actually be trustworthy but no one else in their group agrees with her and then he startles awake and reflexively burns her feet (which she uses to 'see' via an Earthbending-powered analog of echolocation, so in context surprisingly harmful) and then she runs away and he runs after her and grabs her so they can Just Talk and she strikes him in the chest with a pillar of earth (obviously aiming for the celiac plexus, but hey, she's blind) and runs away and in his solitude Zuko lamentably exclaims, "Why am I so bad at being good?" Simplified for easy learning but exactly the problem Grayspaces are designed to solve.

Reply
[-]cousin_it2mo72

I'd like to understand why in some areas (science, sports) almost everyone at the top went through formal training, but in other areas (business, the arts) many of those at the top didn't have formal training. What makes these areas different.

Reply
[-]Linda Linsefors1mo30

I think it has a lot to do with weather or not the accumulated knolage that you'll get though training is any good. It's hard to make in in physics withough going though physics education, because you need all that accumulated knolage in order to be part of taking the next step. On the other hand in AI safety reserch you don't need as much AI safety education (although I still recomend some) becasue ther just isn't as much valid accumulated knolage to catch up on.

Notice that I wrote education rather than formal training. There are other ways to get educated, than going to a formal training program (e.g. physics uni courses). But expecially when you have years of education to do, like in phyiscs, it's easier to do it in a more structured setting.

I expect things to move from "many of those at the top didn't have formal training" to "almost everyone at the top went through formal training" as the formal training gets better, both in therms of how much knolage you can learn from others, and in terms of how good the formal institutions are at teaching. I expect you to be able to see this trend clearly when looking at diffrent sports.

Reply3
[+][comment deleted]1mo20
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)2mo20

I don't have an answer, but I'll note that, for the four examples you suggested, science and sports feel more culture-y to me, and business and the arts feel more fragmented and multicultural.  Like, it's easier for me to imagine people in business and the arts "making it" without ever acculturating to some preexisting group or set of norms, than it is for me to imagine people "making it" as a scientist or an athlete.

Reply
[-]Linda Linsefors1mo60

I think I've seen spaces which have their own culture in a way which is distinct from the ouside culture, who manage to presist by onboarding people by brigingn them straight in, but in managble numbers. 

My leading hypothesis is that this can work for a while, but is fragile. I.e. the separation of the space's culture and ouside culture can break if too many new people enter at once, of if someone too incompatible person joins, but dispite this such spaces can still exixt for years. Possibly because they are obscure and hard to find, and thus most newcombers are brough in by members, who filter who they bring in. Or the way the group is advertised causes enouhg self selection. 

I think that an example of this is the cultre at Burn events (e.g. Burning Nest in the UK). I was going to say "burner culture" but I don't think this is corret (or specific enough). Burning Nest (or Boarderland in Sweden) was great in a way a burner meetup in London (that I went to shortly after Burning Nest) had none of, and I'm not sure why, but probably being semi-separated from the the rest of the world at a camp site for days, is an active ingredient.

But an alternative hypotesis is that the type of spaces Duncan talks about is diffrent from what I have yet expreienced. 

I've been to a CFAR workshop, but I have not been in a community where everyone knows that everyone knows about CFAR techiques.

I've done the Phyics training, and then gone to Phyics concrerences where it's common knolage that everyone has pysics training. This was pretty great. But there is nothing going on at a Phiscs conference that would fundametnally break is a non-Physist hangs out there.

Reply
[-]Jasnah Kholin1mo*50

I saw people mentioned Eternal September on the internet, not frequently, but  over years. and currently my model of this even (That happened before my time and i didn't witnessed) is that it's exactly instance of "the separation of the space's culture and outside culture can break if too many new people enter at once, of if someone too incompatible person joins, but despite this such spaces can still exit for years."

people had nice culture, people was joining every September and at first was disruptive, and it took time to acculturate, but the ratio of old timers- new timers was good enough, and the number small enough, so the culture persisted. then, The General Public got access to the internet, and the culture broke, and was never rebuilt again. 

edit in reply to gears of ascension asking for source: the "never rebuilt again" is the opinion of people who was there, and i encountered lamenting the days of old. i take them at their word that it wasn't build again. my own opinion of why is that the internet have pockets of nice places, but there is vast, vast difference between place when the default is nice, that everyone or almost everyone cooperate, and place when the default is defection, and there are small pockets of cooperators. those are very different dynamics, very different worlds to live in. ( i don't have links to the random places when i encountered that, sorry.)

Reply1
[-]Linda Linsefors1mo4-1

Tanks, that's helfull

I expect that society have a lot of implicit gray spaces. This could possiby look like:

[public events] = [gray space]
[privet house parties (and other invite only events)] = [inner garden]

This should work as long as old timiers attend the public meetups AND newcommers have the attitude of trying to conform to the culture they are visiting and also sort themsleves out if it isn't for them.

When running an inner sim of how I expect this to work, I notice that I expect that most newcommers will not have this atitude by default, which will drive away old timers (inclduing those who whold have otherwise been happy to mentor newcommers).

On the other hand, sub culutres does exixt. So maybe my inner sim is wrong? Or maybe this is something we have recently collectlivly gotten worse at doing?

I remember a proverb "When in Rome do as the Romans", meaning you're supposed to adapt to the local culture you're visiting. However I've not heard anyone syaing this or anything like it for years. Also, our western maistream culture went though a phase of woke dominance, and part of woke culture is to demand that every space conform to cernain woke norms, which is kind of the oposite. This is one of the parts of woke culture I liked the least, and now I'm worried that [not allowing subcultures to do thier own thing] is going to stick around, even as the cuture pendelum swings in the other direction. But hopefully not. 

Reply
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)1mo94
Me irl : r/me_irl
Reply
[-]Jasnah Kholin1mo10

Inner Rings definitely exists, and sometimes they even allow to have nicer environment. but this is very different from martial arts class or undergraduate program. there are number of differences. the first is, that one is place that dedicated to learning something, and the other not. the second is legible standards. and the third is... I'm not sure how to pint at it. existence? legible existence?  

maybe my book club have inner ring, and maybe they are even nicer then the general members - but maybe not, maybe their are more mean-girls then the other. inner ring is not well-kept garden, it just some people that locally have more status.  

in most random social scenes, there is some culture, but it's sort of random. result from what sort of people come first and some random things.  there are two book groups with different culture, and it's mostly not because they decided that, and there is no greyspace and no well guarded gardens in the inner rings.

your description take guess-culture approach to greyspaces and subcultures, and i am pessimistic about it viability outside of small communities.  there is only so much you can have without saying. with guessing only. people will be wrong, and if you never fix them, a lot of them will remain wrong.

i don't know if we become worst, and i do think there are various cultural threads to pull here. fie example. Woke allow only some sorts of subcultures and pretty hostile to most. but also... i don't see a lot of places that actually trying. a lot of things are on the internet now, and social networks destroyed a lot of cultural knowledge on how to create and moderate groups. 

also, i'm not in USA, and things come here slower. i hope the woke wave will subside, though i'm not sure how much subcultures thing connected to it. I'm not even sure there are less subcultures now then there was 30 years ago. how you even measure that? 

Reply
[-]dirk1mo510

I think you're perceiving threats where there are none, and should probably turn the aggro meter way down.

Reply
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)1mo23

Honestly, Rowan is providing a pretty solid case study in exactly the topic at hand.

Reply
[-]abstractapplic22d42

With this concept in mind, the entire rationalist project seems like the grayspace to a whitespace that hasn't been created yet.

Reply
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)21d40

Yes (alas)

Reply
[-]CronoDAS1mo40

This looks like either harsh sarcasm or trolling, and the "piece" by that title does not appear to exist; furthermore, my understanding is that "redpill ideology" has little to say on the subject of hugs in particular.

And the point about consent has been addressed elsewhere in the comments:

(A norm in which Alexis explicitly checks in because they know Bryce is acclimating makes a lot of sense, but a general norm in which you're expected to secure verbal consent for casual touch is actually super bad in ways that I've spelled out a bunch of other times and probably won't rehash here. Its badness unfortunately hasn't stopped (especially left-leaning parts of) our culture from driving pretty hard in that direction, leading to our present epidemic of chronic undertouch (and downstream effects like homophobia and increased emotional labor within romantic relationships and teenage depression, etc etc etc.))

Reply1
[-]mazelitpotz1mo*32

I enjoyed this post. As I was reading it, I had many ideas on how many aspects of our lives this applies to. Your example about the dish-washing procedure made me think that the idea of grayspaces can come in both discrete and continuous forms.

Let me give you some examples. For instance, consider moving to a different job. Changing both industry and role can be seen as two discrete leaps. Common advice is to take it step by step — perhaps first shifting industry, then later changing position. On the other hand, if you want to build a daily writing habit and want to reach 1k words per day, you may do this continuously starting from zero and adding one word per day.

To bring this at a higher level, you can see this pattern in major life decisions. After each leap, you usually have some time to reflect and plan your next move — this could be a grayspace.

Reply
[-]rain8dome91mo30

The specific word 'greyspaces' makes me think of something like bad architecture  a perspective on morality. Could you call this concept something else like 'intermediary spaces'?

Reply
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)1mo30

I definitely endorse people using whatever terms work for them, but I predict that "intermediary spaces" is going to work less.

Reply
[-]David Joshua Sartor1mo30

from Alexis’s perspective, Bryce is hitting “defect” on a prisoner’s dilemma

Was surprised at this line because that scenario seemed to me clearly a Stag Hunt. On reflection, of course this varies between people.

Edit: it seemed to me from Alexis's perspective, I mean.

Reply
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)1mo71

I think that's another perfectly valid way to describe Alexis's experience.  But one of the ways stag hunts go awry is that people don't even realize they're choosing stag.

Like, from Alexis's perspective, it probably doesn't ... feel like a stag hunt?  In that it doesn't seem like doing-things-in-the-high-trust-way requires effort and expenditure?  b/c Alexis has lightworld privilege and is sort of steeped in the benefits of everyone cooperating all the time.  But from Bryce's perspective, it's a crazy risky stag choice and the rabbit option seems way safer.

So Alexis may not parse it as "oh, right, that person chose rabbit," but rather as "whoa, why is this person not doing The Obvious Thing?"

(In many stag hunts, people who don't realize that they're asking others to choose stag/take a leap of faith often treat stag as the default, and react to rabbiters as if those rabbiters are defecting/undermining/betraying/whatever.)

Reply
[-]Raemon1mo43

I think this framing was somewhat new to me and a useful explanation in contrast/in-addition-to The Schelling Choice is "Rabbit", not "Stag" 

Reply
[-]Duncan Sabien (Inactive)1mo20

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Gh6LWHd9kR5FBmCWx/setting-the-zero-point

Reply
[-]Sinclair Chen1mo21

I like this. I think there's some value in having elite communities that are not 101 spaces. But I am sure how or when I would use one. I do think I improve my rationality by spending time with particular smart thoughtful friends. But this doesn't really come from exclusion or quarantining other people.

I enjoy the cognitive trashpit and that's why I'm mostly on twitter now. I am happy to swim in soapy grimy dishwater, not so much because I want to raise the sanity waterline (ha) but the general public is bigger - more challenging, more important. Consider it aliveness practice, or like tsujigiri.

The twitter scene does have standards. but it's more diffuse, decentralized, informal.

I feel like you're trying to build a new science (great!) but I'm more interested in a new version of something like the viennese coffee house scene.

Reply
[-]Da_Peach1mo10

I agree with the content of the essay, but I disagree with the allocated name.

  1. A grayspace implies it's just one intermediary place to station potential members. However, the process often involves multiple stages where checks and balances are applied. Furthermore, these intermediate stages may overlap, and the overall transition can be smooth rather than discrete.
  2. It just isn't directly clear what the term is referring to, since it's an entirely new word.

Thus, I propose for the people to use in their discussions the term pipeline instead, since it's an established word used to express the same notion of transitioning people from one state to another, and it correctly expresses that there may be multiple stations. I suspect the essay could have been made much shorter too if a single sentence about the "alt right pipeline" was given, or something similar, since it would instantly hook people up as to what the crux of the topic being discussed is.

Reply1
[-]Bigbearbo Lin1mo10

For most people, being rejected is just a normal, sometimes awkward part of life—something you laugh off or shrug away. But when someone reacts really strongly, keeps bringing it up, or goes out of their way to intellectualize their pain, it starts to look less like a typical social setback and more like a sign of deeper issues. Maybe they've really been hurt in the past, or maybe they're unusually sensitive to rejection. Sometimes these outsize reactions aren't about the incident itself, but about old wounds.

Reply
[-]Alephwyr1mo10

People don't always know what's harmful or helpful to others. Otherwise I have no objection to this post. It seems like a good project. It's quite likely that the examples I'm thinking of aren't even relevant to the specific scenarios and examples you were thinking of and would like to target.

Reply
[+]RickyDMMontoya1mo-40-46
Moderation Log
More from Duncan Sabien (Inactive)
View more
Curated and popular this week
65Comments
Deleted by cousin_it, 07/23/2025
Reason: Comment deleted by its author.

Author's note: These days, my thoughts go onto my substack by default, instead of onto LessWrong. Everything I write becomes free after a week or so, but it’s only paid subscriptions that make it possible for me to write. If you find a coffee’s worth of value in this or any of my other work, please consider signing up to support me; every bill I can pay with writing is a bill I don’t have to pay by doing other stuff instead. I also accept and greatly appreciate one-time donations of any size.


I.

You’ve probably seen that scene where someone reaches out to give a comforting hug to the poor sad abused traumatized orphan and/or battered wife character, and the poor sad abused traumatized orphan and/or battered wife flinches.

Aw, geez, we are meant to understand. This poor person has had it so bad that they can’t even recognize this offer of love and support for what it is. They’ve been trained to expect only violence, so they recoil by reflex. Tragic.

In fiction, the misunderstanding is almost always immediately clear, and generally straightforward to solve (even if it takes the characters time to prove themselves, and build up the necessary trust and safety).

But that’s in part because (the way these scenes are usually written) the flinch is not itself an attack. It doesn’t harm the would-be hugger, who is usually a character with lots of emotional resources to spare.


II.

It’s not hard to imagine the version of the scene where the flinch does harm the hugger—if, say, the hugger has offered hundreds of hugs, over and over again, for years on end, and has literally never hurt the poor sad abused traumatized orphan and/or battered wife character, nor even raised their voice at them.

(Sure, we’d like to be infinitely noble and patient, such that a lack of response to our “obvious” good intentions doesn’t ever start to wear on us. But many of us aren’t infinitely patient. After being nothing but open and supportive a hundred times in a row, many of us want/hope/expect/need for there to be some visible progress. And often, there isn’t, and often, this hurts. Even though it’s not personal, it can start to feel personal, in a seriously, what do I have to do to prove myself, here? sort of way.)

Or perhaps the scene takes place in public, in a space where the would-be hugger’s reputation is not fully secure. Perhaps there are strangers around who might look askance—people who would see the flinch and leap to the conclusion that the flinch is about the hugger—that the hugger is the reason this person has a flinch reflex in the first place.

Again, as the hugger, we might hope to be the bigger person, in such a situation—to breeze through it with confidence and ease. But it’s probably not hard to imagine feeling a spike of social panic, and it’s probably not hard to imagine that panic turning into something less than perfect, angelic behavior. Sometimes you’ve had a hard week, and you’re not fully on top of your game.


III.

A flinch, by itself, is usually not an attack. But sometimes defense is active rather than passive. Sometimes, instead of merely flinching, the poor sad abused traumatized orphan and/or battered wife will slap the hugger’s arm away.

To be extremely clear: that’s also not an attack! But it might read as one, to the hugger, and this isn’t always entirely unreasonable (especially since the hugger might walk away with an actual bruise).

Analogously: Alexis innocently asks a question that they think is completely innocuous. But Bryce, sensitized by a bunch of previous sad experience, thinks they smell a setup, or something disingenuous—an attempt to dismiss or belittle or mock or extort that’s merely posing as a question—and shuts Alexis down hard.

The source of tragedy here is a deep cultural mismatch. Bryce lives in a world where attacks are frequent, and can come from any direction, and thus you have to have your shields up at all times and your sword loose in its scabbard.

(And also everyone knows this and expects this, and thus no one takes it personally and no one thinks you ought to be doing anything differently, what do you mean, leave the house without your sword, do you want to get yourself killed?)

Alexis, on the other hand, comes from a place where attacks are rare and unusual, and thus seeing Bryce ease their sword in its sheath feels like a threat. Alexis might not have even clocked that Bryce was carrying a sword, nobody does that around here, I thought that was a walking stick or a prop or something, are you kidding me, what the fuck is going on?


IV.

An acquaintance of mine once pointed out that, if you never let the silence stretch for more than five or ten seconds during conversation, there are entire genres of conversation that you never get to experience.

Like, conversations that include thirty-second pauses aren’t just … the same as faster-paced conversations, except for the pauses. They’re not otherwise-normal conversations that simply happen slower. Things happen in those thirty seconds that do not and cannot happen when the flow of words is more-or-less nonstop. There are complicated thoughts that can’t be thought in less than thirty seconds, and so if you want to have the sort of conversation that includes that sort of thought, the long pauses are an absolutely necessary precondition.

Similarly: there are kinds of conversation (and kinds of interaction, and experiences generally) that you cannot have, in a world where everyone walks around gripping the hilt of their swords. There’s a reason we have a trope of certain conversations being easier to have in the safety and privacy of your own living room, with only your closest friends present. Certain topics require a hefty dose of good faith and charity and patience and shared context; there’s vulnerability and intimacy that aren’t a good idea in a world where lots of sharp things might try to poke you, and where your own attempt to extend a friendly hand might be interpreted as an attack.

(Or taken advantage of by violent people who see an opportunity to yank you off balance.)

(Sorry, I’m mixing all the metaphors, here. Hopefully it’s making sense.)

What this all adds up to, in practice, is that it’s not easy for Alexis and Bryce to coexist, in the same spaces. Alexis’s open invitations are perceived by Bryce as threats or traps; Bryce’s reasonable self-defense is perceived by Alexis as an accusation or an attack.


V.

Unfortunately, this incompatibility means that, to the extent that Alexis’s nice quiet peaceful suburban neighborhood is a pleasant and enjoyable place to be, often Bryce isn’t welcome. There’s a fragile cooperative equilibrium among all the people who’ve collectively lowered their weapons. Someone wearing violence-colored glasses, who interprets neutral moves as dangerous and responds with heightened alertness, is threatening that equilibrium.

(I’m saying all of this very quickly rather than diving in deeply, but one way to think about this is that from Alexis’s perspective, Bryce is hitting “defect” on a prisoner’s dilemma, and after you’ve been defected on a couple of times, you start hitting defect yourself. Or, to gesture at it another way: many humans have an emotional subroutine that goes something like “if I’m going to be punished as if I was being mean/rude/violent/whatever, when I wasn’t, then I might as well stop putting in the effort to be nice.”)

Which leaves us with a puzzle. If Bryce wants to escape from their darker, more dangerous world to the quiet, peaceful suburbs—

(And if we want to help Bryce with this endeavor, which I’m going to assume that we do.)

—then what do we do?

In most cases, it’s not going to work to simply declare to Bryce that This Place Is Safe, Actually. For starters, Bryce’s deeper emotional systems and psychological reflexes aren’t going to switch gears overnight. And to make matters worse, in Bryce’s world, that’s the sort of thing abusers and cults say all the time, to lure in their unsuspecting victims. It’s unwise to lower your shields just because someone told you it was safe to do so.

What Bryce needs is time in the safer environment. Time to gather evidence of its actual safety, time for new patterns of behavior to slowly etch themselves into their mind. Bryce needs a bunch of consecutive instances of nobody attacking them, so their defensive reflexes can start to gather rust, become more slow to fire.

But during that time, those defenses are going to keep firing! Repeatedly! Bryce will be radiating precisely the-thing-the-space-crucially-needs-to-not-have, polluting the environment with behavior that (from Bryce’s perspective) is entirely reasonable and justified and necessary. It’s like taking someone from a family where the only way to be heard was to talk over everyone else, and dropping them into a conversation full of thirty-second-thinkers. Bryce’s default way of being is lethal to the vibe.


VI.

The solution, according to me, is to make more grayspaces.

If you’ve ever hand-washed dishes in an industrial kitchen, you might have had the experience of dunking all the dirty dishes in one big filthy tub, where the largest chunks of food and gunk get loosened up and scrubbed away.

Then you transfer the mostly clean dish to a much-cleaner tub of clear soapy water, where it gets more-or-less disinfected.

(Sometimes there’s a third tub of soapless water, to wash off the soap, or sometimes you just rinse under a faucet.)

The soapy tub (and the rinse tub, if it exists) are grayspaces. They’re transitional places specifically designed for moving the plates from one state—in this case, “dirty”—to another state—in this case, “clean.”

(The key is that you don’t try to make the dirty dishes cleaner by just … throwing them in among the clean plates. Throwing a dirty dish in among the clean plates tends to just make all the plates dirty.)

A grayspace is a transitional cultural space. It’s not quite one culture and it’s not quite the other. It’s a halfway house. It’s designed to pull people from one culture toward the other, scaffolding their transformation. It’s a training ground, not just for surface-level norms and behaviors, but also for the soul.

Extremely importantly: grayspaces aren’t the same as The Final Cultural Space. Things which can only happen in the final cultural space don’t happen in the grayspace.

(You don’t eat off of plates while they’re in the soapy tub.)

I’m highlighting this because I think a great many people, from a great many subcultures, care quite a lot about making those subcultures accessible, and being welcoming to newcomers.

But I think a lot of people from a lot of subcultures end up asking the wrong question. I hear people say “how can we make this space welcoming to beginners?” which is not at all the same as “how can we make sure that beginners can eventually get to this space?”

(Without getting frustrated or demoralized or excluded or what-have-you.)

I think people consistently underweight the damage that can be done to a space, by eager and well-meaning novices who lack the capacity to even understand the harm they are doing, to the local norms and culture. I think spacemakers fail to realize that they can build an airlock (or, perhaps more marketably, an on-ramp), and that the airlock/on-ramp doesn’t have to be inside the space itself.

(It can be next to it. You know—like an airlock, or an on-ramp.)

If you think of the target space as a place where An Unusual Good Thing Happens, based on five or six special preconditions that make that target space different from the broader outside world...

...then the grayspace is the place where those five or six special preconditions are being laid down. The Unusual Good Thing isn’t actually happening in the grayspace. It isn’t even being attempted. And The Unusual Good Thing isn’t being exposed to people who don’t have the prereqs down pat.


VII.

Bible school is a grayspace, and so is kindergarten. Residencies at training hospitals are grayspaces. Colleges mostly aren’t grayspaces, but many specific undergraduate programs are, and most graduate programs definitely are. The Center for Applied Rationality, where I used to be the curriculum director, ran four-and-a-half-day retreat workshops that were definitely a grayspace for transitioning people into the broader rationalist milieu.

(A diplomatic community is a good example of a liminal cultural space that isn’t a grayspace. Diplomatic communities bring together people from many different cultures, and they have their own special rules that allow those people to rub shoulders and coexist, but the goal of a diplomatic community isn’t education or conversion or assimilation, it’s non-transformative communication and cooperation. Diplomats and ambassadors aren’t supposed to “leave” their home culture in any meaningful sense, and when it happens by accident it’s often considered to be something of a problem.)

When I was twelve years old, my parents took me to Lee Brothers’ Tae Kwon Do Academy in Burlington, North Carolina. We met with (now Grand)master Sang Ho Lee in a small room with a padded floor and cinderblock walls and mirrors all along one side, where he showed us a short video on VHS and then taught me a small handful of movements to get a sense of me as a learner before agreeing to accept me as a “no-belt” student.

As a twelve-year-old, I thought that I was in, right from the beginning. After just three days, I got my white belt, and Master Lee wrote my name in Hangul on the lapel of my uniform. In my first month of training, I learned how to count to twenty in Korean, and two dozen other words and phrases besides. After six months, I had memorized the Lee Brothers’ Code, which was about twenty lines long and recited in full at the start of every class. For the first time in my life, I called other people “sir” and “ma’am” and actually meant it. I learned to bow—not just to the instructors and the other students, but to the dojang itself, as I entered and exited. Taking off my shoes at the door quickly changed from being something I had to remember to being something that just felt right.

(Or, more accurately, wearing shoes on the mats started to feel wrong, to the point that I had a hard time adjusting when I later joined a parkour gym with a matted floor.)

And yet. There’s a common saying in martial arts that it’s not until you earn your black belt that you truly start learning. It’s sort of like how picking up the alphabet and a few hundred words is a prerequisite for reading real books.

And indeed, when I entered Lee Brothers’ advanced classes at the age of fifteen, things really were different. Those classes took for granted so much—not only the foundational physical skills, but also the discipline, the motivation, the fundamental attitude. They were predicated on the assumption that everyone present shared the same cultural foundation, the same way that a calculus professor assumes their students understand algebra.

 

I hadn’t even noticed that the first three years of training were transitional, but they were—at one point, Master Lee tried adding a young, skilled fighter from outside the school directly into the advanced group, but it didn’t work (even though he was objectively more skilled than almost all of us, as far as raw physicality is concerned). 

He didn’t fit in. He didn’t grok the vibe. His default way-of-being was disruptive to the vibe, and ultimately he was sent back for a(n accelerated, but still pretty involved/extensive) pass through all of the same intermediate steps that the rest of us had gone through.

(And by the time he rejoined the advanced classes, somehow things were better. There probably exists some faster way to get a person from State A to State B, but Just Going Through All The Steps was sufficient even if it wasn’t strictly necessary.)

(If you teach someone the mechanics of flirting without any soul to back it up, you don’t end up with a skilled romantic. You end up with a pickup artist, which is not the same thing.)


VIII.

I don’t have a complete map of what makes a grayspace, or how to build one. For one thing, I don’t think grayspaces are a natural category—I’m sort of superimposing a description on top of a fuzzy, multidimensional thing that comes in a million different varieties and intensities, out there in nature. Reality wasn’t made to fit into my preexisting concepts.

But there are a few things I’m pretty confident about, from my experience of subcultures that [had a grayspace that worked], and my experience of subcultures that [failed in ways that seemed to me to be downstream of not having a proper grayspace]:

  • It needs to be separated from the origin culture, both physically and ritualistically. There have to be Genuinely Different Norms, a clearly defined Moment of Entry and Exit. The stuff from the origin culture that is inimical to the target culture has to be completely forbidden, and the forbidding has to be serious. It can’t be halfhearted or embarrassed.
  • It needs to ask things of its participants. The sacrifice of some fraction of the origin culture is a good start, but that’s not quite enough, all by itself. There have to be opportunities for effort and sacrifice, and those efforts and sacrifices need to be visibly rewarded with status and appreciation and shiny new affordances.
    (If you trained up to be able to do all of the splits, you got to wear a blood-red uniform. If you missed classes for three weeks in a row without a legible reason, you were not welcomed back until you explained yourself, and did work to earn your way back into Master Lee’s good graces.)
  • It needs to be separated from the target culture, too, for the sake of the integrity of the target culture. Even if you outlaw specific, nameable behaviors that will cause problems within the target culture, you’ve still got hearts and minds that are origin-culture-shaped, and will constantly spew out new and novel corrosive behaviors. You can’t possibly explicitly ban every single objectionable thing, especially since a lot of the behavior will be marginal and thresholdy. The grayspace has to be its own airlock.
  • It needs to be adjacent to the target culture, though—it can’t be a totally isolated bubble. The participants in the grayspace need to be constantly catching glimpses out of the corner of their eyes, of just how good things are in the target culture. You want them to feel the golden glow of the thing they’re moving toward, get simultaneously inspired and infected by its visceral coolness.
    (At Lee Brothers, this was accomplished by the black belts training literally on the other side of a single, open, gymnasium-sized space. You could hear their camaraderie, see the cool stuff they were doing, etc.)
    (As a bonus, this lets people discover whether they actually want to be in the target culture. Like, it’s good for people who thought that they wanted to become martial artists, before they actually understood what that entailed, to have a place where they can dip their toes in.)
  • It needs to be staffed by members of the target culture, and those members need to be well-rested and well-resourced. In many cases, the people who guide newcomers through the early stages of transition are essentially embedding themselves in enemy territory, re-exposing themselves to precisely the kinds of things they left the origin culture to get away from, the same things that they had to painstakingly learn not to do, in order to join the target culture. They need to be able to (e.g.) not take it personally, when they offer a hug and the would-be recipient flinches. They have to be robust in a way that the average member of the target culture isn’t.
    (It helps for them to have breaks, and to regularly be able to relax back into the target culture, off the clock, to rest and recharge.)
  • It needs to actually provide a scaffold and a staircase. There has to be structure that actually helps people, on their journey from the origin culture to the target culture. This doesn’t necessarily have to come in the form of explicit instruction, like a martial arts academy, but the makers of the grayspace have to navigate between demanding too much and expecting too little. They have to be able to say “this, not that,” and the requests have to be reasonable, and ordered sensibly such that small asks and feats build toward medium asks and feats that build toward large asks and feats.
    (Lee Brothers first asked me to bow, and say “yes sir,” and do a front kick, and count to ten. It was much, much later that it asked me to recite the code from memory, and explain the meaning of various Korean proverbs, and break cinderblocks with my forearm.)
  • It needs to be willing to turn people away. Well-kept gardens die by pacifism; a standard is only actually a standard if those that don’t measure up get held back. Some participants in a grayspace will just need more time and more assistance and accommodation to clear the hurdles. Others are simply not a good fit for the target culture, and will be either unwilling or unable to make the necessary shifts. Any grayspace that isn’t willing to say “sorry, this is as far as we’re going to let you go” is one that will inevitably degrade back into the origin culture.
    (Like letting dirty plates through even if they aren’t clean, under the justification that they spent time in the tub, though!)

IX.

I don’t think any of this is particularly revelatory, or complicated. I suspect most of you have encountered things that you could label “grayspaces,” now that I’ve handed you the term; like I said, I’m trying to describe something that’s already out there.

But I think that there aren’t many people that are thinking in terms of:

  • What is our target culture actually made of? What are the strange and critical preconditions of the thing that we want to do, here? In what ways do we need every single participant to be similarly weird, in order to pull off the mission? What parts of the origin culture are inimical to that?
  • How do we filter out people who [don’t want to] or [can’t] express that kind of weirdness, and how do we bring along the people who are willing and teachable?
  • How do we protect the good thing that we’ve got going on, as we bring in new people? How do we ensure that we’re not diluting and polluting, while also making sure that we don’t stagnate and dwindle? How do we avoid burning out our ambassadors?

…and so on. I think most people just try to wing it—

(usually by having no separation between the grayspace and the garden, and trying to bring radioactive newcomers directly into the sacred space, c.f. "eternal September")

—and as a result, most microcultural experiments fail. I think that having access to the concept of a grayspace—

(separate from the concept of a progressive curriculum that just transfers the skills themselves)

—and thinking explicitly about how to build them, makes it more likely that you can Do The Thing, and I’d love to see more people doing Things of all kinds.

Good luck.