I enjoyed reading Duncan_Sabien's post, Basics of Rationalist Discourse, as well as the response posts and comments. The guidelines probably wouldn't have made sense to my beginner-self though, so I wanted to try creating a list that is more targeted at beginners. In that sense, this is more of a complement to the other pieces than an alternate take.

I am not really sure if I've captured everything important, and I don't really like the "Other notes" section because it feels randomly put together.  What I'm most curious about is whether taking this approach can help address some of the criticisms of the original post. I've added some of my thinking behind this piece to the appendix.

On a site like Less Wrong, we want to promote discussions and conversations that help members improve at rationality. We want participants and the audience to walk away from discussions with a clearer, more accurate understanding of the world, one which enables them to act more effectively. 

Here are some guidelines for more fruitful conversations:

1) Seek to be Less Wrong instead of More Right

It feels good to be right, to show that we are correct and others are wrong. However, this can be counter-productive. It encourages us to find ways to prove we are right instead of figuring out whether or not our beliefs are right in the first place. This makes it much less likely for us to arrive at the truth.

Let's instead focus on how we can be Less Wrong:

• When you hear something that doesn't make sense, get curious instead of dismissive. After all, we each experience a very small slice of reality. If someone has a seemingly nonsensical opinion, maybe it's because we're missing out a perspective.
• Steelman: When someone presents a criticism that you believe is flawed, see if you can improve the criticism and use it to identify a gap in your thinking.
• Ask yourself, if you were wrong, how would you find out? If nothing can change your mind, further discussion would be pointless.

2) First, check your understanding

Communication is hard. Words mean different things to different people, and we add our own interpretations to things we hear. Make sure you are addressing what the other person is saying, and not just talking past each other. Sometimes that can mean having to do some background reading.

• Paraphrase to check if you've understood the points. If you think that there is something being implied, make it explicit.  
• Check if what you are reading or hearing is as you expect, and take notice when you are confused
• Ask clarifying questions if there's anything that confuses you, or if there's something that seems obviously wrong. There's usually reasons why people believe the things they believe, even for beliefs that seem nonsensical to you. Or maybe they just didn't express themselves very well, or maybe you misunderstood!

3) Say what you mean and mean what you say

It's usually okay to be imprecise in our daily conversations, but when we hold ourselves to higher standards, we get to practice thinking more clearly. 

• Say what you mean: 
  • Sarcasm or exaggeration can work well in face-to-face conversations or where people have a shared context. It doesn't work as well online, where it's mostly text and the people come from different cultures. It can also make communication harder, e.g. if "everyone knows X" can be used an exaggeration, how do you say it if you mean the statement literally?
  • Imprecise statements like "A little bit more" works fine if you are talking about a glass of water at dinner but not if you are measuring out medicine for a patient. Being precise is a skill that needs to be learned and practiced, and is important for clear thinking. Let's try to be more precise than we might in our daily conversations so we get in the practice, even if it does take more effort. 
• Mean what you say: Make your statements clear as you can, rather than leaving yourself wiggle room to hide errors (e.g. many things can be interpreted as evidence for vague statements like "War can be beneficial"). Make bets, make your claims testable (e.g. state under what conditions you would change your mind). This makes your mistakes more obvious, which can be unpleasant, but it also means you will know when there's a flaw in your thinking so you can fix it.

4) Share your working: how did you reach your conclusions?

Thinking is hard - we often make leaps in logic without noticing, or we don't notice our assumptions, or we mistake one thing for another. Writing out our thought processes helps us spot our own errors. It also enables others to verify and build on our work.

• Provide context: What are you basing your claims on? What other hypotheses did you consider? What scope are you considering?
• Trace back to reality: What exactly did you perceive that led to your claim or belief? What did you see/hear/touch/smell/taste/experience? Imagine someone who is as smart as you, but doesn't have the same experiences. What do they need to perceive (e.g. data, examples) to arrive at the same conclusions?

An example taken from Basics of Rationalist Discourse :

"Keto works" → "I did keto and it worked." → "I ate [amounts] of [foods] for [duration], and tracked whether or not I was in ketosis using [method].  During that time, I lost eight pounds while not changing anything about my exercise or sleep or whatever."

5) Don't be unkind

You don't have to be nice, but you shouldn't be mean. We want to create a space which encourages exploration and engagement.  We don't want people so afraid of accidentally doing the wrong thing that they don't bother trying, because that means they aren't learning. It doesn't mean you can't criticize when someone makes mistakes (e.g. X is wrong because...); it means you shouldn't insult or attack them (e.g. Only someone idiotic would believe that X).

• Don't do personal attacks, or make fun of people. Don't be cruel.
• Don't accuse people of bad intentions without strong evidence. Intent is difficult to infer from actions and we tend to make accusations when we are upset, so we are more prone to mistakes. Instead, share your personal experience (e.g. instead of "You are just trying to make yourself look smart", say something like "I understand that you have valid points that I need to consider, but I feel frustrated and disheartened that you seem to be focusing more on the small details than on the overall meaning of my post...") 
• Don't deride people for making mistakes or misunderstanding things or changing their statement. Remember the goal is to get closer to the truth, not to show that other people are wrong!

Other notes

• You are not obliged to continue the conversation if you feel it is no longer productive to do so. You can stop out loud.
• If someone does not respond or if you don't see any counter-arguments, it doesn't mean an argument is correct. Sometimes it's harder for one side to be heard or the argument can be harder to explain (e.g. sometimes you have to try things yourself to understand why something is done a certain way).
• Remember to also acknowledge good points and questions! We want conversations to feel rewarding (not the same as pleasurable) and overall a positive experience.

Appendix

Here are some of the things I was trying to do in this set of guidelines:

1. Reduce scope: I didn't really understand what "rationalist discourse" meant and it felt very broad.
2. Shifted target audience: Duncan and Rob's pieces seem more like summaries for people who are already somewhat familiar with rationalism, but I wanted something more targeted at people who are beginners, because that seems useful to have at this point in time. [I thought about having a list of Sazens at the end (e.g. You see the world as you are, not as the world is.) so people can kind of track their own progress as a rationalist, but I gave up exploring that in favor of focusing on the guidelines.]
   1. I tried to remove as much jargon as possible. I also tried provide simple explanations for the guidelines that require less familiarity with rationalism. I want people to understand for themselves why the guidelines are useful/beneficial, rather than following guidelines because they were told to do so.
3. Simplify: It's hard to remember a long list of guidelines and difficult to keep track and check whether each of my statements is violating any of the guidelines, so
   1. I tried to keep the general guidelines to two core concepts that hopefully captures the key attitudes: 1) Less Wrong instead of More Right, and 2) Don't be unkind. I wanted to reduce it to the smallest set possible, e.g. if following guideline A would lead you to follow guideline B, then I would remove guideline B.
   2. I tried to focus more on actions (when X, do Y), because that feels easier to implement (vs having to figure out when a guideline applies, e.g. how do I tell if I am jumping to conclusions?). Hopefully, this also makes it more objective/ easier to identify when guidelines aren't being followed?