Double-Crux

Double-Crux differs from typical debates which are usually adversarial (your opinion vs mine), and instead attempt to be a collaborative attempt to uncover the true structure of the disagreement and wantwhat would change the disputants minds.

Double-Crux is a technique for addressing complex disagreements by systematically uncovering the cruxes upon which the disagreement hinges. A crux for an individual is any fact that if they believed differently about it, they would change their conclusion in the overall disagreement. A double-crux is a crux for both parties. Perhaps we disagree on whether swimming isin a lake is safe. A crux for each of us is the presence of crocodiles in water: I believe there aren't, you believe there are. Either of us would change our mind about the safety if we were persuaded about this crux.

See also:Double-Crux differs from typical debates which are usually adversarial (your opinion vs mine), and instead attempt to be a collaborative attempt to uncover the true structure of the disagreement and want would change the disputants minds.

Related: Disagreement, Conversation

See Also

• Gleanings from Double Crux on “The Craft is Not The Community” - a writeup of Double-Crux being used in practice.

Double Double-Crux is a technique for addressing complex disagreements by systematically uncovering the cruxes upon which the disagreement hinges. A crux for an individual is any fact that if they believed differently about it, they would change their conclusion in the overall disagreement. A double-crux is a crux for both parties. Perhaps we disagree on whether swimming is a lake is safe. A crux for each of us is the presence of crocodiles in water: I believe there aren't, you believe there are. Either of us would change our mind about the safety if we were persuaded about this crux.

Double Crux is a technique for resolving seemingly intractable disagreements. It was pioneeredaddressing complex disagreements by systematically uncovering thecruxes upon which the disagreement hinges. A crux for an individual is any fact that if they believed differently about it, they would change their conclusion in the overall disagreement. A double-crux is a crux for both parties. Perhaps we disagree on whether swimming is a lake is safe. A crux for each of us is the presence of crocodiles in water: I believe there aren't, you believe there are. Either of us would change our mind about the safety if we were persuaded about this crux.

See also: Disagreement, Conversation

A version of the technique is described in Double Crux – A Strategy for Resolving Disagreement written by (then) CFAR instructor, Duncan_Sabien. The Center for Applied Rationality.Rationality (CFAR) originated the technique. Eli Tyre, another CFAR instructor who has spent a lot of time developing the technique, more recently shared The Basic Double Crux pattern.

Tag Status: Stub

Double Crux is a technique for resolving seemingly intractable disagreements. It was pioneered by the Center for Applied Rationality. 

Tag Status: Stub

link titleA double cruxDouble Crux is a technique CFAR refined and formalized.for resolving seemingly intractable disagreements. It is similar to a debate, but with a major difference: The goal is to simply pin down where exactly two people disagree. This can take a while. Evenwas pioneered by the best, most respectful debates are adversarial: it’s my opinion vs. yours, and we see which is stronger in an (ideally fair) contest. A double crux is collaborative: we’re just trying to find which is the exact point of contention here, so that if we go on to have an actual debate we won’t be talking past each other.Center for Applied Rationality. 

A detailed explanation of how and why the technique was designed is located here:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/o6p/double_crux_a_strategy_for_resolving_disagreement/

A decent writeup of an instance of the technique being used is here:

https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/08/30/gleanings-from-double-crux-on-the-craft-is-not-the-community/

link titleA double crux is a technique CFAR refined and formalized. It is similar to a debate, but with a major difference: The goal is to simply pin down where exactly two people disagree. This can take a while. Even the best, most respectful debates are adversarial: it’s my opinion vs. yours, and we see which is stronger in an (ideally fair) contest. A double crux is collaborative: we’re just trying to find which is the exact point of contention here, so that if we go on to have an actual debate we won’t be talking past each other.

A detailed explanation of how and why the technique was designed is located here:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/o6p/double_crux_a_strategy_for_resolving_disagreement/

A decent writeup of an instance of the technique being used is here:

https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/08/30/gleanings-from-double-crux-on-the-craft-is-not-the-community/

A double crux is a technique CFAR refined and formalized. It is similar to a debate, but with a major difference: The goal is to simply pin down where exactly two people disagree. This can take a while. Even the best, most respectful debates are adversarial: it’s my opinion vs. yours, and we see which is stronger in an (ideally fair) contest. A double crux is collaborative: we’re just trying to find which is the exact point of contention here, so that if we go on to have an actual debate we won’t be talking past each other.