Alexander

Overview I've observed my interlocutors, and sometimes myself, applying excessive nuance to irrelevant points during discussions. This misplaced nuance derails conversations into rabbit holes and dead ends. High-Level Description When I introduce a supporting but tangential idea into a discussion (e.g. a widely accepted scientific theory), my interlocutor latches onto it with excessive nuance at the expense of the salient points. This usually takes the form of nitpicking or questioning the underlying framework of the tangential idea. This is rarely fruitful because almost never is any participant at the cutting edge of the relevant field. I'm all for rational inquiry and open discourse, but nitpicking mostly comes across as pretentious and unconstructive. The result is unchecked growth of the conversational stack. We forget to go back down and revisit the original points unless someone cares enough to forcibly steer the conversation back. These discussions end up in rabbit holes, and no one gets anything out of them. Example Suppose you are having a conversation about "what it feels like when your worldview is shattered." Your interlocutor is a fellow rationalist who read a book promoting climate denial. They describe what it felt like to almost have their worldview shattered by a professional motivated-skeptic and evidence-cherrypicker. They explain how difficult it is for mere mortals to notice this black magic being applied to our minds and how easy it is to be deceived by a professional charlatan. You contribute the idea that this feeling is similar going the other way. A profoundly religious person reading a science book on biological evolution will feel similar to how you, a rigorous rationalist, felt reading a book promoting climate denial, anti-vax, or some other pseudoscientific theory. Both of you agree that evolution is a widely accepted theory with plenty of evidence going for it. Still, your interlocutor decides they want to show you how much th