Wiki Contributions


Chris Voss negotiation MasterClass: review

By "this way" do you mean the way I wrote it or the way Alexei would have preferred?

Chris Voss negotiation MasterClass: review

Thanks for the feedback! It seems like you're saying I should first have done "negotiation techniques" then "do these negotiation techniques have a place in rational discourse?" as separate sections. So if we make a table with rows as techniques and columns as lenses, then I should have traversed it column major instead of row major.

Did I misunderstand or miss an angle to what you're saying?

Chris Voss negotiation MasterClass: review

Good point! Voss talks a bit about how many of these techniques feel odd. Two points he makes:

  • Practice in low-stakes situations to get more comfortable with it. Don't try any negotiation technique in a high-stakes situation that you don't have practice with!
  • In many cases the discomfort you experience saying it isn't noticed by others. Voss gives examples related to mirroring as well as to the calibrated question "How am I supposed to do that?" People feel apprehensive asking the question but it usually works despite their apprehension.

I would also add that it's more important to stick to things you believe in than to try to literally apply something that you feel is bad or wrong. If you're convinced that, in a given situation, a label of "it sounds like you're very happy with the way this turned out" is a gaming of the other person, don't use it. But if in a situation you think it's actually an accurate label that helps summarize the situation and correctly shows the other person that you are tuned in to what they are feeling and expressing, do it! Just keep an open mind to the possibility of using labels.

Summary (added): Basically I think if you use low-stakes practice and only selectively apply to the real world the skills you are comfortable with, you don't need to experience an intermittent dip in effectiveness due to not feeling authentic.

Timeline of AI safety

We cover a larger period in the overall summary and full timeline. The summary by year starts 2013 because (it appears that) that's around the time that enough started happening per year. Though we might expand it a little further to the past as we continue to expand the timeline.

<describe lockdowns as social engineering>

Did you intend to expand this?

<Michael Mina stuff here>

Did you intend to expand this?

Coronavirus: California case growth

I did some rewording of the post that made it a little more wordy, but fingers crossed that that part has now become less confusing.

Coronavirus: California case growth

Thank you for the feedback (and also for discussing this at length which gave me better understanding of the nuances). I modified to a more clumsy but hopefully a more what-you-see-is-what-I-mean term:

Coronavirus: California case growth

Thank you for the feedback. I agree with Lukas Gloor's reply below that the choice of term is confusing as it differs from what people may intuitively think "true cases" means. I also agree with his remark that setting terminology that is consistent with reality isn't bad in and of itself.

I have therefore changed "true cases" to "true currently-or-eventually-symptomatic cases". I think that provides the level of precision needed for our purposes. I haven't found a better term after some searching (though not a lot); however, I'm happy to change to a more concise and medically accepted term if I get to learn of one.

Load More