[HN Gopher] Rational Ritual: Why everyone needs to know what eve...
___________________________________________________________________
Rational Ritual: Why everyone needs to know what everyone knows
(2020)
Author : yamrzou
Score : 75 points
Date : 2023-11-19 10:46 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ian-leslie.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ian-leslie.com)
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| To be pedantic, ritual solves the common knowledge problem (as
| three-way handshake does for TCP: ensuring both sides know the
| other has seen a SYN) and adding rationality to ritual allows one
| to assume that beyond the core of actual common knowledge, there
| is an extension of potential common knowledge: things that
| parties may not be intuitively aware they agree upon off the tops
| of their heads, but would indeed find they'd arrive at a common
| (and unique?) solution should they start from the actual common
| knowledge and apply rational inferences.
|
| In principle, adding rationality should allow one to allow one to
| reduce the ritual content to a minimum (eg "we hold elections
| every 4 years whose results determine the leader of the executive
| branch"?)...
| mistermann wrote:
| > In principle, adding rationality should allow one to allow
| one to reduce the ritual content to a minimum (eg "we hold
| elections every 4 years whose results determine the leader of
| the executive branch"?)...
|
| Surely you're not implying our current political systems are
| _rational_ are you?
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| (a) the political system example was meant to be of the
| shared, ritual, content
|
| (b) events of 6.i.2021 in the US suggest that although such
| knowledge is certainly common, belief in it may not exactly
| be universal
| hliyan wrote:
| > The desire for "common knowledge" - for knowing that I know
| what others know, and that they see what I see - is deeply human.
|
| Can we not explain this more simply as an evolutionary adaptation
| -- that species where individuals feel a strong need to share new
| information have a survival advantage?
| bee_rider wrote:
| Is that simpler?
|
| Everything "deeply human" has evolved at some point I guess.
| gweinberg wrote:
| Sure, but the reverse is not true. I wouldn't call something
| "deeply human" if I'd expect intelligent space aliens to all
| be the same way.
| taway1237 wrote:
| I would call most intelligent space aliens from movies
| "deeply human". Which makes sense, they were created by
| humans to tell stories to other humans. So I guess being
| human is not a prerequisite to being "deeply human". I
| wonder if real space aliens, if they exist, are in fact
| like this. The closest earthly thing we have to intelligent
| aliens - octopi - are not.
| yamrzou wrote:
| Related:
|
| _The Costly Coordination Mechanism of Common Knowledge (2018)_
| -- https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9QxnfMYccz9QRgZ5z/the-
| costly...
|
| _The Elephant, the Emperor, and the Matzo Ball (2016) [video]_
| -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eay1-m7RpoU
| spangry wrote:
| Generating a common understanding can be a really powerful way to
| avoid misunderstandings. Have you ever had a meeting at work
| where everyone seems to agree on some course of action, only for
| everyone to leave the meeting with slightly different ideas in
| their heads resulting in an uncoordinated mess later? Ensuring a
| common understanding prevents this problem.
|
| The simplest technique I've found for generating a common
| understanding is sharing / projecting my screen and then taking
| live meeting notes that everyone in the meeting can see. So when
| someone is talking they can immediately spot if I've
| misunderstood something and correct it. If they don't correct my
| notes the implication is that what I wrote down is an accurate
| reflection of what they meant. Because everyone else in the
| meeting sees the correction (or lack of correction) they too now
| share in this common understanding.
|
| It is now impossible for us to walk out of the meeting with
| different ideas in our heads, and also prevents people from later
| dishonestly claiming that they meant something different from
| what was written down in my live meeting notes.
| maroonblazer wrote:
| At the risk of sounding like a shill for "Teams" - a product I
| generally struggle with - one great feature is the ability to
| capture notes in real time that everyone in the meeting can
| see. No screen sharing required. Goes a long way towards
| ensuring everyone's on the same page with whatever was
| discussed/outcomes agreed to.
| falserum wrote:
| Problem is not technological. Words are just a bit ambiguous.
|
| "Estimate for X is 5 hours". Does this estimate only source
| code change, or full release process with installation to
| production?
|
| Speech converted to text contains same ambiguities.
|
| People just like to assume that whole group have matching
| assumptions. (Which have pros and cons)
| kqr wrote:
| > "Estimate for X is 5 hours". Does this estimate only
| source code change, or full release process with
| installation to production?
|
| Also is that 50 % chance done in 5 hours, or 90 % chance,
| or a virtual guarantee? Makes a huge difference to planning
| yet nobody specifies it.
| taway1237 wrote:
| I wanted to say that this "obviously" means "5 hours
| median" i.e. 50%, but I just realised my managers and
| clients would almost always understand this as "I swear
| on everything I hold dear this will take 5 hours and not
| a single minute more" (which is why I avoid sharing my
| estimates publicly). Funny how it works. Great
| observation, thanks.
| layer8 wrote:
| That only works if you give enough time for everyone to check
| what you're writing. I know the situation, but I frequently
| only partially read what the note-taker is writing because
| discussions are going on in parallel. Another issue is bad
| eyesight when the projection setup isn't ideal.
| Obscurity4340 wrote:
| Best way to get on the same page with someone is to go around and
| simply ask: what do you think about xyz. Its such a rare thing
| for people to come right out with either "what do you think/feel
| about" depending on what facet you're trying to address. Also
| thought experiments are fun. Feed people the data and they'll
| give you everything you want and need to know. But you must care
| genuinely and be with them and reassure them its ok to talk
|
| Edit: kids are really good at this, like the "Why" rabbit hole or
| just like blurting out what the feel or they sense others are
| feeling. The non-prosecutorial curiosity is absolutely key tho.
| You must be approachabke and a good confidante or nobody will
| engage with you to the fullest potential.
| kqr wrote:
| I suspect thought experiments work because they force people to
| be concrete.
|
| "What do you think about increasing alignment by working toward
| a more transparent meeting culture?" is a question where the
| same answer could mean a million different things.
|
| "Hypothetically, if I expected you to be in all management
| meetings tomorrow, which of your other tasks would suffer?"
| will elicit a more detailed and meaningful response.
| Obscurity4340 wrote:
| Experiments are fun, I would argue lotteries are in some
| sense a collective thought experiment/fantasy. What would I
| do if I eliminated all stupid financial constraints that
| redirect my efforts frim high value big picture stuff away
| from mundane bullshit like how do i not starve or stave off
| the wolves from the door
|
| Edit: I suspect framing plays a large part in all this...
| dkarl wrote:
| > Once that threshold is jumped, things can move very quickly
|
| You can see the same dynamic in how scandals unfold in small
| towns. Everybody knows that married person X is having an affair
| with married person Y, everybody knows that everybody knows that
| X is having an affair with Y, but nothing happens until a social
| consensus is reached that X and Y are going to be shamed for it.
| It can go on indefinitely with people only whispering about it.
| And then everything happens seemingly all at once. X loses their
| job, Y has to resign from the school board, X's marriage breaks
| up, Y's children get shunned at school.
|
| Before the threshold is reached, people whisper about it, but
| anyone who speaks too loudly or disapproves too publicly is seen
| as acting in bad taste. People cringe and turn away from them.
| Nobody wants to be that person. But as soon as the dam breaks,
| condemning X and Y becomes the town sport, pursued recreationally
| by all and competitively by many.
| mistermann wrote:
| > You can see the same dynamic in how scandals unfold in small
| towns. Everybody knows that married person X is having an
| affair with married person Y, everybody knows that everybody
| knows that X is having an affair with Y, but nothing happens
| until a social consensus is reached that X and Y are going to
| be shamed for it.
|
| See also: war on planet Earth, and the various _just so_
| narratives we all tell each other so no one has to take any
| _serious_ responsibility for the debacle.
| Animats wrote:
| Well, yes. This is yet another pundit who re-invented the wheel.
|
| The idea of a common background culture reference is useful. At
| one time, the common background culture in the Judaeo-Christian
| countries comprised the Christian Bible and a superficial
| knowledge of Roman and Greek culture. That's what people used as
| a source of references, from Noah to Caesar. Today, it's popular
| culture, and references are to Star [Trek|Gate|Wars] and Harry
| Potter. "What would Captain Kirk do?"
|
| As for a common culture for decision making, that's something the
| military trains for. Part of officer training is to make sure
| that everyone knows what everybody does in the common cases. So,
| when something unexpected comes up, everybody does approximately
| the right thing before they have a chance to coordinate. "Right
| way, wrong way, Army way".
| h2odragon wrote:
| see also:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Report_from_Iron_Mountain
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| cf "credible commitment" in Game Theory.
|
| eg, for a "mutual" rendezvous game: "I am in grid square H3 and
| am destroying my radio in 3.. 2.. 1... <squelch>"
| zoogeny wrote:
| This is tangential to an idea I have been pondering for almost a
| decade. I had a thought experiment of a Pharaoh on a procession
| exactly like the one described in this article. As the Pharaoh is
| carried in a litter on the shoulders of servants the entire
| population lines the streets and bows to the Pharaoh as he
| passes.
|
| I thought about: why does each person bow? Maybe some bow because
| they are scared of the soldiers. Maybe some bow because they want
| to look like a good citizen. Maybe some bow because they believe
| the Pharaoh is a literal God. That is, everyone bows for a
| different reason. The idea that stands out to me is that the
| Pharaoh doesn't care _why_ any individual bows. The collective
| effect of each person bowing is somehow independent from the
| individual reasons for each person to bow.
|
| To me, this strikes at a slightly deeper meaning than "common
| knowledge". Because the knowledge isn't collective in one sense
| (I don't know the reasons my neighbors are bowing) but it is
| collective in another sense (we are all participating in the
| worship of a single figure).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-19 23:01 UTC)