Federalist No. 1

In this essay, I want to consider the issue of language for collaboration in its purest form. How should we construct our statements? First, we should avoid logical fallacies. I mean, the kind you can see for yourself. This is how we communicate with enemies or even with very local allies. Second, we should fight for every bit of strength and knowledge that can be extracted from a friend's position. Also, we shouldn't tolerate pathologically mistaken and incompetent people while maintaining close communication. Look for moments where the other person, not ourselves, is right. Third, we must express ourselves with extreme clarity. That is, if possible, write separately: our interests, the status of statements (fact, fake, opinion, dream, someone else's position). We should also separately add context and explain the reasoning. The point of this action is that without such discipline, it is very difficult to conduct a discussion. For example, someone refutes your fact and you agree, but it doesn't influence your opinion in any way because it's motivated by self-interest, and you don't base any decisions on it. Fourth, you need to express yourself in a hermetically sealed manner. That is, each statement addresses a specific issue, and all hooks that could turn a short remark into an hour-long discussion on a topic that doesn't interest you are removed. Therefore, there should be as few details, logical steps, and so on as possible. In general, I see good collaboration in a community as follows: everyone explains their background, long-term goals, and ongoing interests in sufficient detail, and then discusses specific issues that arise throughout their lives and in new pursuits. Essentially, this is a metalanguage, a protocol that, if followed, can lead to better results. Author: Light