Yes/No Debate | Understand Your Disagreement

name: inverse
layout: true
class: center, middle, inverse
---
template: inverse

# Yes/No Debate

Understand Your Disagreement

.footnote[[yesnodebate.org](https://yesnodebate.org/)]
---
layout: false

## Outline

1. The Problem
	-   Classic discussion format
	-   Aumann's agreement theorem
1. The Rules
	-   An example run
	-   Example debate
1. The Debate(s)
	-   Find your belief(s) to debate on
	-   Debate in pairs
1. The Feedback 
   - Questions

Estimated duration: 90 min
---

## Intro

- Georg Jähnig
  - Less Wrong Berlin since 2015
	- interests: Disagreement techniques, Double crux

- Yes/No Debate
	- since 2018
  - live workshops at
	  - LW Berlin 
		- European Less Wrong Community Weekend
	  - Czech EA
	- online debates at [reddit.com/r/YesNoDebate](https://reddit.com/r/YesNoDebate)

---
class: center, middle, inverse

## The Problem
---
###  Sounds familiar?

- Discussing for a long time and still
  - **no** (big) change of mind
	- **no** (big) learnings
--

- happens even when both are **curious** and **willing to understand**
--

- likely because:
  - we like to talk about our favourite arguments / what **convinced us**
  - but that's not necessarily what the other cares about / what might **convince them**
--

- communication / discussion unfortunately seen as
  - **space** for the **speaker**
	- not as **service** for the **listener**

---

###  Classic format: "I talk, you talk"

- A and B get their speaking **time** (*hopefully* the same)
--

- while A speaks, B *hopefully* **listens**
--

- when then B speaks, B *hopefully* also **addresses** what A said
--

- ➡️  no built-in checks
- ➡️  risk of talking at cross-purposes
- ➡️  risk of **no / too weak *alignment***

####  The fix: Put in the checks

- ➡️  questions!
--

- make sure they get asked
- make sure they get answered

---
<table cellspacing=10 width="45%" style="float: left; margin-right: 100px;">
  <tr>
    <th colspan=2>I should take the Covid vaccine.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>↗</td>
    <td>↖</td>
  <tr>
    <td>Covid is dangerous.</td>
    <td>The vaccine is safe.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>↑</td>
    <td>↑</td>
  <tr>
    <td>Many people die from Covid.</td>
    <td>Few people die from the vaccine.</td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table cellspacing=10 width="45%">
  <tr>
		<th colspan=2>I should not take the Covid vaccine.</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>↗</td>
    <td>↖</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
		<td colspan=2 style="background: #eee;font-size:120px">?</td>  
  </tr>
</table>

- Ask questions

--
  - Answer briefly.

--
- ↪ Ask Yes/No questions
--

- *Do you agree that few people die from the vaccine?*
--
  
  - *If yes, does this mean that the vaccine is safe?*
--
  
  - about *relevant* facts and conclusions
--

- ↪ Go through your argument tree
--

- until you see a difference
--

- ↪ this difference = a new disagreement
--

(➡️  *Double Crux*)

---

### Aumann's agreement theorem

- Robert Aumann (*1930)
  - mathematician, game theory
- *If you know what I know & we're both rational, we must agree.*
--

- Same information & Same reasoning → Same conclusions
--

- Same input & same code →  same output
--

↪ If I disagree with someone, at least 1 of these is true:
--

- I lack (relevant) information.
- I am not rational.
--

- They lack (relevant) information.
- They are not rational.

---
layout: true
class: center, middle, inverse
---
## The Rules 
---
layout: false
name: rules
![](img/ynd.en.png)
--
template: rules
- Bert: "People should be allowed to carry guns in public."
---
![](img/ynd.en.yes.png)
- Ana: "Should people be allowed to carry rifles?"
- Bert: "Yes."
---
![](img/ynd.en.no.png)
- Ana: "Should people be allowed to carry hand grenades?"
- Bert: "No."
---
![](img/ynd.en.dep.png)
- Bert: "Should people be allowed to carry knives?"
- Ana: "Depends. Yes for small knives (maybe blades <10cm). No for blades >20cm."
---
![](img/ynd.en.fpr.png)
- Bert: "So people shall not carry hand grenades, while the police have them?"
- Ana: "False premise: The police do not have hand grenades."
---
![](img/ynd.en.dkn.png)
- Ana: "Do more people die from guns than from drugs?"
- Bert: "I don't know."
---
template: rules
Questions about the rules?
---

###  Caveats: When to use & when not

Yes/No debate works when:

- talking with 1 other person 
- you have a clear starting point:
  - a statement that you disagree about
- you both believe 
  - there is an objective truth about the belief
  - that can be found using correct reasoning and maximum information
- both are willing to change their mind, at least partly
- where **Scout Mindset** is allowed

---

###  Caveats: When to use & when not

Works (probably) not at:

- (public) debates where it is 
  - not about information exchange between participants
  - but about representation of your belief
- and you may not change your mind (in public)
- where **Soldier Mindset** is expected

---
###  An example debate

> It is acceptable to campaign for veganism while eating meat myself.
---
### What to ask?

1. Check for agreement with **underlying** claims:
  - *Do you agree that many people die from Covid?*
--

1. Check for definitions / **same understanding**:
  - *With "Covid vaccine", do you mean all vaccines, incl. non-mRNA ones?*
--

1. **"Whatabout"** questions are encouraged:
  - *Would you also recommend getting the flu vaccine?*
--

1. "Why" workaround – **probe** for an answer:
  - *Is one of your reasons to not get vaccine the lack of long-term data? <br/>(If not, feel free to tell me the actual reason.)*
--

1. **"Can you"** trick: 
  - *Can you give me an example? <br/>(If yes, feel free to do so.)*
--

1. Lay out your whole reasoning – but **step-by-step**:
  - *Covid causes many deaths, correct?*
  - *From this follows it is dangerous, correct?*

---
layout: true
class: center, middle, inverse
---
## The Debate
---
layout: false
### Find ideas you'd like to debate on

- list of EA-related ideas:<br>
![](img/qr.form.png)
--

- your own ideas
  - add an elaboration in 2-3 sentences
  - belief tree
  - falsification criteria (what would change my mind?)

---
### Get matched

1. pick a memory card
1. find the matching person
1. compare your ideas
1. pick an idea to debate

---
### Debate

![](img/ynd.en.png)

---

### Your feedback

- How was it?
- Could you understand your counterpart's belief?
- Did you update your belief?

---
### Rinse & repeat

- get matched again
- and debate
- feedback

---

### Insights from previous debates

- Asking is harder than answering
	- crafting a question forces you to realize what actually makes you believe what you think: 
	  - What are the relevant facts for you?
		- In what way do they lead to your belief?
--

- Put yourself into your partner’s mind
	  - remember what they have answered before
		- come up with a reasonable follow-up question.
--

- in spoken debates: Asking is harder than in written ones
  - because: more time

---

### Insights from previous debates

> "It was surprisingly good to have a focal point to respond to. Even if they posted a wall of text explaining their position, the question was the only thing I felt required to address, so it took less mental energy to debate than it would have taken in a different format."

– debater from [reddit.com/r/YesNoDebate](https://reddit.com/r/YesNoDebate)

---

### Yes/No Debate more

- [reddit.com/r/YesNoDebate](https://reddit.com/r/YesNoDebate)
- [twitter.com/YesNoDebate](https://twitter.com/YesNoDebate)
- [yesnodebate.org](https://yesnodebate.org) incl. Newsletter