---
title: Questions to help tease out social dynamics
date: 2020-09-02
parent: Posts
layout: post
---

Initial list from tutorial 34:

* who's putting in how much effort?
* who's asking for how much effort?
* who's reacting to who
* who gets to question who?
* who answers?
* who ignores counter-party requests?
* who gives hints and expects the counter-party to figure out what he means
* who's happy with status quo, who want's change, who's needy?
* calm is high status
* LoLE
* who's framing of the issue dominates?
* who's signalling expertise?

new stuff:

* who's making the conversation more basic whilst presuming they're correct? (acting like a teacher / being condescending)
  * it's like they're making the conversation more basic for the benefit of the other person, not the benefit of themselves.
* who's breaking rules and getting away with it?
* who's speaking on behalf of the group?
* who's hedging as a tactic to misrepresent the counter-party's views?
* who's misrepresenting the counter-party in general?
* who's breaking trends/norms and who's following them? (both implicit and explicit norms) - conformity
* who's claiming they're great for some reason?
* who's not admitting weakness by acting confident? wrt philosophy/technical stuff: who's admitting weakness by asking clarifying questions?
* who's claiming to have demonstrated value in the past? (e.g. I've given away 30 books, etc)
* who's speaking more fancy than is required?
* who's signalling virtue via group approval? (e.g. 'we here think X' or something)
* who's phrased things so they could deny things later on? who's not putting forward their idea as something they believe in (which would make it hard to deny something later)

new stuff in tutorial:

* congruence - accounted for by any of the above?
  * who acts like they're congruent even when they're not?
  * who avoids incongruence? (indicates higher status)
  * to be congruent you need outward signals and language to match your internal stuff (emotions, etc). ppl catch faking with mismatches (low status) and ppl are more likely to believe you when it matches (high status)
* who's acting like they're helpful, or doing someone a favor?
* who's being helpful (putting in effort) - it's a type of compliance; subservience.
  * there's a personal social incentive against the good of the conversation; low status ppl manoeuver to make the other person more comfortable; incentive to not be rational or not take rationality seriously / rational methods
* who's showing a willingness to invest in the conversation? (lower status)
* who writes more? (putting in effort / helpful / needy)

* who's evasive when confronted about social dynamics & their behaviour?
  * sign they don't have concious control over soc.dyn.

whether something counts as "effort" isn't judged by logic, it's judged by social rules.

## conflict on analysing social dynamics 48min

ppl should be responsible for their ideas even if they didn't deliberately put it there.

if you can't criticise their behaviour how can they fix it?

ET: not very important to distinguish concious/autopilot socdyns.
it's still part of *who they are*. also low evidence (particularly text based) whether it was concious or not.