Chat Room/Open Topic Experiment

I was saying I’m unclear on how you expect someone to know/remember what was in what chat year(s) later, given that the content itself lacks internal hints it’s private.

oic. yeah okay fair point. I withdraw “Should ask beforehand.”

I see a consequence of accepting this idea that it’s not reasonable to expect people to remember to keep stuff private unless the content itself has internal hints that it’s private. The consequence is that it seems to make talking in a private chat kind of useless (in terms of keeping stuff private) for anything that lacks such internal hints.

I guess you could also make an explicit request to keep something private, but still, if there’s no internal hints, they might not remember

Private chats and forums are not useless. People usually don’t share stuff months later, and they do remember it was private in the short term.

Also people can avoid quoting you from private chats elsewhere, without permission, since if they can find the quote they’d also know the source.

But group chatrooms and forums are only semi-private. You should not share major secrets there.

I purposefully didn’t make even a semi-private section at the CF forum (like asking people on honor system not to quote stuff elsewhere, or only visible to paid members). They don’t work great.

Yeah, that is an issue that people run into if their ideas of what is “private” vary significantly from the cultural norms.

People’s ideas of what is/isn’t private are pretty idiosyncratic and inconsistent. But if your ideas match up to the cultural norms pretty well, most people will have an easier time remembering what is or isn’t private information about you, and won’t unintentionally reveal private information you’ve told them.

For example, most people would consider things like having an STD, having been sexually assaulted or raped, having had an abortion, or having a history of drug abuse private information, and wouldn’t unintentionally violate your privacy by telling people that information. (Though they still might intentionally gossip.)

But if you keep things private that are normally public information, people aren’t going to necessarily remember which things you want kept private.

If you are fairly consistent in one area, and the person know you well, then it could be easy to remember that you keep certain information private. For example, most people’s job information is normally public. But if you have a highly secretive job, and your friend knows this about you, then it could be easy for them to remember that anything they know about your job, your work hours, you travelling, etc, is all private and they should just never talk about it.

But if the person doesn’t know you well, and/or your privacy ideas are idiosyncratic, it would actually be a really large burden for them to keep a mental model of you that includes all of your preferences well enough that they could easily figure out which things are & aren’t private information for you specifically. And it would also be a large burden to add an extra “private” or “not private” tag to every single thing they know about you, and actually remember it long term.

Really, I think “burden” is inaccurate in the above paragraph - I think it’s actually impossible to do it with 100% accuracy. You can’t create an accurate model of another person’s preference because people’s preferences are inconsistent. And you can’t remember every single piece of information with a private/not-private tag because that’s not how people’s memories work. So it is a burden to even try to do it, and even with that burden, you still can’t do it with full accuracy.

I think the extra burden of trying to keep track of private info and the stricter-than-normal (but also idiosyncratic) ideas about privacy that were the norm in the TCS, ARR, and FI cultures might be partly responsible for why people don’t really “chat” here in normal ways. Most people don’t really treat it like a community, discuss their lives, have chit-chat, etc. I think there are other reasons for this too (e.g., that people are also afraid of being criticized), but I think part of what’s going on is that people don’t know what is or should be private, both for themselves, and for other people. So it makes it a lot harder to just have casual chats about their real lives.


When in doubt, err towards convention. Look for significant problems with convention to fix/avoid, but other than that just default to convention. This applies to privacy and everything else, with the exception that you can pick a few areas (e.g. a career) to put more attention and effort into.

One of the bad things that can happen is people will avoid talking about stuff at FI cuz they are unsure about privacy, but then they talk about it elsewhere. They’d be better off talking about it at FI too. This kind of thing can isolate FI from the rest of their life, make it more separate and abstract, and prevent them from learning as much or applying philosophy as much.

1 Like

I like this chat room experiment in part because it can be a place to treat FI more like real life (if one already isn’t doing that) and basically chat about anything relevant to their life that they’d chat with people elsewhere, especially if they’ve been holding back because they perceived most of FI as some serious philosophy place for serious discussion. A chat thread like this can change some of that idea and make it seem more approachable to treat FI discussion topics more broadly and casually.

Also sry Justin, I did not remember that you posted it in a private channel. The most vivid thing I remember is the logo drafts you shared. Also yeah, makes sense if the pandemic derailed some of those plans, although it seems like your consultancy could entirely be done remotely, especially with stuff like DocuSign being common and user-friendly now.

I think there can be a barrier where like, people don’t know where they should post something, or they don’t think their post is “worth” its own topic or something, so it seems like a good idea to have something to accommodate that.

I often have those kind of issues myself, which is why I made my own miscellaneous thread for myself - and I’ve posted to it a bunch, so it seems to help

No worries (dunno if you’re caught up but I conceded that I didn’t have reasonable expectations re: that being private)

Yeah. There are various changes that have made things more manageable. A big one is remote court hearings, which are still the norm here (for now).

Start my new job training in 30 minutes! I’m excited

I’d been considering registering a second account here for a while. This exchange was the thing to push me over that edge.

Have you read Terms of Service - Critical Falliblism ?

Link should go to the section “Conditions for Use of the Forum”. I particularly have in mind #6.

BTW the terms are discourse defaults with modifications by me. E.g. here 1-3 were written by Discourse and 4-6 by me. My general plan is to edit or add to Discourse defaults if problems are noticed rather than start from scratch.

Yes. I hadn’t checked it again recently, though.

I did try DMing @moderators, you and ingracke after creating the account, but got an error msg like ‘you can’t send to that user’ (which only went away once I removed you and ingracke as recipients). I think that was the limitation on new accounts, maybe.

Edit: That might sound like I msg’d mods to comply with #6 in the ToS. That wasn’t what I was considering at the time, it was more courtesy and a heads up.

Ah, I was an admin but not a moderator so I didn’t get it. I got your new DM and I made myself a moderator.

1 Like

So far training has just been a lot of reading. It looks like there are 4 weeks of training in total. Week 1 is lots of reading, Week 2 is some supervised application and practice, Week 3 is more application, and week 4 is unsupervised doing the job but the trainers will be available to help us if we have any questions.

They’re giving us like 2-3 hours to read 30-40 pages, so I get done early and can do whatever I want in the meantime.

So far it looks like we are a department that handles specific and narrow cases of verifying some filed expense or income if it’s been flagged as suspicious. We also don’t request additional documents usually and don’t physically go to their place like auditors do: instead we work with the documents they send us and if we can’t resolve the case ourselves, then it goes to an auditor. At each step of our process, we report to an auditor who decides whether we keep going ourselves or hand the case over to them.

Is anyone familiar with Patrick Boyle on YT? He does (what seems like) p decent and informative finance analysis. He’s done a few vids on evergrande lately. Some videos are more serious and some less. He also has some longer documentaries (e.g. one about Charles Ponzi that I thought was p good)

FWIW I think “p” is being used as short for “pretty” in your post but I had to think about it

Yeah, that’s right. Will avoid that in future.

I noticed that CF posts (e.g., don’t link to the paired discussion topic here. Mb worth considering – if a person unfamiliar with CF gets linked to the post, it’d be good for them to know where to go to discuss.

see the header and footer