# Misplaced Nuance and Conversational Stack Overflow

Overview
--------

I've observed my interlocutors, and sometimes myself, applying excessive nuance to irrelevant points during discussions. This misplaced nuance derails conversations into rabbit holes and dead ends.

High-Level Description
----------------------

When I introduce a supporting but tangential idea into a discussion (e.g. a widely accepted scientific theory), my interlocutor latches onto it with excessive nuance at the expense of the salient points. This usually takes the form of nitpicking or questioning the underlying framework of the tangential idea.

This is rarely fruitful because almost never is any participant at the cutting edge of the relevant field. I'm all for rational inquiry and open discourse, but nitpicking mostly comes across as pretentious and unconstructive.

The result is unchecked growth of the conversational stack. We forget to go back down and revisit the original points unless someone cares enough to forcibly steer the conversation back. These discussions end up in rabbit holes, and no one gets anything out of them.

Example
-------

Suppose you are having a conversation about "what it feels like when your worldview is shattered." Your interlocutor is a fellow rationalist who read a book promoting climate denial. They describe what it felt like to almost have their worldview shattered by a professional motivated-skeptic and evidence-cherrypicker. They explain how difficult it is for mere mortals to notice this black magic being applied to our minds and how easy it is to be deceived by a professional charlatan.

You contribute the idea that this feeling is similar going the other way. A profoundly religious person reading a science book on biological evolution will feel similar to how you, a rigorous rationalist, felt reading a book promoting climate denial, anti-vax, or some other pseudoscientific theory.

Both of you agree that evolution is a widely accepted theory with plenty of evidence going for it. Still, your interlocutor decides they want to show you how much they know about the philosophy of science, so they say, **"Playing devil's advocate, evolution is still just a theory."** In the back of your mind, you would like to stay on topic, but rationalist verve takes over, and you engage with all your heart in a fraught debate.

Suddenly, you find yourself debating the truth of biological evolution. You're both embroiled in the weeds of the philosophy of science, and other participants in the conversation are becoming visibly uninterested. You are no longer talking about "what it feels like when your worldview is shattered."

Conversational Etiquette
------------------------

### Conversation and Social Status

I read *The Elephant in the Brain* recently, and at one point it talks about human conversation. Hanson and Simler explore why we are so eager to talk even when keeping information to ourselves gives us a competitive advantage.

We're so eager to speak that we have to curb our impulses via the norms of conversational etiquette. If speaking were an act of giving, we would consider it polite for people to "selflessly" monopolize conversations. But it's the opposite. Speaking too much or "hogging the mic" is considered rude, while inviting someone else to take the floor, or asking a dinner guest about one of her hobbies, is considered the epitome of good manners.

Improving conversational etiquette has a high return on investment because we converse with others constantly. Giving others space to talk, listening when others speak, articulating yourself clearly and avoiding nitpicking when inappropriate in context are all valuable skills. These develop naturally for some people but are difficult to cultivate for others. I have found that inviting friends to give me constructive feedback on my conversational style has helped me improve.

I find that there are three broad types of conversationalists:

**High-status conversationalists:** They invite others to speak. They check if others would like to switch topics, return to a previous topic, or end the conversation so they don't miss their train. When they speak, they are precise and pertinent. They don't need to explain every point exhaustively. They often get invited by others to take center stage, and people are all ears when they speak.

**Low-status conversationalists:** They treat every point as if they are answering a test, going into excessive detail that is usually irrelevant in context. They are excessively contrarian, even about minor or tangential points, stalling the progress of a conversation. They don't give other people space to talk and don't make an effort to include newcomers. They forcefully change conversation topics at the expense of others when a particular subject doesn't suit them.

**Non-conversationalists:** They don't like to converse.

### Stack Overflow

A conversational stack overflow occurs when the stack gets so large and messy that everyone forgets how they got here. Going back down the stack is an underrated social skill because there is usually at least someone in the conversation who cares about a point that was made earlier.

### When Stack Overflow and Nuance are OK

There are conversations where letting things meander and letting the stack grow is perfectly fine. For example, you are having beers next to a campfire, or you explicitly ask other participants if they would like to revisit an earlier point, switch topics, or end the conversation, and they say they are happy to let things flow.

Exploring many topics is also desirable when getting to know someone new. Covering a breadth of topics quickly and having flexibility in which ones to pursue maximizes the chances of finding a common interest.

Rigor is desirable in many contexts: writing an academic paper, reviewing academic work, or engaging in a deliberate debate about a particular topic. Rigor is different from nitpicking. Nitpicking is the application of excessive nuance in order to miss the point, whether intentionally or not, or to demonstrate how much you know about some irrelevant topic.

Concluding Remarks
------------------

Constantly shifting conversation topics because of excessive nuance on tangential points is counterproductive in most contexts. Some discussions simply don't call for nuance on particular matters. Hogging the mic to belabor a point is a poor social skill. Getting better at conversation is a meta-skill that compounds across every part of your life, and it is worth the effort to cultivate deliberately.