people wanting to get back to the "main" topic they're interested in is a really common mistake i've noticed.
people are interested in X. X leads to Y which leads to Z. people are much less interested in Z than X, even though pursuing Z is the way to pursue X.
this is really broken. it gets in the way of making progress. it gets in the way of truth-seeking wherever it leads. it gets in the way of interdisciplinary learning. it means people want to learn only as long as the learning stays within certain boundaries.
here's one of my explanations of what's going on:
people want to work in particular fields rather than solve particular problems.
if your focus is purely on solving a problem (X), you'd be interested in whatever helps accomplish that goal.
but suppose instead your focus is on "i like woodworking. i want to work with wood". then you won't be interested in philosophy related to learning which could help with woodworking. cuz you want to do woodworking, not philosophy.
if your focus was on solving a really hard woodworking problem, then it'd lead you to philosophy and you'd be interested in philosophy because it helps with your problem.
i think a lot of people care more about what kind of activity they are doing – e.g. woodworking not philosophy – than they care about problem solving.
people have interests in topics (e.g. woodworking, dance, psychology, literature, architecture, programming, chemistry, politics) rather than having problem-directed interests.
another reason people lose interest is:
the more steps there are, and the more complicated the project gets, and the more tangents it follows ... then the more it's a big, longterm project. and they don't expect to successfully complete big, longterm projects. so what's the point?
Messages (220)
i notice i do have this problem in relation with drawing. i want to draw realistically from imagination but do not have the patience to learn the foundations that would allow it. perhaps because when i broke with school i also broke with the serious learner.
recently i wanted to write and was coming up with problems. someone recommended me to read Ayn Rand's The Art of Fiction and i didn't want to. it felt like a lesson. i rebelled: "why do i have to read a manual to write? it was going fine. i don't need instructions. i just need the right mood. just help me get in the right mood."
meanwhile i remembered, for some reason, that an earlier version of my character Requiem had been compared with Pinhead from Hellraiser, a film i never watched. i had refused to watch this film for years because i didn't want people to be able to say i was inspired by it. but the other day i was like "fuck it" and got curious and watched it. i liked it, so i watched the sequel. and then watched all the films and read the novella The Hellbound Heart.
then i wanted to know more about Clive Barker. i've found an interview i posted in my blog where he speaks of his writing process. and bang. he told me what i was doing wrong. there was also something about his attitude (at the time when he directed the first Hellraiser) that showed integrity. he was told by the studio that Pinhead should act more like other horror movie characters that were popular at the time. and he refused.
integrity reminded me of Ayn Rand. i thought she would give more detailed advice than Clive Barker did, so then i decided it might be better to read The Art of Fiction. i learned more why my story had stalled.
one thing Ayn Rand advises is to analyse other people's fiction. so i went back to the Hellraiser film and i have been analyzing it.
> if your focus is purely on solving a problem (X), you'd be interested in whatever helps accomplish that goal.
But the problem solving is painful & boring.
Should someone stop pursuing their interests if they hate problem solving?
>but suppose instead your focus is on "i like woodworking. i want to work with wood". then you won't be interested in philosophy related to learning which could help with woodworking. cuz you want to do woodworking, not philosophy.
Most of us are like that.
We don't want to do the boring part of the job.
How do we make ourselves interested in such tasks?
> But the problem solving is painful & boring.
false.
you have some bad ideas about it. learn better ideas.
> How do we make ourselves interested in such tasks?
wanting to MAKE yourself is such a bad attitude. again you have bad ideas causing your problems.
i did some building work recently. it involved making a retaining wall, steps, and deck. the retaining wall was concrete block with render and required a concrete foundation. the wall bounds one side of the deck and has lights.
to do this project, i needed to learn about excavation, dealing with spoil, how to do concrete formwork, how to correctly mix concrete, how to place and finish concrete, how to compact base course, how to do steel reinforcement, what types of rebar to use, how to mix and place mortar, how to how to set out everything straight and measure correctly, how to handle drainage, how and where to place electrical wiring for lights, what type of wiring to use, what kind of lights, how deep to dig the deck piles, how to design these, how to secure bearers and joists, how to prevent dampness under deck, what types of fasteners to use, how to prevent corrosion, what types of timber to use, what tools to use, how to keep things in budget, and so on.
the big problem involved solving hundreds of small problems and if i did not pay attention to all of these the project would have failed or not been as good. i couldn't just be interested in some aspects of the project and not others. all the problems turned out to be interesting when i focused on them.
progress was incremental and sometimes not visible. and things had to be done in a certain order. i'm nearly finished now. i enjoyed doing it.
i thing this is a good illustration of taking a problem-based approach.
also I think good builders/engineeers have a lot of philosophical knowledge.
there are specialists for building stuff. i think way too many people dabble in some fields. like they dabble in men doing "handyman" stuff, or music, but not physics. i think they're irrational about it and following cultural roles.
it's not a BAD project, but culturally people commonly do stuff like that for bad reasons like "to save money" and because their wife and buddies expect them to be able to.
you could have spent that time on learning philosophy instead (more important), or on something you're really good at where you're creating more wealth per hour. (if you do a low skilled job, rather than having any actual speciality, then it makes more sense to do your own building)
you imply that projects like that don't involve learning philosophy. explanation?
also if I want to learn stuff I have to try things I am not good at, right?
> you imply that projects like that don't involve learning philosophy. explanation?
no. they aren't optimized for learning philosophy. and note you didn't post to FI about this, so you weren't doing a very good job learning philosophy with it. if it led you to any philosophical problems, you chose not to discuss them, so you learned much less than you could have (which is still much less than you could have if you read and discussed Rand or otherwise chose the activity best suited to learning philosophy).
here is some of the philosophy involved in doing a building project:
Fallibilism - u thot u had the measurement right but you're a bit off. learn to check everything.
Dealing with emotions. particularly frustration and anger. put those aside coz they ain't gonna help anything.
Perserverence - be interested in the sub-problem at hand. be interested in getting it right.
Incremental progress - u can't do it all at once. take it bit by bit.
Not overreaching - know when something is beyond ur skill level and get in a pro.
Precision - not being precise fucks a lot of things up.
Don't assume - check things out.
Things ain't obvious - seemingly simple things just aren't.
Just-in-time - get things as u need them. don't buy everything b4hand.
there's more. I think a building project is a great way of learning about philosophy.
if you aren't discussing those things as you do it, you're just fooling yourself.
a large nearly finished structure exists and it is high standard. like there's a three storey bunch of scaffolding sitting across the deck now for some other work and a storm blowing and the deck and wall are doing just fine. If I'm fooling myself, how did this structure come to be?
you're so off topic. you're fooling yourself about how philosophical it was, how much you learned about philosophy ... all that stuff in you listed about fallibilism, perseverance, etc
I said that it is some of the philosophy involved in doing a building project. like those are things that ur gonna bite u if u don't kno abt them.
I'm not saying u can learn philosophy from scratch just by doing a building project and nothing else. I should have said above that it is a great way of *helping* u learn abt philosophy. my claim is it helped me learn.
you are fooling yourself and evading *critical discussion*.
ur not explaining
i did explain and you ignored me.
> if you aren't discussing those things as you do it, you're just fooling yourself.
i repeated myself by highlighting *discussion* again.
different anon
well, whoever you are, i did explain my point several times. i also brought up lack of FI discussion above that.
>
no. they aren't optimized for learning philosophy. and note you didn't post to FI about this, so you weren't doing a very good job learning philosophy with it. if it led you to any philosophical problems, you chose not to discuss them, so you learned much less than you could have (which is still much less than you could have if you read and discussed Rand or otherwise chose the activity best suited to learning philosophy).
please don't speculate abt what I have and have not done .
what speculating? there are public records of all FI posts.
narrowly, it is a matter of public record whether there are posts relating to philosophy and building construction on FI yes.
but whether I have or haven't discussed Rand or philosophy on FI or elsewhere is speculation.
I don't want to be the topic of conversation. just talk ideas.
you don't want to discuss ideas, and don't. this is a fact which i know. you are trying to deny it but you aren't willing to go into specifics.
i said I didn't want to be the topic of conversation. and u continue. why?
i'm discussing the claims you posted. if you don't like that, don't post claims to public discussion forums.
if you don't want to hear about your evasions, lies and rationalizations, you've come to the wrong place.
maybe you came here because you want sanction about how you're rational. you thought you could be a faker here and be treated neutrally – which would imply you're OK. now you're upset that you're getting criticism.
the structure of this is stupid.
you avoided discussion.
i pointed out about you NOT DISCUSSING.
your reply: "stop talking about me and stick to discussing ideas".
but the point is you DON"T DISCUSS IDEAS. so that doesn't work.
and anyway, ideas about people are ideas. ideas about evasion are ideas. all of this is ideas. you mean you want to discuss some ideas and not others. you haven't stated clearly which ideas to discuss and not discuss, or why. nor have you thought clearly about that.
> and anyway, ideas about people are ideas. ideas about evasion are ideas. all of this is ideas. you mean you want to discuss some ideas and not others. you haven't stated clearly which ideas to discuss and not discuss, or why. nor have you thought clearly about that.
Do you want to know my name?
i don't think it'd make any difference. you're welcome to share if you want to.
are you trying to imply that your name would vindicate you and i'd concede if only i knew it?
Different anon
> Different anon
what's that mean?
more than one anon here.
what is your point? you're being very very vague.
are you saying: there are two comments, which i think were written by the same anon, but you wrote one and not the other?
if so, that's unhelpful. which two comments?
I didn't write the name comment
so you're saying the person who wrote:
> Do you want to know my name?
is a liar and impersonator. they used "my" when they weren't the person in question.
what an asshole!
I agree with ur comment. plus it seems like someone threatening to reveal my name after I explicitly said I did not want to be the topic of conversation.
I meant my name not your name
what point were u trying to make?
> if you don't want to hear about your evasions, lies and rationalizations, you've come to the wrong place.
it's a question of privacy. and not just my own. I'm not going be hanging that sort of stuff out in public.
> maybe you came here because you want sanction about how you're rational. you thought you could be a faker here and be treated neutrally – which would imply you're OK. now you're upset that you're getting criticism.
I'm not upset. nor I am looking for sanction.
> I meant my name not your name
you did this after quoting text replying to someone else? so we have no idea which other comments are by you?
makes no sense. super confusing.
> it's a question of privacy. and not just my own. I'm not going be hanging that sort of stuff out in public.
in other words: you lie, rationalize and evade, and you aren't willing to discuss.
what do you expect to happen next?
you choose not to discuss. i point this out. then you say "let's discuss instead of talking about me". but that's a lie. but you don't want to talk about lying.
do you see the problem? and do you see that i'm talking about a logical problem that could easily come up with many other people?
> I'm not upset. nor I am looking for sanction.
your straight assertions are not very convincing.
why do you think you're here? what are you trying to accomplish?
Lets say I am interested in A.
I do not like anything other than A
But to do A I need Math.
I hate math.
How do I solve this problem?
> if your focus is purely on solving a problem (X), you'd be interested in whatever helps accomplish that goal.
If my focus is on purely solving X I would be doing the things that help solve it with coercion.
If I want to lose weight.. I would only be interested in the idea of me being thinner.. I would force myself to lose weight and then enjoy the part where I get to be thin.
I can't seem to enjoy the process is what I am trying to say.
why do you hate math? why are you only interested in A? you should look at your reasoning. e.g. you could find a contradiction and change your mind.
> you choose not to discuss. i point this out. then you say "let's discuss instead of talking about me". but that's a lie. but you don't want to talk about lying.
the bit in quotes is not literally what I said and I think u changed the meaning. I said "I don't want to be the topic of conversation. just talk ideas." it was an instruction to u to talk abt ideas not a "let's discuss"
yeah i should have put "like" in front of that quote. i meant "say like". i put quotes for dialog, not a quotation. my mistake.
talking about ideas is discussing.
btw the claim your rebar project is private, and therefore you couldn't have discussed it on FI, is utterly ridiculous. you posted tons of details about it in this thread (mentioning concrete, wiring, etc).
but you chose not to discuss it. then you say you want to talk about ideas. well, talk about them. but so far you *don't*. you posted some bullshit rationalizations and refused to consider the idea of using FI. then didn't want to hear criticism of the *prominent features* of the ideas you posted. you only want to hear some other criticisms in limited areas, which you call criticisms about "ideas", but you cannot and will not specify what counts or not and why criticism should be limited in that way.
> If my focus is on purely solving X I would be doing the things that help solve it with coercion.
you are irrational, so you'd do that. if you were rational then you could do it without coercion.
>you are irrational, so you'd do that. if you were rational then you could do it without coercion.
How do I change from I hate math to I like math without coercion?
The concrete guy seems like a genius.
He just needs a little encouragement to become rational.
>why do you hate math? why are you only interested in A? you should look at your reasoning. e.g. you could find a contradiction and change your mind.
I hate math because of forced teaching of math in childhood.
Being beaten and abused into learning math makes you hate math.
what do you dislike about math?
> btw the claim your rebar project is private
it's not a "rebar" project. rebar was a sub-project. That aside, I made a mistake. I should have hypo-ed it.
I'm not stupid - I do see some of what ur saying but the discussion was got too convoluted for me. that's my fault maybe. let's get simple. pick an important point and let's focus on that
*why are you here*? what do you want? what goals do you have in having a discussion(?)? under what circumstances will you quit (silently?)?
>*why are you here*? what do you want? what goals do you have in having a discussion(?)? under what circumstances will you quit (silently?)?
Are you asking me that?
There are many anons here.
i wrote
> *why are you here*? what do you want? what goals do you have in having a discussion(?)? under what circumstances will you quit (silently?)?
i'm asking the person who wrote:
>> I'm not stupid - I do see some of what ur saying but the discussion was got too convoluted for me. that's my fault maybe. let's get simple. pick an important point and let's focus on that
they are suggesting doing some sort of cooperative project and i'm asking about the purpose, goals, plans, etc
> *why are you here*? what do you want? what goals do you have in having a discussion(?)? under what circumstances will you quit (silently?)?
isn't "why are you here" a typical philosopher bullshit question? just joking :) i enjoy ur blog. what I want is to learn stuff. i don't know if I have ne goals in having a discussion. if I'm lucky I might learn something. I think I find a lot of discussions a waste of time and regret getting into them. i might quit if I get bored or something I have to do is higher priority. I do have trouble finishing discussions.
how much FI have you read? TCS? Oism? Popper? what are your views on the major topics around here?
if you have past discussion history here, it'd save a lot of time if you said your name.
if you're new here, pick a name. i don't care if it's your real name or not, but i want something to call you, and which you can mention when there's too many anons causing confusion.
> isn't "why are you here" a typical philosopher bullshit question? just joking :)
heh, good double meaning.
> The concrete guy seems like a genius.
>
> He just needs a little encouragement to become rational.
Why do you prefer the DIY man next door to me?
I like the multi-anon thing. Who cares who said what?
you suggested a project over time with *you*. it has steps. identity matters for it – e.g. that it's the same person answering each question about it.
if you won't choose your own name, i'll name you dragon69 and lower my opinion of you due to the passivity and unreasonableness.
>> isn't "why are you here" a typical philosopher bullshit question? just joking :)
> heh, good double meaning.
what do you mean?
the word "here" can be read two ways in that sentence.
Anon at 2:33 PM (me) is not "concrete guy".
> I like the multi-anon thing. Who cares who said what?
then fuck off and stop causing confusion. you are a troll who writes replies that sound like you're one person, and replying to something, when you're not.
and do you get that my answer still answers the question? it says why it matters.
oops, meant to quote
> Anon at 2:33 PM (me) is not "concrete guy".
for the previous comment.
> you are a troll who writes replies that sound like you're one person, and replying to something, when you're not.
I was replying to Anonymous at 2:12 AM. That comment was until then my second comment in this thread. There are several Anons here as far as I can tell. You yourself are using "Anonymous". Be more charitable in your interpretations.
> I was replying to Anonymous at 2:12 AM.
yes i know. those questions were directed to one person. then you came in and impersonated him. you are causing problems.
Anonymous at 6:42 PM: Why do you use "Anonymous" too?
what's the problem? which of my comments caused a problem?
Anonymous at 7:16 PM: I wanted an explanation. Was that your explanation?
>Anonymous at 6:42 PM: Why do you use "Anonymous" too?
Call me John.
The anonymous experiment is not working. People still want to track who said what. People are trying to break with a tradition without having criticized it. If the goal is to care for the merit of ideas, not people, then learn to not care.
It doesn't particularly matter who said what because people are rarely integrated. They have different personality strands conflicting. Inside themselves there's "anon1" and
"anon2" arguing. For example, the party-part of a person wants to go late-night drinking. The work-part doesn't want a hangover in the morning.
People also want other people to care about the esteem in which they are held:
> if you won't choose your own name, i'll name you dragon69 and lower my opinion of you due to the passivity and unreasonableness.
> The anonymous experiment is not working.
I disagree. It is revealing errors that might go hidden otherwise.
>It doesn't particularly matter who said what because people are rarely integrated. They have different personality strands conflicting. Inside themselves there's "anon1" and
"anon2" arguing. For example, the party-part of a person wants to go late-night drinking. The work-part doesn't want a hangover in the morning.
I didn't know you thought about anonymity that deeply.
some people are stupid and misuse anonymity.
i don't think MY posts being anonymous is a problem.
i don't think the concrete guy – now john – is being a problem by being anonymous. (i think that's concrete guy = john, unless that other person is being confusing again).
from what i guess are his posts, i don't think fallible fool is being a problem when anonymous. nor leonor when she posted anonymously. i mean specifically that them not putting their name isn't an issue.
there's just some idiot who goes into threads and impersonates other anons. no idea who it is. that one guy is the only problem here.
anyway still waiting on answers to my questions. john said he wanted to discuss. i asked some initial questions about what his current ideas are. no answer yet.
>>> I'm not stupid - I do see some of what ur saying but the discussion was got too convoluted for me. that's my fault maybe. let's get simple. pick an important point and let's focus on that
> they are suggesting doing some sort of cooperative project and i'm asking about the purpose, goals, plans, etc
wait what? i was suggesting to narrow the discussion so that i follow and also so I can try not talking abt too much at once. I took ur "why are you here? ... " to be the thing u were narrowing to. but seems u were asking me some meta abt some project?
I think "John" is impersonating u btw.
I think "John" is impersonating u btw.
Who?
> i enjoy ur blog. what I want is to learn stuff.
you stated interest in learning and attempting an ongoing discussion. for this, knowing things like whether you've ever heard of Objectivism is important so i have some idea of what to explain, what i can figure you already know, etc. we need some sense of what we already agree on to know where to start.
you also wanted to go into detail on a point. in order to pick a good one, it really helps to have some clue what the context is – what your world view is.
the unanswered questions for reference:
> how much FI have you read? TCS? Oism? Popper? what are your views on the major topics around here?
> how much FI have you read? TCS? Oism? Popper? what are your views on the major topics around here?
Do I need to learn TCS if I don't wish to be a parent ever?
do you want to ever interact with children? hang out with your brother's family? be a teacher? go to a friend's house for a dinner party who has kids?
another possibility is you decide you DO want kids, after all, and don't want to wait years to figure out TCS first with no clear timeframe for when you'll figure it out.
TCS stuff comes up in pretty much everyone's lives some.
but if you don't have or want kids, parenting stuff specifically maybe isn't your top priority.
the top priority in general is stuff about *reason*, learning, education, Popper, Rand. this has a large overlap with TCS.
>do you want to ever interact with children? hang out with your brother's family? be a teacher? go to a friend's house for a dinner party who has kids?
I don't think they will let you talk to their kids if they know you practice TCS.
Conventional parents don't like TCS and they would think it is a bad influence on their kids.
>the top priority in general is stuff about *reason*, learning, education, Popper, Rand. this has a large overlap with TCS.
I agree.
> I don't think they will let you talk to their kids if they know you practice TCS.
what's your point? my point is you will hurt the kids in those situations if you don't know TCS.
still waiting on answers about what you already know to get some sense of where to begin.
someone's trolling u big time
>what's your point? my point is you will hurt the kids in those situations if you don't know TCS.
I know I would be bad at talking to children without TCS but I don't want to piss off conventional parents who have forced their children to behave and think in a certain manner.
My behavior in the real world needs to be altered a little to make sure I don't rub people in the wrong way.
the last comment I made was 2:14AM. someone impersonated me after that.
>someone's trolling u big time
You should mention the time of the comment while referring to someone.
That would make it easier.
>the last comment I made was 2:14AM. someone impersonated me after that.
Why do you think someone is impersonating you?
He/she might be continuing the discussion for themselves.
you don't want to piss off child-hurters by opposing hurting children.
> the last comment I made was 2:14AM. someone impersonated me after that.
who is "me"? it's confusing to say things like this without identifying yourself.
you guys all need to pick names and use them when saying things like "me" so we know who you mean by "me". e.g. ConcreteWarrior for the guy who built the stuff who i think i'm trying to talk to.
u let the other person think he was still talking to me.
> u let the other person think he was still talking to me.
you haven't attempted to say who either "u" or "me" is. this is not clarifying.
they'd just impersonate the names. so won't work
saying stuff that's totally unclear doesn't work. you gotta try something.
I think u just have to not assume any comment is from any particular person and just focus on the comment
> I think u just have to not assume any comment is from any particular person and just focus on the comment
i was focusing on the comment
> u let the other person think he was still talking to me.
by pointing out it's useless vagueness!
>they'd just impersonate the names. so won't work
No, They would not.
big picture, from what i can tell i said concretewarrior doesn't want to discuss, he said he did, and now he isn't.
>you don't want to piss off child-hurters by opposing hurting children.
Yes, Since they are in the majority I don't want to piss them off.
Maybe I will subtly indicate them to avoid some behavior but I would not risk my life trying to save children.
Introducing TCS to conventional parents should be done in a slow and pleasant manner to avoid conflict and confrontation.
I am naming myself Orange.
Avoid using "me" & "You".
> I am naming myself Orange.
i know who you are. you're not concretewarrior. there's some giveaways.
> Maybe I will subtly indicate them to avoid some behavior but I would not risk my life trying to save children.
you and other non-TCS non-parent adults PARTICIPATE in hurting children.
> Introducing TCS to conventional parents should be done in a slow and pleasant manner to avoid conflict and confrontation.
some people find the ideas unpleasant regardless of the style of how you explain them.
when you try to make it pleasant, what you end up doing is being vague. the more you fail to actually communicate TCS ideas, the more they might not mind.
>I think u just have to not assume any comment is from any particular person and just focus on the comment
You are absolutely right.
Treat comments as standalone.
No confusion.
>i know who you are. you're not concretewarrior. there's some giveaways.
I did not say I was Concrete guy.
I am Orange.
>when you try to make it pleasant, what you end up doing is being vague. the more you fail to actually communicate TCS ideas, the more they might not mind.
Making sure they are listening is very important.
People come to conclusions quickly based on their prejudices.
I need to make sure they are open to new ideas and not being defensive.
> I did not say I was Concrete guy.
i know. you just started talking in the conversation with him without saying you're someone else. but i know who you are.
regarding telling people about TCS: we have considered this a lot. we know a lot about it. you don't know about it and you will not understand it until after you know a bunch about TCS itself. you can't really figure out about sharing ideas before you know the ideas.
> big picture, from what i can tell i said concretewarrior doesn't want to discuss, he said he did, and now he isn't.
huh? was a bit busy but I chucked in a few comments abt the anon thing. my last was what anon at 3:51AM responded to:
> I think u just have to not assume any comment is from any particular person and just focus on the comment
that was me learning something I think.
will be afk for a bit
>huh? was a bit busy but I chucked in a few comments abt the anon thing. my last was what anon at 3:51AM responded to:
You said your last comment was made at 2:14AM.
Why are you changing that to 3:51AM to confuse us?
>regarding telling people about TCS: we have considered this a lot. we know a lot about it. you don't know about it and you will not understand it until after you know a bunch about TCS itself. you can't really figure out about sharing ideas before you know the ideas.
I think I just found a flaw in my thinking.
I am behaving like an aspiring actor thinking about the problems of fame when he hasn't even started acting.
> I am behaving like an aspiring actor thinking about the problems of fame when he hasn't even started acting.
yeah that's a reasonable comparison.
> You said your last comment was made at 2:14AM.
>
> Why are you changing that to 3:51AM to confuse us?
YOU are causing confusion while accusing others.
give it a rest.
>give it a rest.
Okay
>> The anonymous experiment is not working.
>
> I disagree. It is revealing errors that might go hidden otherwise.
What errors? Example?
> from what i guess are his posts, i don't think fallible fool is being a problem when anonymous. nor leonor when she posted anonymously. i mean specifically that them not putting their name isn't an issue.
are you saying that it's a problem when i post by name?
> there's just some idiot who goes into threads and impersonates other anons.
how can you impersonate an anon?
> are you saying that it's a problem when i post by name?
no
> how can you impersonate an anon?
anon1 says something. I quote it and ask him a question in reply. anon2 then replies as if he were the person i'd asked the question to, making it look like he's anon1. (and sometimes they do worse like use words like "my" to say they are anon1, when they aren't).
I think me and fallible fool are lucky as nobody wants to impersonate the banned.
>> how can you impersonate an anon?
>
> anon1 says something. I quote it and ask him a question in reply. anon2 then replies as if he were the person i'd asked the question to, making it look like he's anon1. (and sometimes they do worse like use words like "my" to say they are anon1, when they aren't).
does it matter for the discussion who says what? ppl share ideas. isn't the point of anon to have ideas discussing among themselves? without the burden of identity?
i understand context about the person's knowledge can help you explain stuff to that person, but anon causes a problem in that regard. if you start sharing context than you stop being fully anon to other ppl. ppl will remember what anon said and have a bias. anon won't resolve having a bias, it will hide the issue.
>I think me and fallible fool are lucky as nobody wants to impersonate the banned.
I want to impersonate Falliblefool
>I want to impersonate Falliblefool
He is a fucking moron.
It is not hard to impersonate that retard.
>> I think me and fallible fool are lucky as nobody wants to impersonate the banned.
>
> I want to impersonate Falliblefool
why?
i'm still safe.
someone said the "anonymous experiment" is good cuz it is exposing errors? what are the errors that have been exposed?
> i understand context about the person's knowledge can help you explain stuff to that person, but anon causes a problem in that regard. if you start sharing context than you stop being fully anon to other ppl. ppl will remember what anon said and have a bias. anon won't resolve having a bias, it will hide the issue.
Good point. I learnt something.
> i understand context about the person's knowledge can help you explain stuff to that person, but anon causes a problem in that regard. if you start sharing context than you stop being fully anon to other ppl. ppl will remember what anon said and have a bias. anon won't resolve having a bias, it will hide the issue.
the last two sentences are confusing.
is like an example of that how "concrete guy" was getting pigeonholed as a guy and some handyman type?
> the last two sentences are confusing.
the whole thing is confusing. let me try again:
having context about the person's knowledge can help you explain stuff to that person. being anon causes a problem in that regard as you won't know this person and what this person know. you start from scratch each time.
but the anon person starts sharing context, then he stops being fully anon. ppl will remember what anon said and have a bias.
being anon won't resolve the problem of having a bias and letting bias get in the way of judging ideas by merit and not by source. it will hide the issue.
> is like an example of that how "concrete guy" was getting pigeonholed as a guy and some handyman type?
not quite, as he can't be tracked by name. he posted anon. he can post anon again and say "i'm not concrete guy".
you are making bad assumptions about the purpose and goals of merely not forcing ppl to put a name in a box.
> you are making bad assumptions about the purpose and goals of merely not forcing ppl to put a name in a box.
please be clear which comment u are referring to by you". also what bad assumptions are being made?
What are some good policies when replying to anon comments?
> It doesn't particularly matter who said what because people are rarely integrated. They have different personality strands conflicting. Inside themselves there's "anon1" and
"anon2" arguing.
Interesting comment. Are you saying that for most people "I" is a lie they tell themselves? Also, are your saying that ppl's personality stands tend to be "anonymous"? I guess ppl don't identify them coz they have the fiction of a single "I"?
What, exactly, is a personality strand?
>>> The anonymous experiment is not working.
>>
>> I disagree. It is revealing errors that might go hidden otherwise.
>
> What errors? Example?
For thing, uncharitable interpretations. People are too quick to accuse others of trolling. It looks like some of the "impersonations" were innocent but the commenter got told to "fuck off" or whatever.
Another error is caring too much about identify. You were saying the same thing I believe.
Another error is not taking the "Anonymous Experiment" seriously. Again, you noted that I think.
Another error is not thinking clearly enough how to use pronouns like "you" and "me" and "I".
Another error it revealed I think is that your previous position on anonymous comments is wrong :)
I had some other errors in mind but I can't think of them at the moment.
Can other people list some?
Sorry I haven't listed examples but I'm a bit short on time right now.
you don't innocently use words like "my" when jumping into a discussion for the first time to refer to someone else's stuff.
> For thing, uncharitable interpretations. People are too quick to accuse others of trolling. It looks like some of the "impersonations" were innocent but the commenter got told to "fuck off" or whatever.
What are the differences between trolling and innocently impersonating others?
> Another error is caring too much about identify. You were saying the same thing I believe.
I think the problem is we are trying to act on an idea "do not care about identity" without knowing how. Caring for identity has problems, but solving the problems is not about "just don't care about identity".
Memes need a host. They need a conscious mind. They are not like genes. If ideas could grow without conscious minds, conscious minds wouldn't exist. So they do attach themselves to their host in a manner that the host depends on them and thinks it's them.
Memes are identity blocks.
> Another error is not taking the "Anonymous Experiment" seriously.
> Again, you noted that I think.
I think it's harder being anonymous than people think.
I don't think being anonymous solves not caring for the source of ideas. I think people are not persuaded that the source doesn't matters when they are trying to be anonymous.
I think evading responsibility is a huge problem of being anonymous. This is bad for yourself. You might wrongly think you don't make a mistake you do. It also protects memes like reputation, second-handedness, fearing making mistakes. It also leads people to only use their names if they think they got things right, which is anti-knowledge. People are using anonymous so people can't track their mistakes. This is anti-crit.
I think people are also using anonymous to play characters. To say things out of character to test how people react. Elliot doesn't want to say leftist things and people to think he is leftist under his name, but maybe he would say them as anon to see if people are good at criticizing leftist ideas or just follow his authority.
> Another error is not thinking clearly enough how to use pronouns like "you" and "me" and "I".
I think people do not know how to be anonymous.
> Another error it revealed I think is that your previous position on anonymous comments is wrong :)
What previous position? You say people use "you" wrong and then you do it. State the position. "The position that says so and so."
Try saying "the idea" instead of "you" or "him" or whatever?
Or try just using your name. If FI is truly an optimistic group and believes everyone is fallible, what does it matter if you start as the stupidest member? What does it matter if at one point in time you had bad ideas?
> Interesting comment. Are you saying that for most people "I" is a lie they tell themselves?
Ideas need conscious minds to exist. They need to compete for the conscious awareness of that mind. They need to trick the conscious mind that they are the conscious mind.
I don't think when people say "I" it's a lie. It's just it's not the "real I" it's the idea. They identify with the idea so at that point saying "I" is correct. They chose to be those ideas. They should take responsibility.
I think the culture pressures people not to change their identity.
If you distance yourself from being a person and start seeing people as robots enacting memes, even the most innocent person will seem malicious.
> Also, are your saying that ppl's personality stands tend to be "anonymous"? I guess ppl don't identify them coz they have the fiction of a single "I"?
I think each personality strand tries to take over our conscious self "the real I". When we say "I think" we are speaking for the ideas.
If someone says "I think we should give to the poor unconditionally" it's really a case of "Socialism says" or "Christ says". It's a personality strand several people can have.
It's "I am enacting this memeplex right now".
For example:
"I'm wearing these sunglasses, it's so me." It's not their "me" it's the "fashion conscious memeplex" speaking.
Their "real me" can change their mind. They could stop caring about fashion.
> Sorry I haven't listed examples but I'm a bit short on time right now.
Take care with this meme. It's a politeness meme. Time is never short. You chose not to spend more time on this.
One thing I like about Hellraiser is that Kirsty, who wasn't a hero, solves a problem under extreme distress. You might say "it's only a movie" but I think it's believable and not a deux ex machina.
>> Sorry I haven't listed examples but I'm a bit short on time right now.
>
> Take care with this meme. It's a politeness meme. Time is never short. You chose not to spend more time on this.
Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I need to be more careful. I did indeed chose to do something else instead.
>> Another error it revealed I think is that your previous position on anonymous comments is wrong :)
>
> What previous position? You say people use "you" wrong and then you do it.
Opps ... I was totally unclear and I did indeed do the very thing I was criticizing!
> State the position. "The position that says so and so."
I retract my (unclear) statement. You seem to have a well thought-out position on anonymity.
> Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I need to be more careful. I did indeed chose to do something else instead.
Honesty is for your own sake, not mine. "I'm not interested in this anymore" is honest and it can reveal problems that you might need to solve. Why aren't you interested? Maybe it wasn't time, maybe you couldn't think of an example.
Thank you leonorgomes.com for your comments at 11:03 PM and 11:19 PM. I found them very interesting.
> Honesty is for your own sake, not mine. "I'm not interested in this anymore" is honest and it can reveal problems that you might need to solve. Why aren't you interested? Maybe it wasn't time, maybe you couldn't think of an example.
What I was choosing to do was get back to paid work I need to finish. But I think I was also not interested in the work of cutting and pasting.
> I think it's harder being anonymous than people think.
yeah, i know who writes a lot of the comments, and i expect some people can recognize my comments. (i'm not making any effort to disguise my identity.)
even if people don't know specifically who i am, lots of my comments are pretty clearly some FI person. if they identity "ah it's an FI representative" that's fine and not too hard.
some of my comments are harder to tell, and i think who wrote those is no big deal. if it's just some brief comment that isn't distinctively FI, who cares who said it.
so there was the dude who made the deck and claimed he wanted to discuss. and i asked him some questions. and repeated them. and said like "oh look, i said he didn't want to discuss.and he said he did. and then he didn't". and then he chimed in to say he was just afk a bit. but he still hasn't followed up.
take note. people lie so much about their intentions to discuss or think.
he was bitching about the meta discussion about him not discussing too. but seriously what else is there to do? he literally won't even reply to introductory questions. so i'm left pointing out that he is in fact not discussing, meta as that may be.
I've been discussing. what I haven't done is reply to ur pending questio abt what I kno. ur trying to "educate" me or recruit me or something. I discuss things to learn stuff not to be "educated". I've learnt some things in this thread. I don't care if u have or not and I don't care if the talk is not going where u want it.
also I "concrete guy" posted some questions that no-one answered. like
> What are some good policies when replying to anon comments?
anyways outta here.
> I've been discussing. what I haven't done is reply to ur pending questio abt what I kno. ur trying to "educate" me or recruit me or something. I discuss things to learn stuff not to be "educated". I've learnt some things in this thread. I don't care if u have or not and I don't care if the talk is not going where u want it.
you are so dishonest. you said you hadn't answered cuz afk. we were waiting. you didn't tell us you were making an intentional decision not to answer.
i told you why those questions matter. i'm trying to find out what to talk about. i have no idea what your views are...
and your attitude is you don't want to find out what we disagree about and discuss important points of disagreement.
you said you wanted to come here to learn, but you say you don't want to be educated – that is, find issues we disagree about and discuss them to a conclusion.
you claim to want a discussion, but refuse to state your positions on anything important.
so, again: i said you won't discuss, you said you will, and then you proceed to not discuss. isn't it amazing how i know you better than you know yourself, even though all i have to go on is a few anonymous comments mixed up with impersonators? that's notable. how can that be? it's because you're following stereotypes which are static memes.
> also I "concrete guy" posted some questions that no-one answered. like
you didn't identify yourself and that question is really vague.
>> also I "concrete guy" posted some questions that no-one answered. like
>>
>>> What are some good policies when replying to anon comments?
I discussed anon comments tons.
> isn't it amazing how i know you better than you know yourself, even though all i have to go on is a few anonymous comments mixed up with impersonators? that's notable. how can that be? it's because you're following stereotypes which are static memes.
it's almost like mind reading.
Who the fuck is the Concrete guy?
> Who the fuck is the Concrete guy?
Anonymous at 5:05 PM on May 19, 2016
http://curi.us/comments/show/5352
This is mind reading
> I think people are also using anonymous to play characters. To say things out of character to test how people react. Elliot doesn't want to say leftist things and people to think he is leftist under his name, but maybe he would say them as anon to see if people are good at criticizing leftist ideas or just follow his authority.
> Elliot doesn't want to say leftist things and people to think he is leftist under his name, but maybe he would say them as anon to see if people are good at criticizing leftist ideas or just follow his authority.
no idea what you're talking about. i'm not the one posting any leftist crap anonymously.
> What are the differences between trolling and innocently impersonating others?
I guess one person is trying to cause harm and the other person isn't?
> no idea what you're talking about. i'm not the one posting any leftist crap anonymously.
I wasn't saying you did.
It was a random example. I was saying one of the advantages of being anonymous is to use it to act out of character.
>> What are the differences between trolling and innocently impersonating others?
>
> I guess one person is trying to cause harm and the other person isn't?
I wasn't asking the moral difference. I'm asking how can you tell by the way people write if they are trolling or innocently impersonating.
> Memes need a host. They need a conscious mind. They are not like genes. If ideas could grow without conscious minds, conscious minds wouldn't exist. So they do attach themselves to their host in a manner that the host depends on them and thinks it's them.
So conscious minds and memes co-evolved?
Let me see if I have got this straight. The mind causes behaviour to be enacted and when behaviour is enacted the meme currently occupying the mind gets a chance to replicate. If the mind was not present each individual meme would try to enact some piece of behaviour and it would be a mess because there would be lots of conflicting and incoherent behaviours going on at once. The mind is needed by the meme so that it gets to control all the behaviour necessary for its replication.
The mind in this view is a sort of centralized controller unit whose evolution was driven by memes in order that they can effectively replicate. Am I right?
I'm not sure about consciousness though. What problem does that solve?
> I wasn't asking the moral difference. I'm asking how can you tell by the way people write if they are trolling or innocently impersonating.
Oh I see. I don't think there is any foolproof way.
plz don't use Elliot's name in random impersonal examples ;p
> Let me see if I have got this straight.
no. what you wrote is incoherent.
There is a new post on LG's blog.
Elliot do you want to read and comment on it?
Use curi when replying to this comment.
Why would Elliot want to read it? You didn't tell him why he should.
>Why would Elliot want to read it? You didn't tell him why he should.
She posted a reply to Rami's kid's question.
A very long thoughtful reply.
She put a lot of work into that reply.
the post has PERSONAL lies and slanders against me. fuck off.
>the post has PERSONAL lies and slanders against me. fuck off.
You are being rude.
I do not like that.
>the post has PERSONAL lies and slanders against me. fuck off.
You can discuss about that on the comment section of Leonorgomes.com
she deletes comments, among other things. don't write comments there
>she deletes comments, among other things. don't write comments there
She will change her mind when she cools down.
You have to ignore what she does when she is angry.
She will ban you when she is angry and unbans you when she is not.
So you can comment on Leonorgomes.com
If she deletes them write the comments again after apologizing to her.
she won't undelete stuff. saving all your comments and reposting them after every time leo gets angry is such a bad idea. fuck her blog. not going to use it. and you're saying to apologize to her? wtf? fuck you. go away.
> You can discuss about that on the comment section of Leonorgomes.com
Not if you are using iOS. Comment won't go through.
When I typed a "Test" comment on my PC I got deleted!
> the post has PERSONAL lies and slanders against me. fuck off.
what lies and slander? if i'm wrong, explain why.
it seems you don't like to be criticized.
>she won't undelete stuff. saving all your comments and reposting them after every time leo gets angry is such a bad idea. fuck her blog. not going to use it. and you're saying to apologize to her? wtf? fuck you. go away.
You are being abusive.
You are not respectful.
We did not consent you to swear at us.
All I mentioned were facts that are public and my interpretation of those facts.
leonor, explaining why your false personal accusations are false would involve revealing personal information. no thanks. and please stop.
> Elliot also did a typical boy stuff to a girl on his Facebook, the funny comment on Erin's profile pic. Elliot also called Erin a bitch in the same day, also typical male
It does seem like that.
> We did not consent you to swear at us.
if you don't like the discussion here, you can leave. if you decide to participate here, you consent for people to reply to you.
>> it's a question of privacy. and not just my own. I'm not going be hanging that sort of stuff out in public.
> in other words: you lie, rationalize and evade, and you aren't willing to discuss.
you dropped the context of where he said that and what sort of stuff he was talking about (building a deck with concrete and rebar and stuff that he'd already posted about in public, and issues about his IDEAS – rationality, Objectivism, etc)
> leonor, explaining why your false personal accusations are false would involve revealing personal information. no thanks. and please stop.
why would you need to reveal personal information? i linked to public posts.
why do you take my criticism personally? if you have bad ideas, won't you rather change? if i'm misunderstanding you, isn't it better to clear it out?
stop what? stop talking? stop living? so i stop bothering those who prefer i wouldn't exist?
no.
>if you don't like the discussion here, you can leave. if you decide to participate here, you consent for people to reply to you.
Don't you need special consent to use swear words "at" someone?
Remember the dialog between Parent,kid and the kid's friend where Rami was allowing only consensual swearing when it is used at someone.
what is "personal information" anyway?
information you chose to identify with personally?
and why protect this information from criticism?
>what is "personal information" anyway?
>information you chose to identify with personally?
>and why protect this information from criticism?
You change your view on private information sharing frequently.
You change your view on private information sharing frequently.
i can't parse what you mean. explain?
i asked questions i just thought of asking right now.
we should move this convo to the open thread. we're trashing this topic with off-topic comments. it's bad. ppl come here and think there's an interesting topic related convo and there is not.
>i can't parse what you mean. explain?
You were not allowing fallible fool to make your accusation public without consent.
Now you are forcing Elliot to share private information without consent of the people involved.
well, i guess given the topic is not off-topic to go off-topic. :P
Elliot should create a chat thread for idiots to argue off-topic shit.
>Remember the dialog between Parent,kid and the kid's friend where Rami was allowing only consensual swearing when it is used at someone.
Rami isn't an authority on anything
> Don't you need special consent to use swear words "at" someone?
no. welcome to free speech, bitch.
>Rami isn't an authority on anything
He is as good as Elliot.
He will the best next best philosopher.
>so i stop bothering those who prefer i wouldn't exist?
yes. carrying on bothering them is stalking. stalking is a criminal offence *and* immoral.
I think the concrete guy didn't want to discuss his prior history of discussion because he thought that might have revealed personal information about someone else.
> I think the concrete guy didn't want to discuss his prior history of discussion because he thought that might have revealed personal information about someone else.
that was optional as a timer saver. what wasn't so optional was talking about what ideas he has on topics like parenting, education, Popper, Rand, capitalism, etc. (if some of the answers are "no idea about that, not interested" that's fine. it can be short. telling us where he's coming from is important.)
> You were not allowing fallible fool to make your accusation public without consent.
Fallible Fool, this was you writing. I can recognize you.
> Now you are forcing Elliot to share private information without consent of the people involved.
Forcing? In what way is this force?
leonor if you ever try to out an anonymous again at any of my forums you are permabanned for life from all of them.
> Elliot should create a chat thread for idiots to argue off-topic shit.
He already did. Idiots can't find it, I guess.
lol
> leonor if you ever try to out an anonymous again at any of my forums you are permabanned for life from all of them.
you mean you won't allow me to identify myself? why?
how would you know if i'm posting, if i post anonymously?
you rather not know if i'm posting? why?
you outed sarah as the creator of that awful TIH website. you're not against outing people.
you can identify yourself. not other people. if others want to be identified they can identify themselves, rather than you do it. this is twice you have tried to out people who didn't want it. you have bad judgement and get angry. it's absolutely not for you to do it here. never again.
> t's absolutely not ***OK*** for you to do it here. never again.
missing word
>> so i stop bothering those who prefer i wouldn't exist?
>
> yes. carrying on bothering them is stalking. stalking is a criminal offence *and* immoral.
you didn't understand what i said by bothering and ignored the part "who prefer i wouldn't exist".
i'm not stalking anyone. this is a public forum. i'm expressing my opinion.
Elliot says he is pro free speech and pro anonymity, but he made anonymity in his list exclusive to his friends. it's a game FI ppl play to deceive themselves. it's not true anonymity. i don't get the purpose of this game. i have criticism of it that FI ppl ignore.
Elliot says he wants free speech here, but doesn't want certain people, like me, to say what I think! that's not supporting free speech.
he is also contradicting himself in his own values. if he bans me for life from all his forums, he doesn't believe he can or should change his mind.
he is treating others as he was treated. all this banning, censoring, was what sarah did to him. he is acting the same static meme and rationalizing it.
> you outed sarah as the creator of that awful TIH website. you're not against outing people.
and i remember you said if a person wants to be anonymous they should hide who they are well. not these words. if i can find the post i'll link.
> you can identify yourself. not other people.
elliot identified sarah. he identified me when i posted anon on his list. he is not against identifying ppl.
if people are bad at anonimity, it might help them be identified. it's a criticism. you know, the kind of thing that helps.
i don't understand the desire to be anonymous. to not be a person. to not be. to not take responsibility for anything you do or say. to deceive people. to appease second handed memes.
it's like politeness.
i have people who act a certain way by name but then anon they show their real selves. and they want me not to call them out?
what do they want from me if they are one way in their own name and another as anon?
> if others want to be identified they can identify themselves, rather than you do it. this is twice you have tried to out people who didn't want it. you have bad judgement and get angry. it's absolutely not for you to do it here. never again.
never again? wow. how infallible.
that was me at http://curi.us/comments/show/5630
forgot to type my name.
this forum is biased pro anon and makes it hard for people to identify themselves except Elliot who has a script for it.
> it's absolutely not ***OK*** for you to do it here. never again.
it sounded better without the "OK"
"it's not for you"
this is weird, why would people take me on my authority? even i have evidence that person X is person X and i don't? if i don't have evidence it's a fool saying nonsense, what does it matter.
you're telling people to lie to themselves and others that they know who is talking.
what for?
>i have people who act a certain way by name but then anon they show their real selves. and they want me not to call them out?
Who?
> Who?
stop baiting her to get banned.
>> Who?
>
> stop baiting her to get banned.
i was speaking generally, not anyone specific.
regardless if i get banned or not, by stating i will get a permanent ban for life (pleonasm?) elliot already revealed he doesn't believe in fallibility (that he can be wrong) and that people can change.
i don't like that ppl can easily impersonate me here if they wanted. not that they would want to, so i guess my protection.
elliot doesn't like impersonation either or he wouldn't have created an official sig for himself. why doesn't he allow others to have the same?
Yes.. MEEEEEE TOOOO I too want a signature on curi
> Yes.. MEEEEEE TOOOO I too want a signature on curi
you are posting anon.
>you are posting anon.
I am not anonymous now.
>> Remember the dialog between Parent,kid and the kid's friend where Rami was allowing only consensual swearing when it is used at someone.
>
> Rami isn't an authority on anything
nobody is.
>> Don't you need special consent to use swear words "at" someone?
>
> no. welcome to free speech, bitch.
would you call Lulu a bitch?
>would you call Lulu a bitch?
no
> > would you call Lulu a bitch?
> no
this question was meant for me, and you answered it in a way that looks like i replied. by doing that you're impersonating me. that's NOT OK.
If it was for you answer it..
>> would you call Lulu a bitch?
>
> no
why not?
> Elliot also seems to stand for the boys who chase pretty girls. He has pro-PUA articles on his blog (search for "PUA site:curi.us"). He supports men who go after pretty girls for sex. He supports pretty girls to please such men existing. I find his position confusing and contradictory. He comes across as an hypocritical dad.
Is this slander and lies? Would discussing it bring out personal information?
>why not?
He did not answer it.
I did.
Elliot answer the damn question.
>> why not?
>
> He did not answer it.
>
> I did.
>
> Elliot answer the damn question.
I don't care who answers. I care for a good answer. I asked everyone, not just Elliot. I asked the people who have the idea that anon posted.
> would you call Lulu a bitch?
if lulu was being a bitch, sure.
> Remember the dialog between Parent,kid and the kid's friend where Rami was allowing only consensual swearing when it is used at someone.
if the context is that somebody is visiting a store and the owner of the store don't want any cussing happening, then visitors should not cuss. if the visitor does cuss, then the store owner will want the visitor to leave.
if the context is curi's blog, the owner is ok with cussing. so visitors can cuss.
don't treat me (or anyone) as an authority.
what you did was take an idea you got from me and apply it to contexts that weren't intended for the idea. that means you didn't understand it.
that'd be like taking the rules you learned for addition and applying those rules to multiplication. that doesn't work.
>> Rami isn't an authority on anything
> He is as good as Elliot.
uh, why do you think that?
i'm confused by this. like if you've been reading FI then you'd see all my flaws that people are pointing out. elliot doesn't have those flaws. so how can this person think i'm as good as elliot?
am i doing something that's misleading people?
> He will the best next best philosopher.
i think i'm far away from that. also there's way better philosophers than me on FI (besides elliot).
> elliot doesn't have those flaws.
how can you know what flaws elliot has or doesn't have if he is flawed?
elliot doesn't like his flaws pointed out. he tells people to stop.