Fallible Ideas
fi
Public Philosophy Discussion | Logs may be posted online | http://fallibleideas.com
1,242 messages
Between 19-Aug-19 12:00 AM and 23-Aug-19 12:00 AM
JustinBot 🦅🇺🇸 BOT 19-Aug-19 05:19 AM
Check out my new video, More Grammar! FI Grammar Discussion #17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRSyQgOmRTk
I read some Elliot Temple and Anne B emails and analyze some sentences from Peikoffโ€™s grammar course.
JustinCEO 19-Aug-19 05:19 AM
๐Ÿ˜„
JustinCEO 19-Aug-19 07:16 AM
So with deepfakes, internet memes will be able to involve making movie characters say something other than what's in the movie, rather than just superimposing text on a still image
JustinCEO 19-Aug-19 08:13 AM
Clearly hate speech
curi bot BOT 19-Aug-19 11:14 AM
New stream or video! #20 curi Streams Philosophy (Q&A, writing, commentary) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GcWsPsuK7E
curi 19-Aug-19 11:16 AM
oh it's early
i clicked make new stream as part of set up process but didn't go live
will be streaming in mb 10min
AnneB 19-Aug-19 11:18 AM
Okay. I'll try to watch it live this time. Usually I watch it afterwards. I even did the "create a channel" thing so I could chat if I want to.
JustinCEO 19-Aug-19 03:23 PM
Buy Kirkland Signature Sausage & Beef Lasagna, 2 ct (2 ct) from Costco online and have it delivered to your door in as fast as 1 hour. Your first delivery is free. Try it today! See terms.
evanoleary 19-Aug-19 03:26 PM
@alanforr I read the posts on your blog on tunnelling, but still don't understand how interference is responsible for some particles crossing the barrier, especially if some particles do end up with energy greater than the barrier potential, since that seems sufficient to explain why some particles cross the barrier. https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2018/11/20/tunnelling-guess-3/
In a previous post I described a simulation of tunnelling I conducted to test a guess I made about quantum tunnelling. David Deutsch had guessed that some of the instances of a particle have energyโ€ฆ
JustinCEO 19-Aug-19 05:27 PM
This must be some of that great CR twitter community blog commenter was talking about
What a horror show
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 06:04 PM
You don't like memes ?
JustinCEO 19-Aug-19 06:22 PM
memes are okay as a frivolous thing but mixing shitty memes and serious philosophy is bad
Gives people the wrong impression
That if they like some mistaken or vague memes on twitter they are fans of some philosophy
curi 19-Aug-19 06:23 PM
The imagery is vague but plays on BoI contradicting views.
The last text is misleading
Whatโ€™s to like about it?
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 06:26 PM
What's misleading?
curi 19-Aug-19 06:26 PM
Ppl like that it being a meme distracts from it being dumb. Gives excuse
Like the โ€œI was jokingโ€ standard excuse
๐Ÿ‘ 2
JustinCEO 19-Aug-19 06:26 PM
"I was just joking/it was just a meme man"
Heh
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 06:28 PM
Well I don't think people should expect serious discussion on Twitter. But whats misleading though? Isnt that the idea of fallibility? always wrong thats okay, always at the beginning of infinite knowledge?
curi 19-Aug-19 06:29 PM
She wrote it misleadingly on purpose. Her idea was that contradicting herself on last line would overrule prior statements.
And that the surprise ending is better than clarity
JustinCEO 19-Aug-19 06:33 PM
Lulie Tanett is posting false ideas about critical rationalism. In this tweet, she shows a set of slides about critical rationalism she posted on Instagram: they all include serious errors. Iโ€™m goiโ€ฆ
LT should work on her understanding of ideas rather than meme
She doesn't want to though
Memes first, fuck reason/discussion/criticism
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 06:39 PM
๐Ÿคท
Live and let live is my motto!
lot of bad stuff on Twitter and insta gram. ANti vaxers, flat earthers. etc..
JustinCEO 19-Aug-19 06:42 PM
If LT just wanted to say fuck philosophy and go party or whatever that would be bad but it's her life. That's not what she's doing though
She's harming CR community by spreading false stuff and creating the illusion of a fake community
The other dumb ppl on twitter are bad too
LT is of particular interest to us cuz she used to be a part of real CR community and is doing direct harm to it now
curi 19-Aug-19 06:49 PM
Most bad stuff doesnโ€™t try to associate with eg BoI so less notable to us
evanoleary 19-Aug-19 08:53 PM
Does Lulie's post contradict BoI? How is it dumb?
Also, this video helped me understand how quantum tunneling could be because of interference bc interference inside the barrier decreases the absolute value of amplitude https://youtu.be/RF7dDt3tVmI
Quantum tunneling explained with 3D simulations of Schrodingerโ€™s equation for quantum wave functions. My Patreon page is at https://www.patreon.com/EugeneK
curi 19-Aug-19 08:57 PM
> It was intended to read as faux-gloomy for all the lines in the last paragraph, except the last one
it said false, gloomy stuff.
then it ended by contradicting itself or making it sound like BoI is gloomy
it's misleading b/c ppl will read it and think she believes the lines prior to last are true
besetro 19-Aug-19 09:00 PM
If I didn't know anything about CR, seeing that text would turn me away from CR. For ppl that don't know about BoI, yet care about the truth, ideas, trying to do things right, I think it's a big turn off.
evanoleary 19-Aug-19 09:00 PM
But why wasnt this tweet right? https://twitter.com/DavidDeutschOxf/status/534988295005306880?s=19 Deutsch says in a later tweet he's mystified
[email protected]_hurn @markprobst Mountaineering not tunnelling: true. They go over the top. But it's not a selection effect. It's interference.
curi 19-Aug-19 09:02 PM
btw meanwhile brett being mean to ppl (again). he's a teacher...
that's in the LT replies
evanoleary 19-Aug-19 09:02 PM
If they understand the meme progresses to better and better ideas as it goes down won't they understand that she thinks 4th refutes first 3?
curi 19-Aug-19 09:02 PM
i don't know what you're talking about
she is saying all lines in the 4th, other than the last, are false
or faux-gloomy or whatever
they make it sound like skepticism is true. like we can't have knowledge. etc.
which is a common misconception of what CR says. awful thing to be confusing about.
besetro 19-Aug-19 09:04 PM
My first impression after seeing it was "No wonder Oists think CR ppl are skeptics."
curi 19-Aug-19 09:04 PM
๐Ÿ˜ฆ
evanoleary 19-Aug-19 09:05 PM
What "last" line "in the 4th" is she not saying is false?
curi 19-Aug-19 09:05 PM
that we're at the BoI
btw it's very easy to interpret being at BoI to be gloomy too. like that it means we can't get very far.
or you can interpret it as saying being at BoI is causing the bad things above (cuz it says basically "bad stuff b/c BoI")
she admits she was intentionally writing a misleading anti-fallibilist rhetoric in order to have a surprise ending. but the ending was super unclear.
evanoleary 19-Aug-19 09:07 PM
She says all our ideas are false which implies "we're at the BoI" is false
curi 19-Aug-19 09:08 PM
yeah that's confusing too
evanoleary 19-Aug-19 09:08 PM
So she doesn't not say the last line in the 4th is false
What's confusing about it?
curi 19-Aug-19 09:10 PM
i don't understand. i just explained several things and also you were confused (and still are?).
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:10 PM
I guess technically we could be wrong about being at the beginning of Infinity
curi 19-Aug-19 09:10 PM
viewing fallibility as a mere technicality to admit b/c forced is an anti-CR attitude.
evanoleary 19-Aug-19 09:12 PM
I agree
What's confusing about her last line in the 4th box?
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:12 PM
I fail to see it, what do you mean?
curi 19-Aug-19 09:13 PM
are you trying to learn CR?
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:13 PM
Yes
curi 19-Aug-19 09:13 PM
what have you done and are you doing?
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:13 PM
give me a min doorbell
curi 19-Aug-19 09:14 PM
@evan it doesn't say what being at BoI means for the previous text, or means in general.
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:14 PM
Any good book recommendations?
curi 19-Aug-19 09:14 PM
Philosophy articles by Elliot Temple
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:14 PM
I've read those
curi 19-Aug-19 09:15 PM
all?
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:15 PM
Umm let me see
curi 19-Aug-19 09:15 PM
including other books by the same authors? in lots of cases i just didn't list them all but they have tons more good stuff.
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:15 PM
Not poppers second best tier
Or szasz
curi 19-Aug-19 09:16 PM
you read the first tier? did it convince you that induction is wrong, contrary to what Oists think?
why no discussions about it?
evanoleary 19-Aug-19 09:17 PM
I guess it could be improved by deleting the last 2 lines
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:17 PM
I read Maghees Popper, working on BOI. Parts of OSE.
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:17 PM
It did when I read DD I mentioned it awhile ago
curi 19-Aug-19 09:17 PM
@evan deleting the last 2 lines would still leave it making it sound like we can't have knowledge.
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:17 PM
Not here I think. On stream I didn't think to have a discussion about it on here
evanoleary 19-Aug-19 09:17 PM
I think the meme it's hard to interpret as ending pessimistically ever. The right boxes get more visually attractive
curi 19-Aug-19 09:18 PM
@Mingmecha why don't you use the FI or curiosity forums?
@evanoleary if someone reads the message as "not being able to have knowledge is good" b/c of the pictures, that's still confusing and bad.
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:18 PM
I don't really have time to and I don't really have any questions or conflictions rn (edited)
curi 19-Aug-19 09:19 PM
i'm sure you'd have disagreements with ppl and other stuff would come up if you discussed.
@cat do you have questions or disagreements with BoI? if not, a good thing to do is try to say the main ideas yourself and get feedback on your thinking.
same for @Mingmecha
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:20 PM
Perhaps but like I said I have time for discord and streams because it's on my phone and I can check up on it
evanoleary 19-Aug-19 09:20 PM
Maybe 3rd and 4th boxes should be switched
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 09:20 PM
Hello Party people. We active tonight ๐Ÿ˜ฎ
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:21 PM
@TheRatWay yeah welcome
curi 19-Aug-19 09:21 PM
you can post to Curiosity from phone and check on it on your own schedule.
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:22 PM
I should reread popper first it's been a long time I read him when I was learning about a lot of famous philosophers and ran into ayn rand.
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:22 PM
I don't have any disagreements with BOI so far.
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:22 PM
Then I'll post my ideas and see what people say
curi 19-Aug-19 09:22 PM
ok cool
did you find any philosophers you thought were good that i don't recommend?
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:22 PM
I'll read the high teir popper
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 09:23 PM
Spinoza
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:23 PM
Spinoza
I like some of peikoffs work
curi 19-Aug-19 09:24 PM
i do recommend some Peikoff.
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:24 PM
Rand is like a Mix of Kant and Nietszche right ? Self made will to power, all reason. Very polemic etc...?
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:24 PM
And I like that one guy who wrote the Oist book on music I don't remember his name
curi 19-Aug-19 09:24 PM
what's spinoza's best idea that i wouldn't know from elsewhere?
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:25 PM
@Felix The Cat rand would be laughing if she was compared to Kant lol
curi 19-Aug-19 09:25 PM
@cat Rand is an arch enemy of Kant. and i've never seen any secondary source that would say what you said.
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:25 PM
Kant was often misunderstood and was claimed by the romantics as one of them, but he never was and protested until he died and they took him anyway
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:26 PM
This was very helpful and informative when I was getting into philosophy long time ago Highly recommend this book
curi 19-Aug-19 09:26 PM
can't see title
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:26 PM
Wow. Bad quality
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:26 PM
is that Russell's ?
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:27 PM
No
curi 19-Aug-19 09:28 PM
is that a Peikoff recommendation?
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:28 PM
I read a lot of Erich fromm long time ago idk if you've ever critiqued him but he's bad
I don't know if he recommended it
I just found it in a old bookstore
curi 19-Aug-19 09:29 PM
can't find ebook of that book ๐Ÿ˜ฆ
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:29 PM
Thats why I go to bookstores sometimes you find very rare stuff
I live in Phoenix and there's an Oist bookstore owner here and he recommended it me lots of philosophy books
Some are hard to find in ebooks
curi 19-Aug-19 09:30 PM
> Benjamin Apthorp Gould Fuller (March 9, 1879, Brookline, Massachusetts - March 15, 1956, Taxco, Mexico) was a philosopher, author of A History of Philosophy, and president of the American Philosophical Association.
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:31 PM
Most people who have called themselves Randians or objectivists I've come across have been very rude. Granted, prior to this Discord I've met like 3 or 4. I don't know if its just coincidence, or if her philosophy calls for being rude.
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:31 PM
This one is very interesting have you read it curi
curi 19-Aug-19 09:31 PM
eitehr he's awful or the American Philosophical Association was really different back then.
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:32 PM
It's about concepts and cognitive science
It's very difficult to read but I'm sure you guys are above average anyway
curi 19-Aug-19 09:32 PM
i don't like reading cog sci stuff, it's all awful and non-Popperian
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:33 PM
Why is it awful
curi 19-Aug-19 09:33 PM
This post criticizes The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief by Sam Harris , Jonas T. Kaplan , Ashley Curiel, Susan Y. Bookheimer, Marco Iacoboni, Mark S. Cohen in 2009. I wrote this
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:33 PM
Curi thinks we're blank slates and cog sci contradicts that would be my guess
curi 19-Aug-19 09:33 PM
or a bunch of correlations
@cat Objectivists do not call themselves Randians.
the cog sci field basically doesn't know much but thinks they know a lot
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:35 PM
Curi could you for your next stream talk about cognitive science and I'll play devils advocate
curi 19-Aug-19 09:35 PM
that's so far from cog sci
oh god they included wittgenstein
(also not cog sci)
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:36 PM
Have you read it?
curi 19-Aug-19 09:36 PM
read what?
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:36 PM
The concepts book or are you just looking at the chapters
curi 19-Aug-19 09:37 PM
looking
no ebook on amazon
just preview
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:37 PM
Curi I don't like Philosophy in the form of fiction so I would't read Rands Atlas and fountain books. Would you recommend starting with the virtue of selfishness or understanding objectivism as a better intro/ overview
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:37 PM
I'm not familiar with Wittgenstein to much
curi 19-Aug-19 09:37 PM
he's so bad that i don't think any reasonable ppl like him
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:38 PM
@Felix The Cat you don't like fiction?
curi 19-Aug-19 09:38 PM
in addition to the bad writing, wittgenstein also threatened Popper with violence and beat school children.
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:38 PM
I like Sci Fi, but mostly no
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:38 PM
@Felix The Cat philosophy who needs it is best start imo
curi 19-Aug-19 09:38 PM
@cat your past experience with fiction books are irrelevant to Rand's books.
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:38 PM
Atlas and fountainhead will be the only ones you like if you do
curi 19-Aug-19 09:38 PM
her books are different
@cat i guess i'd recommend starting with For The New Intellectual, that's its purpose
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:43 PM
oh wow. It is part of the "Books I'd Rather Die Than Read" List on goodreads. O.O Aw that's mean. Why even create such a thing. Don't like people who kink shame
curi 19-Aug-19 09:44 PM
what does that have to do with kink?
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:44 PM
oh its a figure of speech
not literally a kink
like making fun of someone for liking Nickelback
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 09:47 PM
Felix you're drunk aren't you
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:47 PM
Not tonight good sir.
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 09:48 PM
@Felix The Cat read the fountainhead rn
Please don't look up summerized videos of books or something like that
It's worth it
Changed my life
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:49 PM
how so?
curi 19-Aug-19 09:50 PM
i don't think he'll get FH
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:51 PM
is it really difficult to read like Post Modernist books? Or why wouldn't I get it.
curi 19-Aug-19 09:51 PM
no it's easy reading
you are unserious and are biased against those kinds of ideas.
you don't already have the right attitudes to life and i don't think you'll pick them up from reading the book.
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:52 PM
I like to think of myself as easy going yeah
curi 19-Aug-19 09:53 PM
it's not a step by step guide.
you have to take initiative to figure out what it's about, and be effective at that.
you don't know how.
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:54 PM
but not really biased. I don't judge. Just don't enjoy fiction, I can read The new intellectual if you think its better than virtue or peikoff's
curi 19-Aug-19 09:54 PM
i'm not recommending Rand to you. i think you should try to discuss Popper/DD/my stuff.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 09:55 PM
Nothing wrong with Popper ๐Ÿ™‚
curi 19-Aug-19 09:55 PM
god this book has no info
not even page count.
so i won't even be able to create a correct order to have it scanned
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 09:58 PM
@Mingmecha How did FountainHead change your life? If you don't mind me asking. I love some good transformation stories.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:01 PM
>>> you are unserious and are biased against those kinds of ideas. you don't already have the right attitudes to life and i don't think you'll pick them up from reading the book. you have to take initiative to figure out what it's about, and be effective at that. you don't know how.
How did you come to those conclusions about him
curi 19-Aug-19 10:02 PM
he doesn't want, and won't like, full analysis of his discord messages. but he won't want to say that either. nevertheless, that's my judgment.
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 10:03 PM
Knock yourself out. I don't mind. I am curious.
curi 19-Aug-19 10:03 PM
as predicted.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:03 PM
๐Ÿ˜ฆ
curi 19-Aug-19 10:03 PM
Taggart could not understand the transition from the laughter to the sudden tone of Dagnyโ€™s voice; the voice was cold and harsh: โ€œDrop it, Jim. I know everything youโ€™re going to say. Nobodyโ€™s ever used it before. Nobody approves of Rearden Metal. Nobodyโ€™s interested in it. Nobody wants it. Still, our rails are going to be made of Rearden Metal.โ€ โ€œBut . . .โ€ said Taggart, โ€œbut . . . but nobodyโ€™s ever used it before!โ€
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 10:04 PM
Curi do you need the page count on the book chapters ect.?
@curi
curi 19-Aug-19 10:04 PM
you need to enter page count on dollar scan orders AFAIK
cuz the price depends on it
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 10:06 PM
You predicted that I didn't want it, then when I said sure I want it, you said "as predicted." Wut, is this some sort of I am smart I reverersed psyched your ass? If so, it worked!
curi 19-Aug-19 10:06 PM
@TheRatWay if he really wanted to know he would have asked me himself already.
also his latest comment shows a poor grasp of logic or reading.
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 10:07 PM
Guess some blank slates are better than others. ๐Ÿคท
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 10:08 PM
@Felix The Cat it protrayed a man higher then anything ive ever seen before that the word heor was meaningless to me. It was the only true protrayls of the ideal man in action and high respect for intelligence and its fuction. Also I'm an artist myself and love how it showed what motivated Roark (the protagonist) as a creative thinker.
The ending made me cry of how amazing it was
It showed me that it was possible everything I knew was right really was right and moral
curi 19-Aug-19 10:10 PM
for cat, if he got it, it would show him that he needs to change massively, rather than reaffirming his values.
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 10:10 PM
I want to live in a world with Roarks
curi 19-Aug-19 10:10 PM
it'd be a different sort of experience
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 10:10 PM
I dread to meet the person who doesn't think they need massive changes. But thank you for sharing Mingmecha.
curi 19-Aug-19 10:11 PM
he's insulting me again. he doesn't want my analysis.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:11 PM
Curi I gotta say, I don't understand the hostility toward Cat. What happened?
curi 19-Aug-19 10:12 PM
well did you pay attention to where he said "You predicted that I didn't want it, then when I said sure I want it, you said "as predicted." Wut, is this some sort of I am smart I reverersed psyched your ass? If so, it worked!" ?
or any other specific interactions?
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 10:12 PM
@Felix The Cat it's role in my life cannot be understated enough mostly rand as a whole. Compared to other knowledge I've acquired its been the most important
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 10:13 PM
This is good. There is a lot of negativity in this world and not many sources of affirmation, inspiration and comfort. Glad you found yours.
curi 19-Aug-19 10:19 PM
i also don't think i was hostile. i don't think forming judgments, including critical ones, is a hostile act. but i do think cat expressed hostility towards me.
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 10:19 PM
> he's insulting me again. And that was not an insult Curi, that was embracing Fallibility. I don't think you have shown how you think you know about me from a few lines on discord. Sounds to me like someone is extrapolating from repeated observations :O.
curi 19-Aug-19 10:20 PM
that's 3 insults in a row.
curi 19-Aug-19 10:28 PM
rat can you engage or disengage instead of leaving it ambiguous? you asked questions and raised issues but aren't pursuing them.
Mingmecha 19-Aug-19 10:28 PM
๐Ÿ˜Ÿ
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:30 PM
I am just confused at how this started. Was hoping you 2 could get along. I've known Cat for a while he's not the things you're describing. I am grateful for your help with CR. I am not fond of conflict.
curi 19-Aug-19 10:30 PM
i tried to respond to you about that and you did not reply.
do you want to discuss it or not?
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:32 PM
Sure I'd like a friendly discussion so we can maybe not insult each other, Cat you wanna try to reconcile? Or maybe do it in private so its easier? Idk
curi 19-Aug-19 10:33 PM
i don't believe i insulted anyone, and i asked you a question which you have not replied to.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:33 PM
oh sorry Could you repeat it
curi 19-Aug-19 10:33 PM
TheRatWayToday at 10:11 PM Curi I gotta say, I don't understand the hostility toward Cat. What happened? curiToday at 10:12 PM well did you pay attention to where he said "You predicted that I didn't want it, then when I said sure I want it, you said "as predicted." Wut, is this some sort of I am smart I reverersed psyched your ass? If so, it worked!" ? or any other specific interactions?
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:34 PM
Yes I noticed hostility from him too. I am just confused at how it even started.
curi 19-Aug-19 10:34 PM
do you see the misreading in his comment?
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:36 PM
I feel like at some point he said something that made you say "He wouldn't get FH" and then it all went downhill from there. So you clearly didn't like something he said before that, maybe?
curi 19-Aug-19 10:36 PM
i'm trying to discuss a specific, individual issue, in order to explain things step by step, but you aren't engaging with me.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:39 PM
I am trying to. Do you not think that starting from what triggered it is useful? Ok so he was uncharitable with the sneer about reverse psychology.
curi 19-Aug-19 10:39 PM
he was trying to say i made an incorrect prediction. right?
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:39 PM
Yes
curi 19-Aug-19 10:39 PM
and he was confused by me saying my prediction was correct.
yes?
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:41 PM
um. Idk if confused. but he thinks you were incorrect. But I don't see how this helps us with what triggered this whole thing
curi 19-Aug-19 10:41 PM
my prediction was correct. right?
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 10:41 PM
No.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:42 PM
You predicted that he didn't want you to go through his discord messages and tell him why you judged him.
and he said go for it or something like that
curi 19-Aug-19 10:43 PM
do you know what i said immediately after that?
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:43 PM
sec
He won't say that either
curi 19-Aug-19 10:44 PM
right. so in short i said he will deny it, then he denied it. right?
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:45 PM
I am perfectly willing to grant that but I don't understand how we got to that spot in the first place. Seems like you disliked something he said prior to the He won't get FH.
curi 19-Aug-19 10:45 PM
so why does he think my prediction was incorrect when i nailed what would happen?
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 10:46 PM
Because anyone can do that. I predict you think positive things about me, but you won't say that. Instead you will say mean things ๐Ÿ™‚
No I am the infallible Curi too!
curi 19-Aug-19 10:46 PM
cat, can you stop trying to disrupt our discussion?
Felix The Cat 19-Aug-19 10:47 PM
Sure thing. Continue with your psycho analysis of The Good old cat. Night.
curi 19-Aug-19 10:47 PM
(maybe you can see, rat, how badly he's taking even this very minimal, initial analysis of one thing he said)
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:48 PM
๐Ÿ˜ฆ I feel like we're working down stream from the cause
Hopenager 19-Aug-19 10:49 PM
Curi, it seems like you just said something that he would obviously disagree with, then predicted he would disagree. What was the point of the prediction, and what does it show?
curi 19-Aug-19 10:49 PM
i don't know why people think it will work to jump ahead to complex conclusions while not analyzing or understanding the info that goes into them.
@Hopenager i was answering a question. i didn't claim it was an impressive prediction. that's not what i'm talking about.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:50 PM
Can we agree that something he said made you say "He won't get FH." You then labelled him a lot of things and I just don't get why.
curi 19-Aug-19 10:51 PM
rat, i can't tell you about his large, complicated mistakes when i'm not able to point out one especially clear one to you.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:53 PM
Try? I feel like at that point he was probably already hostile and not ready to have a good faith discussion. Something happened before we got there.
Hopenager 19-Aug-19 10:53 PM
You said "as predicted" and then followed up with a quote imlplying he was easily predictable and that this mattered for some reason. What was the reason? I don't understand why you chose to say "as predicted" or copy that quote, it seemed like a completely trivial and pointless prediction
curi 19-Aug-19 10:54 PM
rat i have been trying to give you an explanation but you keep trying to change the topic before it gets anywhere.
@Hopenager do you agree with me that the stuff you're asking about is a separate topic than the current conversation?
Hopenager 19-Aug-19 10:55 PM
Yes I agree, feel free to continue with Rat for now and respond to my comments whenever you like.
curi 19-Aug-19 10:56 PM
@Hopenager re as predicted, i thought his fitting into an expected model, despite me just having stated it openly, was an initial indication that my model was reasonable. enough to be worth mentioning.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:56 PM
> so why does he think my prediction was incorrect when i nailed what would happen? Because he misunderstood your prediction is my best guess. Or he wanted to know why you judged him.
curi 19-Aug-19 10:56 PM
right so he made a mistake. apparently a reading error. something like that?
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:57 PM
or he really did want to know why you judged him. So you were wrong that he won't say it, and he really did want to know and there is no other way to express it then asking you to "go for it"
curi 19-Aug-19 10:58 PM
your "or" is a logic error. that's not an alternative. he could really want to know it and also have made that reading error. they are separate matters.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 10:59 PM
well why not. If your prediction "He doesn't want to know but won't say it" Would him genuinely wanting to know not make both those things wrong?
curi 19-Aug-19 11:00 PM
so you don't think he misunderstood me or made a reading or logic error?
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:01 PM
I don't think I can know this. He either made a reading error or genuinely wanted to know. Or wanted to know and didn't understand what you said either but arrived there by accident. Least likely the last one.
curi 19-Aug-19 11:01 PM
if you're unable to judge a case like this, you also wouldn't be able to make the other judgments i made using the information i had. you won't understand them.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:02 PM
how can you possibly know what he genuinely wants from someone stating that they want something.
curi 19-Aug-19 11:03 PM
i don't know it from that statement. that statement was made after i said i knew it.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:04 PM
The order was. You predicted he doesn't want to know and won't say. He said I do want to know. You said as predicted.
You said as predicted after he said what he wanted. What am I missing here?
curi 19-Aug-19 11:05 PM
you seem lost
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:05 PM
Indeed I am
curi 19-Aug-19 11:08 PM
being able to easily follow stuff like this is part of the skillset of a philosopher. since you can't do it, you can't expect to understand full explanations of things you ask about it.
if you will accept that context, i could give you some brief summary of some high level issues.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:09 PM
Well I wasn't able to follow this stuff as you said, so how can I say otherwise.
curi 19-Aug-19 11:09 PM
that sounds like you don't want to.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:09 PM
quit the oppossite
quite*
I do want to be able to follow it.
curi 19-Aug-19 11:10 PM
i meant don't want to accept the context.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:11 PM
It is a bit saddening that I can't follow a simple explanation. But I do accept it.
curi 19-Aug-19 11:11 PM
~everyone can't, if that's any consolation
if i didn't think a right wing person would like a marxist book โ€“ if i thought it wouldn't click for him โ€“ that doesn't mean i dislike him. it means the book is a totally different kind of thing than what he understands.
cat is not similar to Howard Roark, the protagonist of FH. ming went into that book already being similar to Roark.
cat was offended by my opinions, but was not interested in understanding them better. he e.g. didn't ask questions. he showed his disinterest by his actions. and he started repeatedly insulting me.
there were a lot of other indications but they're hard to pick up on and explain, and also some of them are too offensive.
he further demonstrated his disinterest in critical analysis by trying to be disruptive when i was talking with you, rather than acting in an appreciative manner.
the basic thing that offended him was that i formed some negative judgments. that also shows his lack of receptiveness to critical analysis.
he regarded my conclusions as being like attacks, and he tried to fight back. his fighting back was low skill and used mainstream social climbing tactics.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:20 PM
Could you tell me more how you came to the conclusion that he's not like the Protagonist from FH?
alanforr 19-Aug-19 11:20 PM
@evanoleary Some particles with lower energy than the barrier end up in and beyond the barrier. So any explanation that relies solely on the energy of the tunneling instances being greater than the barrier energy is wrong.
๐Ÿ‘Œ 1
curi 19-Aug-19 11:20 PM
uhh. ~all his messages are different than what Roark would say.
idk how to explain that b/c you aren't familiar with Roark, right?
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:21 PM
Yeah you're right I am not
curi 19-Aug-19 11:21 PM
you are also dissimilar to Roark. most ppl are.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:22 PM
I want to ask how but I don't know how Roark is.
curi 19-Aug-19 11:22 PM
a common reaction ppl have is thinking that Roark is unrealistic and that no one is similar to him.
or even could be.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:26 PM
and you got all of that from a few short exchanges. That's unbelievable, I mean rather believable. Let me put it in terms I am familiar with. When you get to a high enough level in a game like LOL, you can tell how good the other player is by the slightest of movements of their characters. I imagine this is what happened here. Or maybe I am off base.
curi 19-Aug-19 11:27 PM
yeah the LOL analogy is good
that's something i find hard to explain to ppl
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:29 PM
so maybe Cat thought you were being arrogant for judging him from short exchanges, but its possible he was the one being arrogant to think that it was not possible to judge him from short exchanges. (edited)
curi 19-Aug-19 11:30 PM
yes
afaict, i have far more philosophical discussion experience than anyone else. quality and intellectual methods matters more than quantity, but i think quantity is notable.
i've already alienated hundreds of ppl by doing analysis or sharing criticism that they claimed to want.
i often see it coming but it's very hard to fix anyway
one of the things that makes it hard is multi-person discussions. e.g. answering your questions about cat. it's hard to talk to you, and design comments for you, while also avoiding alienating cat. you each want different information.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:36 PM
Maybe not that different. I too was arrogant to think you couldn't possibly have judged him from a few short exchanges. I also want to know what you judged about me, but I am also a bit scared of it.
curi 19-Aug-19 11:37 PM
you asked about explanations for some things i said, related to cat, that cat didn't want to know.
saying cat didn't want to know was itself controversial and problematic.
but so was answering.
i still mostly haven't answered and don't intend to.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:40 PM
Would you be wiling to say about me or do so in private? I've taken a lot of your time but also I am really curious.
curi 19-Aug-19 11:40 PM
say what?
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:41 PM
The short exchanges we've had presumably has told you a lot as it did for Cat. I'd like to know.
curi 19-Aug-19 11:43 PM
oh my opinion of you. it's basically fine. you started writing blog posts so you're actually doing something. lots of ppl never rly try. of ppl who try some, most fail anyway and usually reveal a lot of dishonest at that point (if not earlier). you have shown unusually low dishonesty indicators so that's good.
you're also pretty calm and non-arrogant.
skill level is in the normal range for new ppl. can't rly expect much more.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:47 PM
Definitely appreciate that, but for the sake of honesty, I am not calm. I am an anxious mess much of the time and am constantly doubting myself.
curi 19-Aug-19 11:48 PM
i had in mind your approach to discussion. this went much more calmly than typical.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:52 PM
I do feel guilty, maybe a good friend would have defended him.
and left with him.
curi 19-Aug-19 11:55 PM
social pressures are dangerous
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:56 PM
Do you think I should continue the trajectory with Popper, write again about Deutsch. How do I keep myself from proceeding arrogantly. I changed the blog name because I realized it half made it seem like I knew CR already. Im a newbie.
curi 19-Aug-19 11:57 PM
dunno details. general ballpark of CR epistemology stuff from KP/DD/ET all sounds fine.
TheRatWay 19-Aug-19 11:59 PM
Well this has been very enlightening. Thank you. I am off to bed.
curi 20-Aug-19 12:00 AM
np cu
JustinCEO 20-Aug-19 06:51 AM
curi: > i don't like reading cog sci stuff, it's all awful and non-Popperian (edited)
Mingmecha asked why awful
Cat: > Curi thinks we're blank slates and cog sci contradicts that would be my guess
Cat could have asked curi directly for his reasoning. Or Cat could have framed Cat's guess as a question and asked curi if Cat's guess was correct.
Cat > Rand is like a Mix of Kant and Nietszche right ? Self made will to power, all reason. Very polemic etc...?
That's some strong flaming right there. Where'd he even get that particular misconception
Cat > Most people who have called themselves Randians or objectivists I've come across have been very rude. Granted, prior to this Discord I've met like 3 or 4. I don't know if its just coincidence, or if her philosophy calls for being rude.
Cat doesn't consider that maybe his ideas about rudeness should be re-examined
curi to Cat: > you are unserious and are biased against those kinds of ideas.
Does anyone think Cat has approached discussions here in a serious way?
JustinCEO 20-Aug-19 07:10 AM
> so maybe Cat thought you were being arrogant for judging him from short exchanges, but its possible he was the one being arrogant to think that it was not possible to judge him from short exchanges.
I was talking to a WW2 vet once
He was telling me how they trained pilots to be able to recognize both friendly and enemy planes almost instantly from brief glances at a silhouette
We were talking at some event. There were small photographs of various WW2 planes along one wall, and tiny labels beneath saying what plane they were. He could still correctly rattle off all the names from memory
being able to make important judgements very quickly from a small amount of data is a skill that can be (and is) developed in various contexts
JustinCEO 20-Aug-19 08:55 AM
It'd be absurd to say that being able to quickly identify airplanes based on silhouette is impossible just because you can't. Most people would concede this cuz there is nothing at stake for them. But they object to the idea that people could rapidly make accurate judgments about them, both because they hate the specific content of those judgments, and because they hate the idea in general that they fall into some identifiable type/have some typical category of flaws or whatever. They want to be special snowflakes.
If they had refutations of the specific judgments they would offer them.
If there was a reason they didn't fall into some category or have some flaw they would state it
The reaction of negativity and hate and irrationality damns them way more than the initial judgment itself, and confirms it
JustinCEO 20-Aug-19 09:06 AM
"All of you welfare preachers-it's not unearned money that you're after. You want handouts, but of a different kind. I'm a gold-digger of the spirit, you said, because I look for value. Then you, the welfare preachers... it's the spirit that you want to loot. I never thought and nobody ever told us how it could be thought of and what it would mean-the unearned in spirit. But that is what you want. You want unearned love. You want unearned admiration. You want unearned greatness. You want to be a man like Hank Rearden without the necessity of being what he is. Without the necessity of being anything. Without... the necessity... of being." "Shut up!" he screamed.
TheRatWay 20-Aug-19 12:01 PM
What does very polemic mean?
or even more important, what do people mean when they say very polemic
?
curi 20-Aug-19 12:02 PM
try dictionaries
TheRatWay 20-Aug-19 12:02 PM
Dictionary says: a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something.
but people seem to mean this is bad
curi 20-Aug-19 12:03 PM
attacking is not truth-seeking
and i said dictionaries plural. you're using a particularly bad one.
comparing many definitions helps
TheRatWay 20-Aug-19 12:07 PM
I see. Its aggressive attack - presumably the goal is to "win" but not to find out what's true.
This definition from Wiktionary is too vague, and I think could be mistaken for criticism "polemic (plural polemics) A person who writes in support of one opinion, doctrine, or system, in opposition to another" Webster's seems more specific as it highlights aggressive "attack." (edited)
curi 20-Aug-19 12:15 PM
dictionaries are not great at philosophy but often still useful
JustinCEO 20-Aug-19 02:14 PM
Sorry, I donโ€™t buy Rep. Tlaibโ€™s tears. I have watched her violence, craziness and, most importantly, WORDS, for far too long. Now tears? She hates Israel and all Jewish people. She is an anti-Semite. She and her 3 friends are the new face of the Democrat Party. Live wi...
Retweets
26924
Likes
101684
Trump calling Tlaib anti Semite is good
I would guess that typical Jewish dem voters are leftists with at least some anti Semitic premises/attitudes, though generally milder than the sort of thing Omar and Tlaib would go for. Saying it's a matter of ignorance is too kind (even when framed as an alternative). Plenty of resources out there to learn the case for Israel if you want to
And there's plenty of Jewish Dems that will call Israel an apartheid state and stuff
JustinCEO 20-Aug-19 02:40 PM
I'd prefer a wall, mass deportations, Obamacare repeal, and an end to weak on crime/anti gun/tariffs stuff over just calling out anti semites tho. Calling out anti semites should be more of a side hobby
curi bot BOT 20-Aug-19 03:58 PM
New stream or video! #20 curi Streams Philosophy (Q&A, writing, commentary) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-C7Vb5yX4c
๐Ÿ‘ 1
curi 20-Aug-19 03:59 PM
err wtf
i was still in the part of setup where u decide if u schedule it for later or not
and set the title
and it just did that with old title
after i already edited to 21 on my screen
stream soon tho
Mingmecha 20-Aug-19 11:36 PM
@JustinCEO "Does anyone think Cat has approached discussions here in a serious way?'
no
Everytime i read about the sitution in china it angers me how evil that country and the CCP are . Is this bad on my part to react with such anger where it distracts me for about 20 to 30 min after hearing yet another autrocity happening there?
i feel like i have a strong sense of justice but i dont exactly know how to define that objectively or identify where my emotions are coming from
and speaking of this i read this book about russia and it made me feel so angry i had to stop reading. for the same reasons i couldnt beleive how bad russia is as well. (edited)
People dont understand how important it is for america and its ideals to win over this
curi 20-Aug-19 11:50 PM
have you read anything about Mao?
i read some recently and it's awful...
yes i think getting distracted from your life by this is bad
gulag archipelago is awful too
i also liked Sharansky's book Fear No Evil but i don't remember it much
there are also books about how the general population willingly participated in hitler's germany
there are other things that are, in some ways, even worse. like how children are treated in America. and people are much more blind to that. with china stuff, a LOT of Americans would think it was awful if they knew about it.
or how Rand's books are treated in the world today. that's awful. same with DD's books, my writing, Mises' books, Reisman's, and some others.
the world has huge problems. it is at the beginning of infinity. there's sooooo much more to improve. making progress is urgent and serious. ppl generally don't see it that way or care all that much. i do. DD used to understand and care but he's broken now. in general i don't regard anyone else at FI as being sufficiently motivated by such things. and it's not just world problems, they all have personal problems too. knowledge helps with both, it's not one or the other.
Justin has been around longer than I have. he's just now started making a bunch of videos. i hope it will last. i've been doing a lot for all those years (~18) continuously.
Mingmecha 20-Aug-19 11:58 PM
its just hard sometimes it really effects me deeply seeing such evil
i dont know what to do anout the feeling or if its irrational
curi 20-Aug-19 11:58 PM
the grammar stuff got Anne, Kate and Justin doing more. Kate also studied Objectivism a bunch privately, hidden from critical feedback.
alan, alisa and andy post irregularly.
Mingmecha 20-Aug-19 11:59 PM
i dont know who those people are
curi 20-Aug-19 11:59 PM
you should read FI list ๐Ÿ™‚
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:00 AM
i want to say something rn but can we continue it in the semi private chat before i do?
curi 21-Aug-19 12:00 AM
you can't hold up the world. you have to shrug. China is not your problem. if you're productive and effective it will help indirectly. and you might conceivably work on a project more directly related to China, at some point, if it's also a particularly good project for you for other reasons. Rand said if FH hadn't gotten a publisher she was just gonna do her own thing and not help the world. work some unimportant job and live her life. something like that.
you can talk there
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:02 AM
well its personal
curi 21-Aug-19 12:02 AM
if i reply to what you say there, i will reply there.
gonna continue these thoughts here for now
the scale of the world's problems indicates something about the necessary strategy to change much: you must become extremely powerful. trying to change anything while only mediumly powerful won't do much. that's only useful as practice, as part of a process of learning and powering up.
i have in mind the power of knowledge, of problem solving, of critical thinking, of learning effectively. those are the things that fuel projects and make them succeed. things like political power, popularity, prestige, and wealth are all secondary.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:04 AM
is it ok to feel alone and sad about this
curi 21-Aug-19 12:05 AM
those other things won't get you anywhere if you are making bad decisions, can't think logically, etc. one must be good at those things to super high standards, higher than most "intellectuals" think is even possible.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:05 AM
somtimes i cry about it and i tell myself "stop being a pussy just do good work you cant fix the whole world"
curi 21-Aug-19 12:05 AM
i don't think ppl other than me should feel alone and sad about it. i put out so much content and i'm available a lot.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:06 AM
i feel alone cause i dont have anyone to share my values with or nobody cares/bores me
curi 21-Aug-19 12:06 AM
you sound IRL-biased.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:07 AM
i dont have online friends so im not used to that
idk if its the same thing
Im leaning towrds no
if so why would that be wrong of me to want that over online
curi 21-Aug-19 12:08 AM
the internet is amazing. it's not identical but it's very good and it's actually better in a lot of ways such as pausing and controlling the speed of videos and playing them on your own schedule.
you don't have to pick one or the other but should get what you can out of what's available.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:08 AM
well yeah i agree with that
curi 21-Aug-19 12:09 AM
The FI community is the best galt's gulch there is. you could engage with it much more.
๐Ÿ‘ 1
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:09 AM
but i mean having even one damn friend thats worth a damn would be nice
maybe im just afraid of being disappointed again (edited)
curi 21-Aug-19 12:10 AM
well you could always move to where i live in 5 years if you actually spend that time discussing and learning and stuff, and things go well enough. or someone else you find online.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:11 AM
what do you mean 5 years what happens then (edited)
curi 21-Aug-19 12:12 AM
well you shouldn't now. i don't know you well. maybe you'll dislike me in 6 months. most ppl do. maybe you won't do enough to learn what i know and be compatible enough with me that i'd want you around in a format that's harder to control. but over time we might become friends more than we are now.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:13 AM
"but over time we might become friends more than we are now" that legit made me tear up rn
am i being weak?
curi 21-Aug-19 12:13 AM
no. just less than superhuman.
> They perish gradually, giving up, extinguishing their minds before they have a chance to grasp the nature of the evil they are facing. In lonely agony, they go from confident eagerness to bewilderment to indignation to resignationโ€”to obscurity. And while their elders putter about, conserving redwood forests and building sanctuaries for mallard ducks, nobody notices those youths as they drop out of sight one by one, like sparks vanishing in limitless black space; nobody builds sanctuaries for the best of the human species. (edited)
This is expanded from a letter I wrote to Per-Olof Samuelsson. I already knew that quality discussion of Objectivism is virtually impossible to come by. It occurred to me that I've never heard a singl
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:14 AM
i just need to learn more for now get better
curi 21-Aug-19 12:14 AM
the next paragraph ends: > But these are exceptions that mankind has no right to expect.
you can't be expected to find this easy or even to survive the situation.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:15 AM
Thank you curi
curi 21-Aug-19 12:15 AM
maybe you will. but that'd be super heroic. less than that isn't weakness.
i've never seen an Objectivist discuss that article or quote other than FI ppl who got it from me. there's something really bad about that.
i suggest rereading the article.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:18 AM
i actually have some of her quotes on my wall and this is one among them
curi 21-Aug-19 12:18 AM
๐Ÿ™‚
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:18 AM
im reading rn
curi 21-Aug-19 12:18 AM
well that makes two independent sources who noted the quote.
no doubt there are more. but i've googled and maybe none of them, but me, post stuff publicly online.
i think fewer than 1 in 100 million ppl get great at philosophy without substantial engagement in quality discussion forums.
a lot more than that have some significant intelligence and potential. but it's too hard to figure everything out yourself and correct all your own errors. the educational materials available in non-interactive form, like books, videos and articles, don't include everything. they leave too much to reinvent, too many gaps to fill in.
and even if they didn't, ppl make mistakes and don't see or understand some portion of their own mistakes even after looking for them a bunch. it's just to be expected to make some important mistakes and fail to identify them, even if some books explained them well (you will sometimes misunderstand what you read).
there isn't much to be done about the mistakes everyone makes. progress can be made, but there is always more of that which hasn't been made yet. but it makes a huge difference to avoid the vast majority of mistakes that some other ppl know about. it makes a huge difference to get corrections from other ppl. if you get 10 great ppl, they will mostly misunderstand existing knowledge (e.g. stuff that's already explained in books) in different ways, not the same ways. they'll make lots of different errors instead of all the same ones. if their error rate is 0.05, then the chance they all randomly make the same mistake is 0.05^10 which is tiny. and it gets better with more ppl. this still leaves the problems of systematic biases affecting many ppl or stuff no one knows, but it solves a big problem.
this requires that ppl are actually able to share corrections and then the guy being corrected is able to actually appreciate the info and change. that's hard but doable.
FI does this but is overly reliant on me to give corrections. and i've had little access to external corrections for the last 10 years.
but i got a huge amount of corrections before that, primarily from DD (and early on, when i knew less, from ppl who'd already learned from DD)
it's hard to get corrections b/c of being way ahead of ppl, but that means i know a lot and can help ppl.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:29 AM
my only concern isnt an Oist supposed to be an independent thinker and not care bout what others think of him (roark)?
curi 21-Aug-19 12:30 AM
the issue isn't what others think of you, it's the arguments and explanations they share.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:30 AM
so where is the line
curi 21-Aug-19 12:30 AM
well in the end its your judgment
but reasonable ppl can discuss their judgment a lot and generally come to agree or at least understand each other
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:30 AM
how do you get the confindence in my own ideas if i let myself be too skeptical
not like a skeptic but just the procces of doing that i find can be harmful in some people they never make up their mind
i mean we can agree on fundementals
curi 21-Aug-19 12:32 AM
critical analysis of your ideas โ€“ exposing them to criticism, addressing arguments, learning all issues โ€“ is how you gain rational confidence.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:32 AM
but until reading DD and popper i never knew rands epistomology could be challeneged like that
curi 21-Aug-19 12:32 AM
the more you try to criticize ideas and they survive and you know how to defend them against every argument, the more you should be confident.
it's an ongoing process of error correction that stabilizes the truth and differentiates it from error.
if you're not being critical enough, you can't tell the difference between good and bad ideas well enough.
it's when you do everything you can to find fault with your ideas that you can appreciate the ones that are actually really good and see how they are better than ideas that can't stand up to as much scrutiny.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:34 AM
ok so given everything you said of what value doesnot caring about what others think of you? im reminded of the part where roark says to peter about not asking about ones work
curi 21-Aug-19 12:34 AM
i'm very skeptical (i'd say critical) but i also make up my mind. i form judgments. many of them last with no need to revisit them. ppl mostly find i'm able to judge quickly and aggressively, from their perspective.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:34 AM
it seemed like it had to be you to discover it independent of others (edited)
curi 21-Aug-19 12:35 AM
you shouldn't care what ppl think about you socially, or without reasons. it's not their opinions that matter but the reasoning that they communicate. for once they tell you an idea, now it's your idea too. it's in your head. you know it. so you must judge it.
you shouldn't be biased about ideas based on their sources, e.g. who originated the idea. every idea in your head must be evaluated on its actual content and merits. can you state anything wrong with it?
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:36 AM
so rand meant it in a social way?
curi 21-Aug-19 12:36 AM
the issue is primarily social. caring about ideas that someone told you, and now you're thinking about yourself, is not caring what they think.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:36 AM
like i agree with you but saw rands way of being the ideal
a heroic response
curi 21-Aug-19 12:37 AM
once they tell you the idea, if you can't see any flaw in it, you will accept it even if they say they were just joking and it's obviously ridiculous.
it doesn't matter what they think of the idea they told you unless they can actually share a useful idea like a counter argument.
this is how ideas always must be accepted. on your own judgment, so that you would keep the idea even if the source of the idea changed their mind. this is how people must accepted my ideas โ€“ so if i erased all my writing and died, or said i was trolling, or anything else, it wouldn't matter. nothing but a new, topical argument/explanation could matter. b/c once you understand it and judge it yourself, it's yours and only a rational process โ€“ pointing out a flaw or superior alternative โ€“ can change that.
i don't think identically to Rand about this. i think she didn't know all this. e.g. she didn't talk about error correction and fallibility much. and i think the heroes in AS and FH under-communicate. i think Roark should have explained more to Dominique rather than her needing to figure things out herself somehow. (edited)
same with galt+francisco not explaining to Dagny.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:41 AM
i see
curi 21-Aug-19 12:41 AM
if you're really independent you can be exposed to ideas โ€“ hear it all โ€“ and it doesn't control you.
similar to how Dagny had to be able to hear about what was happening outside the gulch, not shut her eyes to it.
it's just information that you can use.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:42 AM
ok this was very helpful
curi 21-Aug-19 12:42 AM
you ought to be able to organize it all, and judge it, integrate it, make sense of it, etc. though not all at once. you can set some aside temporarily, decide what to focus on first, etc.
your interest and priorities should themselves be open to criticism and feedback.
your methods need error correction too.
but, again, that feedback is just information you can evaluate, etc.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:43 AM
"if you're really independent you can be exposed to ideas โ€“ hear it all โ€“ and it doesn't control you."
this summed it up to me. It "clicked" for lack of a better term (edited)
curi 21-Aug-19 12:44 AM
> im reminded of the part where roark says to peter about not asking about ones work i ask ppl about my work sometimes. i like to think outloud and talk about it and get some reminders and prompts. and maybe even some useful tips. but i don't feel pressured or controlled by getting ppl's comments.
> not like a skeptic but just the procces of doing that i find can be harmful in some people they never make up their mind ppl who can't make up their mind cannot solve that problem by hiding from some information. the problem is in them, it's their own judgment.
Roark, btw, was not scared of Toohey, nor the dean. he didn't think of Toohey, in general, but he didn't have to avoid him. he could hear Toohey's comments and it wasn't a big deal.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:46 AM
ive actively avoid asking for advice on my projects and my art but when i hear critiques i listen and ask why they think that but nothing more (edited)
curi 21-Aug-19 12:46 AM
Roark could read any book and it wouldn't screw him up. he wouldn't lose confidence or become wishy washy.
he could listen to Keating's advice on his career, or Francon's, or whatever, and it might be boring but it wouldn't screw him up.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:48 AM
but somone who claimes they know what they want doesnt inherently make them correct right how do you change that
im hypotheticising (or however you spell that) about my issue i find it helps
curi 21-Aug-19 12:50 AM
i don't follow. change what?
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:50 AM
like how would you help them accept criticism
or adopt it as a tool
curi 21-Aug-19 12:51 AM
well, a proper criticism will explain from their perspective, why X is better than Y or why Y will not accomplish goal Z.
it will apply to their context and matter according to their values (either their idea won't work as intended or something else will work better)
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:52 AM
ok
well thanks agin for this I need to work on my painting and drawing for tonight
its pretty late for you right?
we are in the same time zone
curi 21-Aug-19 12:54 AM
> ok this was very helpful Tips are welcome. https://www.paypal.com/paypalme2/ElliotTemple
1am
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 12:55 AM
ok i will i found it valueble
Gn
curi bot BOT 21-Aug-19 10:07 AM
New stream or video! #22 curi Streams Philosophy (Q&A, writing, commentary) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU9c7Zwbq8A
๐Ÿ˜ƒ 1
curi 21-Aug-19 02:15 PM
ppl are unreasonable
This episode discusses mistakes made by major philosophers. In my podcast, I talk about philosophy, politics and more. My screen is recorded, but I talk so t...
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 07:02 PM
Curi have you read the book "myth of the mirror neurons" and if so how does this work with DD's book "beginning of infinity" when he says that it's part of how we adopted creativity? (edited)
curi 21-Aug-19 07:02 PM
no but i told DD that mirror neurons are crap (except the detailed argument version)
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 07:03 PM
So it doesn't conflict with the theory if it is crap?
Cause I was rereading that part rn at work with the new earbud
curi 21-Aug-19 07:04 PM
i think DD is mistaken about them
there's one bit of public discussion. DD did not reply. for context, DD has long believed that ASD is evil crap.
this is not a primary point but ugh
u can find more in the archives.
Mingmecha 21-Aug-19 07:08 PM
So it doesn't conflict with the evidence?
Mirror neurons being wrong I mean
curi 21-Aug-19 07:09 PM
what evidence?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:09 PM
curi, to clarify, are you saying that the theory of mirror neurons in general is crap, or just when applied to humans?
curi 21-Aug-19 07:11 PM
it's been years, but i don't recall reading about a non-human version. i would be very suspicious. one thing i'd look at is whether its advocates disavow ramachandran or not (if they are any good, they would).
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:12 PM
In DD's recent essay in the "Possible Minds" book he says: โ€œApingโ€ (imitating certain behaviors without understanding) uses inborn hacks such as the mirror-neuron system. But behaviors imitated that way are drastically limited in complexity. See Richard Byrne, โ€œImitation as Behaviour Parsing,โ€ Phil. Trans. R. Soc., B 358:1431, 529-36 (2003).
So I don't think he thinks that mirror neurons play an important role in human understanding or imitation
curi 21-Aug-19 07:15 PM
i don't know why you're trying to jump into the middle of a debate you're unfamiliar with
you seem to only talk when you want to hit and run disagree with me
but you have never shown any interest in learning anything
and you have never discussed anything to anywhere near a conclusion
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:17 PM
I just spoke up because what you were saying seemed to conflict with my understanding of DD's position on mirror neurons
curi 21-Aug-19 07:18 PM
you're wrong and unfamiliar with his views
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:18 PM
Perhaps, you have had much more communication with him than I have. I just thought it would be worth mentioning in case you had somehow misunderstood his position
curi 21-Aug-19 07:19 PM
you're lying
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:19 PM
What am I lying about?
curi 21-Aug-19 07:19 PM
that you "just thought it would be worth mentioning in case"
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:19 PM
what makes you say that?
curi 21-Aug-19 07:20 PM
you did not present it in anything resembling that manner, and have never acted consistent with that being what you think.
you're being very conventionally defensive while also avoiding replying to things i said to you
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:21 PM
What about the way that I presented it conflicted with the idea that I brought it up because I thought you might have a misunderstanding?
curi 21-Aug-19 07:21 PM
you're already changing the wording of your claim
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:27 PM
What significant difference of wording is there between in case you had somehow misunderstood his position and I thought you might have a misunderstanding? I didn't intend to change the wording significantly
also, are you going to answer the previous question?
curi 21-Aug-19 07:27 PM
if you don't have the skill to see the difference between those, this is not the conversation we should be having.
you need to have conversations that you're capable of dealing with productively. you should start small, succeed, and work up. but you neither want to do that nor discuss the matter. that's an impasse. your disinterest in learning and disinterest in discussing your disinterest in learning is another impasse.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:31 PM
It seems to me that this conversation would have been plenty productive if you had answered my questions directly instead of changing the subject
curi 21-Aug-19 07:32 PM
you seem to be implicitly agreeing about the stated impasses
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:32 PM
I did not intend to imply that
curi 21-Aug-19 07:32 PM
why would me looking up quotes to show you you're wrong, and educate you, be productive for me?
that's the conversation you wanted
but you wouldn't even learn much b/c it's too complicated for your skill level.
> I did not intend to imply that this is a way to suggest that i'm wrong without actually committing yourself to saying it. it's also changing the issue from what you did to what you intended.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:35 PM
If you didn't think that looking up quotes would be productive for you, you could have simply said "I have spoken with DD personally about this issue and I can assure you that you're misunderstanding his position", that would have satisfied me
curi 21-Aug-19 07:36 PM
you knew exactly where i was coming from earlier. you were not satisfied.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:38 PM
I did know where you were coming from, but it's always possible that you've made a mistake, including in understanding what his position was. In the case that you had made a mistake, its possible that me pointing out a particular quote that seems to contradict your understanding would help you recognize and correct the mistake
curi 21-Aug-19 07:38 PM
you don't even know what my understanding is
so you can't judge what quotes would contradict it
you are out of your depth and do not want to face it
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:39 PM
Its true that I don't know what your understanding is, but what you were saying seemed to conflict with my understanding.
I agree that I'm "out of my depth" in the sense that you probably know more about DD's position on this topic, and all others, than I do
curi 21-Aug-19 07:40 PM
you should try to learn something.
you don't know how to help me, are not helping, and were not actually trying to help.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:40 PM
but I don't think that means that I should avoid pointing out when I think there is a mistake in your ideas
curi 21-Aug-19 07:41 PM
you don't know how to point out mistakes to me, and have never tried to find out.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:41 PM
Is there a special way for pointing out mistakes to you that's different from how I should point out mistakes to a different person?
curi 21-Aug-19 07:42 PM
you don't know how to point out mistakes to anyone, or more generally how to have a rational discussion.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:43 PM
Interesting. My idea for how to have a rational discussion is something like this: when someone says something that contradicts one of my ideas, I explain the idea that I had and where it contradicted what they said
Do you think thats wrong?
curi 21-Aug-19 07:44 PM
yes
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:44 PM
Alright, what am I getting wrong?
curi 21-Aug-19 07:44 PM
does the message "Alright, what am I getting wrong?" follow the discussion methodology that you stated?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:44 PM
Yes
curi 21-Aug-19 07:45 PM
you are incompetent and this is a very hard context to educate you in.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:45 PM
more or less
You stated that one of my ideas was wrong, which clearly contradicts one of my ideas, and so the methodology I stated would lead me to explain the idea. But I had already explained the idea, so I instead asked you to elaborate
The "asking you to elaborate" part wasn't in the methodology I stated, but I thought it was obvious enough that my two sentence description of the methodology wasn't exhaustive ๐Ÿ˜ƒ
* one sentence
curi 21-Aug-19 07:50 PM
you don't seem to understand qualifiers like "that you stated"
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:52 PM
Yes you're technically right, the methodology, as stated, did not encompass the way I responded
I did not assume you meant the question in such a strictly literal way
curi 21-Aug-19 07:53 PM
you are not familiar with my discussion history even thought it's publicly available
if you had wanted to know how to talk to me better, you could have looked or asked
you are doing standard things that people do wrong
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:53 PM
I'll ask now then: how should I talk to you better?
also what are the standard things that people do wrong, that seems interesting
curi 21-Aug-19 07:54 PM
i already told you: try to learn something instead of trying to correct me.
why don't you look at some discussions and see?
also you have no clear goals in this conversation, or in general (that you've communicated), nor have you provided any incentives or rewards or benefits for me.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 07:56 PM
I suppose I'm just not all that convinced that it's worth putting all this effort into learning how to talk with you, specifically, since doing so is apparently quite different from talking to any other person
curi 21-Aug-19 07:57 PM
is "any other person" another of your false statements where you will be like "omg i didn't realize i was supposed to make true statements, you're so picky!" ?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:00 PM
I'm not sure why you're being so hostile
curi 21-Aug-19 08:00 PM
you made a false, hostile statement and you're calling me hostile for noticing?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:00 PM
I'll rephrase: I suppose I'm just not all that convinced that it's worth putting all this effort into learning how to talk with you, specifically, since doing so is apparently quite different from talking to most other people
curi 21-Aug-19 08:02 PM
Learning how to stop lying, stop doing social climbing behaviors, and get things right, are all worthwhile general purpose skills.
you haven't gotten value because you have not tried to engage with FI in a positive way. you have not done anything you could reasonably expect to help anyone else, nor have you, more important, tried to get help with any positive goal of your own.
also, i have not been hostile.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:06 PM
I don't think I've been hostile either
curi 21-Aug-19 08:06 PM
you exaggerate in adversarial and false ways.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:06 PM
fwiw, I'm currently writing an essay about my thoughts on AGI that I plan to post to FI once I've finished it, to get some feedback
curi 21-Aug-19 08:07 PM
will you be open to the response that that topic is far too hard for you?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:08 PM
I did use hyperbole, but I did not intend it to be hostile. Would it be generally good to avoid all hyperbole when speaking with you and other FI people? If so I'll do that
Yeah its definitely possible that AGI is too hard a topic for me, I'm very open to that possibility
it's a hard topic
curi 21-Aug-19 08:08 PM
the direction of your hyperbole was not random.
have you reviewed any archived discussions about AGI?
and yes i'd advise you to not do hyperbole or jokes.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:10 PM
No, I haven't looked at the discussions about AGI
curi 21-Aug-19 08:10 PM
why not?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:11 PM
Didn't come to mind. I figured I'd just post my essay and get feedback on my own ideas
curi 21-Aug-19 08:11 PM
but now that you're aware of the option, you will or won't do it?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:12 PM
yes, I'm looking through FI for AGI discussions now
curi 21-Aug-19 08:13 PM
non-random exaggerations to ideas, to the point of falsehood (or even less), show biases, agendas, etc. right? if someone is exaggerating in a particular direction, they don't have neutral preferences.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:15 PM
Yes, you've got a point there. The direction of the hyperbole was not random. Perhaps the way I hyperbolized was hostile, though I didn't think of it that way as I was saying it. I suppose in everyday conversation that kind of hyperbole would be brushed off and not questioned, but avoiding hyperbole all for serious discussions like these does seem like a good idea
curi 21-Aug-19 08:15 PM
that is not what happens in everyday conversation, but i can accept that's honest ignorance.
not knowing you're being hostile, or not consciously intending hostility, is the typical case for hostility in these kinds of discussions.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:18 PM
Yes, that makes sense. Though it seemed to me like when I spoke with typical, implicit hostility, you responded with explicit hostility. Why respond that way? It seems likely to alienate people, since they did not intend their hostility, and they perceive you as suddenly becoming hostile for no reason (as I did)
curi 21-Aug-19 08:18 PM
what did you think was explicit hostility?
also i find it amazing (though i think i shouldn't) that you would think there was any kind of sudden change after the previous like 20 messages were largely similar.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:21 PM
The message is "any other person" another of your false statements where you will be like "omg i didn't realize i was supposed to make true statements, you're so picky!" ? seemed particularly explicitly hostile. There was definitely an adversarial quality to the conversation before that point, but that seemed like a sudden jump in hostility to me
curi 21-Aug-19 08:22 PM
and what is your objection to that message?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:22 PM
Though I suppose you're lying and you are incompetent and this is a very hard context to educate you in. were quite hostile even before that one
curi 21-Aug-19 08:22 PM
what's hostile about those?
you interpreted things as hostile and didn't say so and didn't try to do any problem solving and got progressively more hostile as a result (though it wasn't the initial reason for your hostility).
this is very typical but it's also sabotage.
when you tried to respond normally, it was lying by implication. it implied you didn't mind. (edited)
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:24 PM
My objection is that "omg i didn't realize i was supposed to make true statements, you're so picky!" is blatant mockery, much more rude and hostile (at least, explicitly) than anything I'd said before. I understand now where you were coming from, I think, so I don't mind, but it seems like speaking that way to someone who hasn't yet been explicitly hostile is likely to alienate them
curi 21-Aug-19 08:24 PM
that kind of lying is very normal and standard, but also destructive.
can you come up with any interpretation where that quote has a productive purpose or makes literal sense?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:25 PM
which quote?
curi 21-Aug-19 08:26 PM
"omg i didn't realize i was supposed to make true statements, you're so picky!"
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:28 PM
I'm not sure I even understand the question. The purpose of the quote was to mock what I had previously said, though I don't know if that is a productive purpose.
curi 21-Aug-19 08:28 PM
can you come up with any other interpretation or purpose?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:29 PM
To show me the way that I was coming across from your perspective
curi 21-Aug-19 08:29 PM
yes, that's one.
so why assume hostility when you can think of a non-hostile reason i would say it?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:31 PM
That interpretation doesn't mean you weren't being hostile. You could have accomplished the same thing in a non-hostile way by saying "From my perspective your previous message just sounds like 'I didn't realize I was supposed to make true statements'". The fact that you didn't say it that way, and instead said it in a mocking way, suggests that you were being hostile
curi 21-Aug-19 08:32 PM
Had you communicated that you had a thin skin or a thick skin?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:34 PM
No
or at least not intentionally
curi 21-Aug-19 08:35 PM
you had heavily communicated thick skin.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:35 PM
How so?
curi 21-Aug-19 08:35 PM
one of the consequences of doing this is you're telling me not to be extra careful. but now you suggest i should have been extra careful.
> when you tried to respond normally, it was lying by implication. it implied you didn't mind.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:40 PM
I didn't mean that you should have been extra careful with me. I'm still here, so clearly the level of carefulness you used was plenty. I meant that I thought you should have been more careful with people in general, so as to avoid alienating them. I didn't realize you used a level of hostility based on your evaluation of how thick my particular skin was, but if that's the case then that clears up my confusion.
curi 21-Aug-19 08:40 PM
> I'm still here, so clearly the level of carefulness you used was plenty. that does not follow
> I meant that I thought you should have been more careful with people in general, so as to avoid alienating them. you are changing the topic from your claim that i was hostile to, basically, advice that is unrelated to my goals and values.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:41 PM
Doesn't it? If you had been more hostile than I could handle without disengaging I wouldn't be engaging any more, but I am, so clearly you weren't overly hostile
curi 21-Aug-19 08:41 PM
> I didn't realize you used a level of hostility based on your evaluation of how thick my particular skin was, i don't. i did not say that i did. you're bad at thinking literally.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:42 PM
What was the point of this question? Had you communicated that you had a thin skin or a thick skin?
curi 21-Aug-19 08:42 PM
you still being here does not imply nothing is wrong or that you handled things successfully.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:42 PM
I assume you were saying that since I had communicated thick skin, you figured you could be hostile without fear of me disengaging
curi 21-Aug-19 08:42 PM
the point of that question was to lead up to my comments re extra careful.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:42 PM
of course not
curi 21-Aug-19 08:43 PM
of course not what?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:43 PM
of course not you still being here does not imply nothing is wrong or that you handled things successfully.
curi 21-Aug-19 08:43 PM
i was contradicting you!
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:43 PM
I did not say that me still being here implied that I handled things successfully
curi 21-Aug-19 08:44 PM
> If you had been more hostile than I could handle without disengaging I wouldn't be engaging any more
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:45 PM
I meant that you had handled things successfully, by choosing the proper level of hostility
but I understand now that that was based on a misinterpretation of what you were saying, so it doesn't matter any more
curi 21-Aug-19 08:45 PM
by the text "I [Hopenager] could handle" you were talking about my (ET's) handling? (edited)
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:46 PM
The "If you had been more hostile" part was talking about your handling
curi 21-Aug-19 08:46 PM
you are logically lost
so let's sum up: i was not hostile, but you are not good enough at logic to discuss the matter.
given this situation, what can happen next?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:47 PM
I think we are talking past one another. But this isn't important anymore, I no longer stand by that message, it was based on a misunderstanding of what you were saying
I disagree that you were not hostile
curi 21-Aug-19 08:48 PM
right, but you're incompetent to judge or discuss that matter, so you shouldn't have that opinion.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:50 PM
I don't agree that I'm too incompetent to discuss the matter. I also don't agree that if I were incompetent I shouldn't have an opinion, because I think that having ideas even when one is uninformed is a necessary first step towards becoming more informed
curi 21-Aug-19 08:50 PM
you're up to ~10 logic errors, and you're resistant to fixing them on top of being bad at it. this is actually to be expected because you have not built up to this by doing easier conversations successfully. you haven't gone through a progression to get to the point where you can do this.
also i didn't say that you shouldn't have an opinion. (that's another one.)
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:52 PM
What opinion should I have had, if not that one?
curi 21-Aug-19 08:53 PM
you have a pattern of problematic selective responses.
does it really make sense to ask me to explain that matter to you at this time, given my sum up?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:57 PM
If you don't feel interested in answering you don't have to, but I don't agree with your sum up so it isn't really relevant
curi 21-Aug-19 08:58 PM
in "it isn't really relevant", what does "it" refer to?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 08:58 PM
the sum up
curi 21-Aug-19 08:59 PM
so you mean something like: Your idea is irrelevant because I disagree with it. ?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 09:03 PM
I meant that since I don't agree with your sum up, I am not going to stop asking questions just because you've asserted it
curi 21-Aug-19 09:04 PM
Suppose, hypothetically, that I've been right about everything in this discussion. What could I do to get through to you?
What would change your mind?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 09:13 PM
No idea, honestly
other than something vague like "a convincing argument"
curi 21-Aug-19 09:13 PM
one of the basic ideas of rational discussion is to have an answer to that question.
Felix The Cat 21-Aug-19 09:13 PM
Does it happen often to you that you are accused of being hostile but you think you're not?
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 09:14 PM
Out of curiosity, what would your answer be if I asked you the same question?
curi 21-Aug-19 09:14 PM
cat, do you think your question is hostile?
@Hopenager e.g. you could follow my paths forward policy.
Felix The Cat 21-Aug-19 09:15 PM
Yes, I think you're hostile and the fact that you are so confused that you think you are not is even worse.
curi 21-Aug-19 09:15 PM
ok, so you're being hostile on purpose. it's an open, conscious intention.
not a slip up. not an old habit. but your actual goal.
Felix The Cat 21-Aug-19 09:17 PM
I don't like abusive people. Like imagine a teacher behaved the way you do toward a student. Forcing them to adapt how to communicate towards the teacher or receive hostile arguments.
curi 21-Aug-19 09:17 PM
not being the puppet of memes without realizing it. you want to be hostile.
that is inappropriate here. that is not what this chatroom is for. please stop or leave.
Felix The Cat 21-Aug-19 09:18 PM
You are avoiding the question. Does it happen often that people find you hostile, and you did not intend to be? Either you lack social skills or you are intentionally hostile.
curi 21-Aug-19 09:18 PM
would anyone object to me banning cat?
@TheRatWay
Felix The Cat 21-Aug-19 09:19 PM
ah censor too
I can leave on my own. but think about it
says a lot more about you than me
peace
TheRatWay 21-Aug-19 09:27 PM
Well the point is moot now since he left. But I wouldn't have objected if that's what you thought was best. Cat unfortunately came in with intention to harm and not discuss. Ideally, he would have approached it in a problem solving manner instead.
curi 21-Aug-19 09:27 PM
FWIW i rly dislike banning and intended to use the question โ€“ and the lack of objection by anyone โ€“ to pressure him into stopping and to communicate in a way that my polite request did not. i think it worked.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 09:31 PM
...you have not built up to this by doing easier conversations successfully. you haven't gone through a progression to get to the point where you can do this.
How do you think I should go about doing this? The conversation we were having did not strike me as particularly hard, so how would I know if the conversations I'm having are easy enough to be successful?
curi 21-Aug-19 09:32 PM
look for objective ways to judge instead of using your intuition, and ask ppl (both for their conclusions and some reasons)
also do you know binary search?
TheRatWay 21-Aug-19 09:35 PM
Popper said that it is not possible to speak in such a way in where you won't be misunderstood. Because our interpretation of what someone is saying is still a guess. All I can think of is to try to restate what has been said to see if an error occurred in the guessing process.
Hopenager 21-Aug-19 09:39 PM
What are some objective ways to judge the difficulty of a conversation? Yes I know binary search
curi 21-Aug-19 09:41 PM
length. nesting level of statements and replies.
duration
number of clarifications
number of times anyone thinks there was a misunderstanding
number of times anyone thinks there was a logic error
re binary search: i suggest finding viable conversation difficulty by binary searching. i think it will work OK even if your intuition about what's hard and easy isn't very good. take the difficulty of this conversation, as you see it, and halve that. then the criterion for success is: all parties to the conversation agree it was successful. if that doesn't happen, halve the difficulty again. etc.
if you draw a tree of a conversation and look at its structure (like how much branching and nesting, and just plain does it look like a messy diagram or not), and draw a time arrow through all the nodes (and see if that is convoluted or not), and also circle in red all the nodes where someone thought something went wrong, i think it'd show a lot.
noting dropped/unresolved/open points is also good
and look at the ratio of branches opened to resolved.
our conversation i'd estimate was like 5/40 resolved/opened.
there are a lot of judgment calls when doing the counting but if you're semi-consistent for how you count different conversations, and semi-reasonable, i think it'll come out useful.
TheRatWay 21-Aug-19 09:50 PM
Sorry to interrupt but, > if you draw a tree of a conversation and look at its structure (like how much branching and nesting, and just plain does it look like a messy diagram or not), and draw a time arrow through all the nodes (and see if that is convoluted or not), and also circle in red all the nodes where someone thought something went wrong, i think it'd show a lot. Do you have by any chance a visual example of this? I am having difficulty visualizing it.
curi 21-Aug-19 09:51 PM
jsSyntaxtree - a syntax tree generator for linguists. Draw syntax trees from labelled bracket notation phrases and include them into your assignment/homework.
it'd be kinda like that with sentences or messages for the nodes.
one of the big things that skilled ppl do in conversations is keep track of that tree in their head
(or write it down as they go, but i don't know anyone who does that. i think it'd be a good idea tho.)
other things that would change my mind re the conversation include: detailed textual analysis (like i did with DD's email attacking Rand on stream the other day, there are other examples too) up to my quality standards (which includes ~zero logic errors that i see, or at least ~zero in a major, approximately-autonomous sub-section of the analysis). or doing a conversation tree diagram (possibly just of a portion of it) and pointing out some of my errors using that. or for the lesser purpose of getting me to put more attention and effort into error correcting and reconsidering, just having anything to say that would (from my perspective) take me more than a couple seconds to be able to refute, something i see as challenging rather than the issue just being how to explain the confusions or whether i'd benefit more from doing something else that wasn't so repetitive and parochial.
i try to converse to a standard of ~no errors. so any errors are surprising and notable. but ppl in general have conversations where they expect to make some mistakes. i think that means the conversation is too hard for them. it results in errors not being taken seriously and not mattering much or changing much.
the higher standard is much bolder and easier to criticize. when ppl expect some errors, it make it unclear what it takes to get them to reconsider.
TheRatWay 21-Aug-19 10:06 PM
I tried to make one for practice.
curi 21-Aug-19 10:12 PM
that is more freeform than each node (besides the first) having one parent node (attached above it) and some number of child nodes (attached below). freeform is generally more ambiguous about logical structure and involves more judgment calls.
TheRatWay 21-Aug-19 10:14 PM
I think It makes sense to me if its just one person making a statement and you have nodes for each topic and subtopic. But a conversation still escapes me how to design one.
curi 21-Aug-19 10:15 PM
to a loose approximation, it'd all be a vertical line for a simple conversation, and every tangent or topic change would branch off to the side.
or sometimes ppl make multiple points. like they have 3 replies to something. so then that something would have 3 children.
TheRatWay 21-Aug-19 10:17 PM
so a misunderstanding like in my example of misunderstanding a direction (misunderstanding a statement) would also branch of to the side?
curi 21-Aug-19 10:17 PM
it gets complicated if u say X, i reply Y1, Y2, and Y3, and then for each of those you have 3 replies. now there are 9 topics.
no sideways
[communism! [but-incentives [ppl-will-work-for-the-cause [no-ppl-r-selfish] [also-ppl-are-lazy [get-whips that-is-mean]]]] [but-freedom [earning-meals-is-wave-slavery doing-the-job-the-govt-says-is-actual-slavery]]]
TheRatWay 21-Aug-19 10:31 PM
So earlier with your conversation with Hopenager you mentioned he had made about 10 logical errors. I was going to see if I could use this Tree idea to try to find them, but it seems like this method might make it harder not easier.
Actually. Probably way overreaching. Topic has a lot of context I am unfamiliar with, mirror neurons, what dd thinks about them, what you think about them. What Hopenager thinks about them. How you think he was lying based on these things. Yeah I am definitely overreaching. I want to get better at spotting logical errors though. (edited)
curi 21-Aug-19 10:47 PM
well i (partially) pointed several out as we went along.
i think a tree could make it easier if you were already practiced with trees, but when they are a new thing then they make it harder cuz they are a distraction, an extra thing to worry about.
I think the standard criterion for judging hostile comments to Joe is: does the comment make Joe look bad socially? I think Hopenegar uses that but doesn't know what he uses.
That's why he can e.g. regard it as hostile to state that something is a lie without it depending on whether or not it really was a lie.
separately, cat was signaling bad things and that he wouldn't want to talk about them from day 1. that's always awkward to deal with.
TheRatWay 21-Aug-19 10:57 PM
Would you give me an example of a signal that he wouldn't want to talk about those bad things?
curi 21-Aug-19 10:57 PM
shrug emoji
that's like the only specific i remember offhand so i'm glad it answered the question heh.
(i mean from b4 yest)
TheRatWay 21-Aug-19 10:59 PM
Oh so he said bad thing X. and when you pointed that X is bad he just shrugged?
curi 21-Aug-19 11:02 PM
๐Ÿคทโ€โ™€๏ธ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™‚๏ธ
idk how to type it to search
๐Ÿคท
TheRatWay 21-Aug-19 11:04 PM
Yes I understood you meant the emoji. Was his use of it as a result of you pointing out a mistake he made?
curi 21-Aug-19 11:05 PM
if you figure out how to search you can see examples
can't discuss this from memory
TheRatWay 21-Aug-19 11:05 PM
I found it.
curi 21-Aug-19 11:05 PM
paste it
TheRatWay 21-Aug-19 11:05 PM
>>> Justin: LT should work on her understanding of ideas rather than meme She doesn't want to though Memes first, fuck reason/discussion/criticism Felix The CatLast Monday at 7:39 PM ๐Ÿคท Live and let live is my motto! lot of bad stuff on Twitter and insta gram. ANti vaxers, flat earthers. etc.. (edited)
the first part was said by Justin. I'll edit.
curi 21-Aug-19 11:06 PM
when i copy that emoji it shows as colon shrug colon
but it wont' come up in search
discord sucks
Pinned a message.
i pinned the start of that conversation. cat first asks if ppl dont' like memes which is a non-commital way to ... actually i'll just stream this, it'll be easier
say something in YT chat when ur listening
curi bot BOT 21-Aug-19 11:14 PM
New stream or video! #23 curi Streams Philosophy (Q&A, writing, commentary) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQZ21XGUPX0
curi 22-Aug-19 01:06 AM
^ that link now has extensive analysis of the fallible cat discussion (edited)
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 01:11 AM
Thanks again. Really cleared up a lot. It also made me reconsider my trajectory. When I came in here I said I wanted to learn CR then Read Nietzsche. During my time here I have realized that CR is even more crucial. But I want to push Nietszche back a bit further down the pipe. Based on your recommended books I want to add Szasz as something to read after Popper and Deutsch, and instead of Nietszche maybe Jung. I think this a better path for my goals in psychology.
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 01:12 AM
Hopenager: > You could have accomplished the same thing in a non-hostile way by saying "From my perspective your previous message just sounds like 'I didn't realize I was supposed to make true statements'".
Lots of people would interpret that as super hostile mockery too
curi 22-Aug-19 01:13 AM
szasz mostly isn't about social dynamics FYI
his basic thing is that psychiatry is an attack on freedom, reason and peace.
also, i have read zero jung and not much psychology. that is not where i get the info i explained. it's mostly a combination of philosophy skill + explanations of social dynamics from pick up artist ppl.
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 01:15 AM
Yes he is telling Curi that he knows a better way to accomplish that thing. Anyway, this is the latest I've stayed up in months so I am quite tired. Good night everyone, Re: on Szasz. Ah Okay, well those things are still important, and the book on suicide looks intriguing. Anyway, good night.
curi 22-Aug-19 01:16 AM
via jordan peterson i understand Jung to have some good info about symbolism in religious stories, myths, fiction, etc. which is neat but pretty different issues.
related to that
female "equality" is a type of feminist social justice, and is a major theme in Frozen. letโ€™s have 2 female leads and a weak man, and call it equalityโ€ฆ uhhhhhhhh another major social ju
also i have like 3 youtube videos analyzing pop songs
> Yes he is telling Curi that he knows a better way to accomplish that thing. i think you misunderstood justin. justin meant that if i said that text, it could have offended hopenegar. he didn't mean that hopenager's advice to me was offensive.
J meant the alternative wording is not at all socially safe.
๐Ÿ‘ 1
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 01:19 AM
Ya
curi 22-Aug-19 01:19 AM
it's actually not written well either. the "just" makes it ruder without adding value to the content. but also the quote part can easily be taken as mocking.
i'd guess it's the quote part that J mainly was reacting to
ppl will think obviously you should realize ur supposed to make true statements, so if u didn't u look like a fool, so that text is framing its target as being a fool
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 01:23 AM
People like to pretend the issue is you didn't say crit quite right. But they don't have a principled explanation of why X phrasing offends them but Y phrasing is okay. More than that, their claim that Y phrasing would have been fine frequently doesn't even make much sense according to social interpretation rules, much less reason
If Hopenager would really have been okay with that rephrasing, maybe he's getting insulted in IRL social interactions without realizing it
I guess it's just an excuse though, and he would have found his proposed wording an attack too, though maybe a bit less so?
curi 22-Aug-19 01:24 AM
btw the issues of whether i said anything hostile or whether i said anything rude are separate issues.
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 01:25 AM
I'm not clear on that
curi 22-Aug-19 01:25 AM
ppl mix those up. i remember dennis basically thot rude implies hostile.
but like, rude is hard to avoid in various cases, and some of the rules about it are dumb
so sometimes e.g. i just say shit i think is factual, bluntly, and ppl think that's rude. ok mb it's rude but that doesn't mean i'm hostile to them.
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 01:25 AM
is rude like social rules and hostility is actual attitude of a person
curi 22-Aug-19 01:26 AM
that's a reasonable view
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 01:26 AM
Okay ๐Ÿ‘Œ
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 03:39 AM
Cat > Does it happen often to you that you are accused of being hostile but you think you're not?
This is an appeal to the authority of prevailing social attitudes masquerading as a question
Cat thinks the answer is "yes" and this shows that Elliot is hostile
But he didn't have the courage to say "I think people frequently accuse you of hostility when you think you are not being hostile, and that fact indicates the problem is you."
That would be a direct, forthright claim
Cat didn't wanna to make that (edited)
Cat wasn't genuinely soliciting info
If elliot said "no", Cat would probably think that elliot is lying. If elliot said "yes" or "why?" Cat would have his view confirmed
So it wasn't a real question
It was an attack that happens to be punctuated with a question mark
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 04:30 AM
Notable that Cat took issue with crit of Lulie memes
Gives some indication as to quality of thinker her stuff appeals to
AnneB 22-Aug-19 05:11 AM
Cat: > Does it happen often to you that you are accused of being hostile but you think you're not? Justin: > Cat thinks the answer is "yes" and this shows that Elliot is hostile > But he didn't have the courage to say "I think people frequently accuse you of hostility when you think you are not being hostile, and that fact indicates the problem is you." It's possible that Cat could have had a different kind of idea behind the question. Cat could have meant something like, โ€œOh, if other people also think you're hostile then maybe you don't have an unusual hostility towards me. You're not out to get me in particular, that's just how you are.โ€ I don't know how likely this is. (edited)
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 05:34 AM
That sort of motivation for question would make sense for someone who was kind of fragile but trying to reassure themselves so that they could continue conversation productively, something like that
I didn't really see anything from Cat to indicate that was his attitude
AnneB 22-Aug-19 06:15 AM
I think curi said on stream #22 that people here other than Justin don't make videos of themselves doing FI stuff, and that they don't say why. So I'll say why I don't.
Figuring out the technology is a barrier to me.
I'm worried about privacy, voice recognition technology.
I don't see how it would be much benefit to me.
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 06:52 AM
I'm happy to do minor tech consulting for free or major tech consulting for cash
What specific privacy concerns do u have
Elaborate re: voice recognition?
You don't see value of feedback you might get from curi or others watching your vids and making comments?
AnneB 22-Aug-19 06:54 AM
I'm worried about if in the future, people can tie my voice in present videos to my real name.
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 06:54 AM
Do you think curi commenting on my grammar vids on his stream is valueless for me?
I still don't quite get the exact concern re voice recognition
One thing is that I think you would need a sample of someone's voice definitely tied to their personal identity in order to search for stuff on YouTube to match up against that sample
Some random internet person is unlikely to have such a sample
The govt plausibly might. So is that the concern? Govt oppression
That's what I mean by not getting exact concern. Like the scenario you are concerned about
I guess maybe with smart phones everywhere people could conceivably just go around shazaaming people, recording their voice and trying to find matches online with some app that doesn't exist yet
maybe people could contribute to a voiceprint database of known voices by making recordings and labeling people's voices without people's consent, and then you could scan YouTube vids against that database, like they do for music copyright
Sounds like a big project and I think that would attract govt attention
Anyways these are just some half baked thoughts. I will be interested in what curi says. But big picture, I think if a concern is stopping you from doing something, you should try and really think it through rigorously and carefully
I don't think having some privacy concerns is unreasonable, but specific concerns might turn out to have criticism or there might be ways to solve the issue and still do the project
You can change your voice btw
Like with software
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 07:56 AM
I think the standard criterion for judging hostile comments to Joe is: does the comment make Joe look bad socially? I think Hopenegar uses that but doesn't know what he uses.
Nope. If I had made an embarrassing spelling error, and you had pointed it out, that would make me look bad socially, but I would not perceive it as hostile
That's why he can e.g. regard it as hostile to state that something is a lie without it depending on whether or not it really was a lie.
Of course it doesn't depend on whether it really was a lie. Hostility is a matter of tone, not a matter of whether you claim is true
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 08:16 AM
@Hopenager what do you think about distinction between rudeness and hostility curi mentioned
curi 22-Aug-19 08:33 AM
> If I had made an embarrassing spelling error, and you had pointed it out, that would make me look bad socially, but I would not perceive it as hostile do you understand that this is an unargued assertion? also what spelling error would be embarrassing but only if pointed out?
hostility is not a matter of tone. you have absolutely no idea what the word means that you were trying to debate.
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 08:35 AM
Justin, yeah sure I agree there's a distinction between the two. Using the distinction you said earlier, is rude like social rules and hostility is actual attitude of a person, I would say that curi's chats implied that he had a hostile attitude, not merely that he was rude
curi 22-Aug-19 08:36 AM
also where is the tone to complain about in a blunt, minimalist statement like "X is a lie"?
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 08:38 AM
curi, yeah it was an unargued assertion. A spelling error that would be embarrassing only if pointed out would be like if I made an error that people were unlikely to notice, but that when they did notice it would cast doubt on my familiarity with the subject matter, for instance.
curi 22-Aug-19 08:39 AM
> Figuring out the technology is a barrier to me. i think this is a bad reason. your overall effort level for philosophy is high enough that it isn't a big barrier relative to that.
> I'm worried about privacy, voice recognition technology. that's a real concern
@Hopenager for example?
> I don't see how it would be much benefit to me. this seems unreasonable. maybe you didn't give it much thought. or do you think that J and I haven't benefitted much from our videos?
@Hopenager btw i'm only interested in an example you already had in mind, if any, when you made the original statement.
> You can change your voice btw > Like with software idk how well present voice changes will defend against future software trying to do voice identification. maybe e.g. some will still work in the future but some won't. just making it sound different to ppl doesn't mean it'll fool algorithms
however, one can make videos without talking.
you could also use speech to text followed immediately by text to speech. that'd be privacy safe but probably iffy quality.
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 08:45 AM
Imagine that I said I was an expert on some philosopher that most people hadn't heard of, but I made a glaring error in the spelling of the philosopher's name. Most people wouldn't know enough about the philosopher to notice, but if you were familiar with him, and you corrected my mistake, it would cast doubt on my claim that I was an expert on him, which would presumably be embarrassing
curi 22-Aug-19 08:47 AM
@JustinCEO i guess some ppl she knows IRL, like friends, family and coworkers, have some videos that contain her voice. i guess she's maintaining ongoing associations with ppl who do not know some of her ideas and she plans to continue this indefinitely. while there is certainly a negative aspect to that, a downside, it could be reasonable in her situation, couldn't really comment without more info
@Hopenager that is not an example, it's a category of example. i don't think you had in mind any actual situation.
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 08:49 AM
Is it a problem that I gave a category of example rather than a specific one? I had that situation in mind before you asked the question, absent the detail that the specific the thing being named was a philosopher
curi 22-Aug-19 08:51 AM
making unargued assertions about your exceptional rationality from a highly abstract perspective, without testing yourself in even one imaginary concrete scenario (to try to find out what your actual reaction is instead of what you would like it to be), is a bad method. doesn't work well.
warning: i may leave at any time and may not continue this later.
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 08:54 AM
That's fine, I don't think this conversation is going to be productive anyhow
curi 22-Aug-19 08:54 AM
why?
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 08:58 AM
Because I don't feel as though I've learned anything worthwhile in this conversation so far and I don't see any reason to expect that to change
curi 22-Aug-19 09:02 AM
most of what happened is you answered one question. you were expecting a large, immediate benefit from that?
was there a part of the conversation where you did something to try to get a benefit and it didn't work?
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 09:10 AM
I meant to include our chats last night under "this conversation", not just the time we've been talking today
curi 22-Aug-19 09:24 AM
oh, you don't value a conversation in which you received criticism which would be very valuable to you if true, and which you have not yet figured out how to evaluate correctly.
(a correct evaluation method can go either way, it can agree or disagree, but you were unclear on what would result in you agreeing)
curi 22-Aug-19 09:37 AM
and you didn't think it was worthwhile to learn about false exaggerations. maybe you'll find it worthwhile to know that your plan to stop doing them failed (I don't feel as though I've learned anything). and you also didn't think it was worthwhile to learn about the idea of considering what would change your mind in a conversation.
planning to stop doing them here, but continuing, shows you have less control over your thought and action than believed. i regard that as a rather important and common thing.
also a sign you may be wrong about more stuff than you realized.
but it's hard for me to know what to point out, of the many options, because you yourself have not figured out what would convince you.
but somehow you're putting blame on me!
(i think. i don't recall you actually saying you're putting blame on me, but i take it as implied.)
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 09:56 AM
I didn't learn anything about exaggerations other than that you dislike them. When did I exaggerate after saying I wouldn't? I don't recall doing so, but I certainly could have accidently
curi 22-Aug-19 09:59 AM
> When did I exaggerate after saying I wouldn't? >> I don't feel as though I've learned anything (edited)
ugh
the markdown for quoting here is buggy
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:00 AM
The word "worthwhile" is an important qualifier there.
I don't believe that's an exaggeration
curi 22-Aug-19 10:01 AM
not a single tiny thing you learned was worth learning?
you're sabotaging the discussion again
you're putting effort into taking it in directions you won't like
you won't be satisfied if you eventually concede this sub-branch.
and you will have dodged the ones that would be more important to you
> but it's hard for me to know what to point out, of the many options, because you yourself have not figured out what would convince you. then, ignoring that, he picks one that would not convince him to talk about.
and he asked for an example after i'd already given it.
he didn't recognize his own text
despite the bolding
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:09 AM
*she
I didn't recognize it because you misquoted me
Khaaan 22-Aug-19 10:10 AM
Hopenager: What are some objective ways to judge the difficulty of a conversation? Yes I know binary search curi: length. nesting level of statements and replies. duration number of clarifications number of times anyone thinks there was a misunderstanding number of times anyone thinks there was a logic error re binary search: i suggest finding viable conversation difficulty by binary searching. i think it will work OK even if your intuition about what's hard and easy isn't very good. take the difficulty of this conversation, as you see it, and halve that. then the criterion for success is: all parties to the conversation agree it was successful. if that doesn't happen, halve the difficulty again. etc. if you draw a tree of a conversation and look at its structure (like how much branching and nesting, and just plain does it look like a messy diagram or not), and draw a time arrow through all the nodes (and see if that is convoluted or not), and also circle in red all the nodes where someone thought something went wrong, i think it'd show a lot. noting dropped/unresolved/open points is also good and look at the ratio of branches opened to resolved. our conversation i'd estimate was like 5/40 resolved/opened. there are a lot of judgment calls when doing the counting but if you're semi-consistent for how you count different conversations, and semi-reasonable, i think it'll come out useful.
curi 22-Aug-19 10:10 AM
what misquote?
Khaaan 22-Aug-19 10:10 AM
Hopenager: You didn't learn anything worthwhile from curi's answer there?
curi 22-Aug-19 10:10 AM
that shows she's using a typical reading process. what ppl do is if they don't understand the purpose of some text, they often ignore it and just try to move forward while ignoring the problem. they don't come up with a viable interpretation of its purpose. this routinely sabotages discussions.
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:10 AM
you removed the qualifier "worthwhile", which was obviously essential to the meaning of the claim
curi 22-Aug-19 10:11 AM
you don't know what a misquote is
i used consecutive words
you're again trying to debate a minor sub-point where, if you lose, you won't find it worthwhile
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:17 AM
Khaaan, no, I didn't find that very worthwhile, it didn't seem like a good suggestion. I don't plan to have "easy" conversation for the sake of learning rather than just discussing what I find interesting. Doing so sounds boring. And the suggested methods for determining the difficulty of a conversation do not seem better than an intuitive assessment
curi 22-Aug-19 10:18 AM
why didn't you say any of that before?
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:20 AM
You said many things after I stopped reading here last night, and I did not feel like responding to all of them
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:20 AM
>>> via jordan peterson i understand Jung to have some good info about symbolism in religious stories, myths, fiction, etc. which is neat but pretty different issues.
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:20 AM
Because, as I've said, this conversation has not been very productive so far, so I didn't expect the effort to be worth it
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:21 AM
In addition I think there is some good things about personal transformation, and dealing with criticism (from self and other.) That may well be worth exploring. Could be a dead end but I still want to explore it when the time comes (edited)
curi 22-Aug-19 10:21 AM
what would change your mind @Hopenager ?
if you're wrong, how might you find out?
or is this a situation where, if you're wrong, you will stay wrong?
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:22 AM
What would change my mind about what?
about the productiveness of this conversation?
curi 22-Aug-19 10:22 AM
about the important issues
does it really matter which ones specifically?
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:24 AM
Well yeah, it does. If you're just asking me in general how I hope to find out how I'm wrong, it's by being open to criticism and good arguments. To be more specific than that I'd need to know which specific issue you're asking about
curi 22-Aug-19 10:24 AM
suppose i made good arguments, and my criticisms were true, but you didn't realize it. by what process does that get fixed?
your method is basically to rely on your judgment, but where is the error correction mechanism in case your judgment is in error?
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 10:28 AM
@Hopenager You don't find the conversation productive and aren't open to suggestions regarding different approaches you could take to discussion. You want your current ideas about what sounds boring to authoritatively and conclusively guide your actions without even spending a couple hours seriously trying out a different approach/method. I don't think this is a rational approach
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:31 AM
Curi, the method of error correction for my own judgement is the same, being open to criticisms about my judgement
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:32 AM
I'll like to try a guess for a method. (btw if interjecting between Curi/Justin teaching someone is bad etiquette please let me know) First assume fallibility, I assume I am probably wrong about most things. Take a criticism seriously, imagine how it would be different if I adopted that criticism, specifically if it would help me problem solve more.
curi 22-Aug-19 10:32 AM
ok and what sort of thing might i say, at this point, which would get you to change your mind about your judgment of our conversation and my claims in it?
what kind of criticism might work?
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:32 AM
Justin, I am open to such suggestions. But the suggestions curi gave did not sound fun. I am not taking my current ideas about boringness go be authoritative, they could be wrong, of course.
curi 22-Aug-19 10:33 AM
> (btw if interjecting between Curi/Justin teaching someone is bad etiquette please let me know) one of the advantages of text is everyone can talk at once. don't worry about it. if anyone cares that much they can use a real forum (curi or FI)
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:34 AM
Curi, aren't you essentially asking me to make an argument against my own position? If I knew a good criticism of my judgement then I already would have taken it into account and changed my judgement
Khaaan 22-Aug-19 10:34 AM
It's curi, not Curi
๐Ÿ‘Œ 1
curi 22-Aug-19 10:34 AM
can you give any category of what would work? (edited)
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 10:34 AM
@Hopenager What three specific things have you done to get criticism on your boringness ideas
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:35 AM
Thank you Alisa. I had not noticed.
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:37 AM
curi, sure: a good argument about why it wouldn't be boring to do what you're suggesting, and why it would instead be fun or interesting (edited)
curi 22-Aug-19 10:38 AM
it would be fun and interesting because you would find that you make much more progress. it being effective would lead to the fun and interest.
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:41 AM
I don't think that the lack of progress in this conversation has been the result of it being too "difficult". Going back to the beginning, I suspect this conversation could have been quite productive if you'd stayed on the topic of mirror neurons instead of questioning my motives and calling me a liar
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:45 AM
I noticed that you play Dota. I don't play that game but I have played a similar game (LOL) and maybe I can give an analogy that might be useful. So often times new players will atempt to play the game and learn it by starting with a very mechanically demanding character(champion). They think that the "easy" characters are boring and not worth their time. However, if they were to start with an easy character and really focus on learning with easy steps. They would soon realize just how much they were missing and how fun it can be. Small things like mastering last hitting, wave manipulation, reading opponent movements, reading the map, prioritizing objectives etc. However, people often go for the flashy looking champion and neglect all those things, and are usually stuck in the lower tiers for a long time and never learn.
curi 22-Aug-19 10:46 AM
who plays dota? i don't
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:46 AM
meant for Hopenager I beleive I saw on the side that he was playing dota
curi 22-Aug-19 10:47 AM
@Hopenager you're moving the goalposts. the issue was why, in general, would a particular approach to learning and discussion be fun and interesting? i answered. my answer, in short, is that it will be those things if it's effective, so the issue hangs on its effectiveness. your response is not to the point.
you were questioning and objecting to the wrong aspect of the suggestion. you were mistaken.
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:48 AM
I dont play dota, but I have been playing dota undelords, which is different game of a similar name so I get the confusion. But I understand your analogy
I just don't agree that the reason for lack of progress here is the inherent difficulty of the topic
curi 22-Aug-19 10:49 AM
i don't expect you to appreciate the corerction even though it's the exact one that you said would change your mind in a major way.
> I just don't agree that the reason for lack of progress here is the inherent difficulty of the topic that literally is not what we were talking about.
you are not being logical
> curi, sure: a good argument about why it wouldn't be boring to do what you're suggesting, and why it would instead be fun or interesting
> I just don't agree that the reason for lack of progress here is the inherent difficulty of the topic
read these together
you do not have the skill you think you have.
i just explained this and you doubled down on this error.
@TheRatWay i agree re dota example. common thing and relevant.
you also made another false exaggeration: "I just don't agree that [...]" (the "just")
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:56 AM
You said that following your suggestion of having conversations would be interesting and fun because it would be more effective. I was contradicting that claim, by saying that the lack of effectiveness of this conversation isn't caused by the inherent difficulty of the topic, so trying to have an "easier" conversation wouldn't necessarily solve the effectiveness problem
curi 22-Aug-19 10:56 AM
you are arguing a second, separate topic which is not what you asked for
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:57 AM
It is a related topic
curi 22-Aug-19 10:57 AM
if you thought it woudln't be fun because it wouldn't be effective, you should have questioned the effectiveness not the fun.
but you brought up the fun issue. was that a mistake?
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 10:57 AM
that is what I'm doing
no, it wasn't a mistake to bring up fun. The reason that effectiveness is relevant in the first place is because of it's relationship to fun
curi 22-Aug-19 11:00 AM
you don't think that whether my suggestion would work or not work is relevant on its own, directly?
you think that's only relevant via its consequences for fun?
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 11:03 AM
That may be relevant on its own too. But I think it made sense to bring up the other issue as well, since it was relevant and helped explain my position
curi 22-Aug-19 11:04 AM
> That may be relevant on its own too. do you think it is or isn't? you're hedging.
this appears to be a standard social way that ppl try to avoid admitting they were wrong, which is contrary to CR.
both in terms of the anti-error-correction aspect and also Popper's advice about sticking your neck out and bold claims that are easy to refute.
the hedged concession was immediately followed by a topic changing excuse. that also appears to be standard social status competition behavior.
if Hopenegar does not know enough about social dynamics to respond directly and to the point about those issues, without further explanation, then it's an indication she also doesn't know enough to judge whether she's doing them.
that is: i would expect the person with the skill to not do those social things would also be able to explain why that appearance happened, show understanding of the standard interpretation while denying it, and also offer an alternative interpretation. they'd be conversant in the issues. actually the skill needed to not do it is considerably more (on avg โ€“ yes there's variation) than the skill to talk about it.
separately > What are some objective ways to judge the difficulty of a conversation? and > Khaaan, no, I didn't find that very worthwhile, it didn't seem like a good suggestion. I don't plan to have "easy" conversation for the sake of learning rather than just discussing what I find interesting. Doing so sounds boring. And the suggested methods for determining the difficulty of a conversation do not seem better than an intuitive assessment none of these objections claim that my answer to the question asked was incorrect. so hopenegar didn't find it worthwhile to receive a correct answer to the question she asked? was it a bad question? was the lack of worthwhileness her fault because she made a mistake? did she ask for information she didn't want, then blame me for her not getting what she wanted out of the conversation? (edited)
curi 22-Aug-19 11:30 AM
>> That may be relevant on its own too. > do you think it is or isn't? you're hedging. the AFK timing, while it could be a coincidence, does not appear to be. she hedged because she wanted to hedge. she didn't want to make a clear statement. she was avoiding making a clear statement. then she AFKed rather than make a clear statement. she didn't see a way to continue the conversation and continue hedging in this way. (edited)
what usually happens in situations like this is the person can rationalize the AFK timing b/c e.g. they are busy. but what's typical is they were also busy earlier in the conversation and did not leave. often the pressure to stop (cuz busy, other stuff to do) escalates, but only gradually, and the actual AFK timing is due to a non-gradual escalation where there is a particular statement the person dislikes in some way.
also what usually happens if i write this kind of analysis is the person doesn't want to talk about it or the original issue. but i think it's interesting and beneficial to others as well, and i think the social pressure to suppress the analysis is bad.
this is not reliable. maybe her boss caught her on her phone at just that moment. but it's likely in our cultural context.
it shouldn't be offensive (even if her boss caught her on her phone just then). it's reasonable, objective, impersonal analysis. but ppl get really offended by this sort of thing.
and they get extra offended if, in this particular case, they had a compelling reason to leave at that moment unrelated to the conversation.
even though that has no rational bearing on how i should analyze, and i already took it into account.
but in that scenario it generally feels to them like i was wrong moreso than if they had no good excuse for leaving at that particular timing. so they get more aggro about it
(they wouldn't be very good at poker. seriously. and that's a real thing about poker, most ppl suck at that kind of analysis)
(good poker players are like "i made the right play because it maximized my mathematically expected winnings if i made that play a trillion times in that situation". and it does not matter at all whether they actually win the hand or lose it. but most ppl focus a lot on the actual hand outcome to judge the play.)
(ppl get extra confused also by 1) incomplete information. like estimating hand ranges for opponents and getting that wrong even tho it was the best estimate to make given the info. that seems different to them, and more mistaken, than a game of chance where you have complete information. 2) hands where the expected value of your play is negative.)
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 11:59 AM
You're right that I was hedging, and I should have know it would be a bad idea to do that in this discussion. I agree that the question of whether or not your suggestion would work was relevant.
curi 22-Aug-19 11:59 AM
so when you said: > The reason that effectiveness is relevant in the first place is because of it's relationship to fun you were mistaken? (emphasis on the first "the") (edited)
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 12:01 PM
Yes, though I would stand by the claim if it were modified to have a "main" after the first "the"
curi 22-Aug-19 12:01 PM
you think that whether something works is not a main issue about it?
Hopenager 22-Aug-19 12:02 PM
it was not the main issue of the conversation
curi 22-Aug-19 12:02 PM
the issue was not conversational relevance but the relevance of ideas to other ideas.
curi 22-Aug-19 12:16 PM
given that you've now agreed you made some errors that i detected, does it seem conceivable to you that you may have made, say, 50% or more of the errors i thought i detected yesterday?
and if so, would you regard those errors as important and be highly interested in learning more? or not?
and if so, what might convince you that's a realistic enough scenario to investigate, rather than one to ignore b/c you didn't find the conversation productive enough in which that problem may have been caused by your own errors.
separately, you have not established that i made any error. if you could do that, it could be some kind of indication i was wrong about some of my claims. is there any point you think is especially clear where you'd be able to do that briefly?
i would appreciate a conceptual correction (as against e.g. a typo)
i find it amazing that ppl will give up on discussions without establishing objectively that the other guy was wrong about anything. but they do all the time. really typical. and they often do it without even claiming that they objectively established it.
some ppl claim that really carelessly. they just assert it. but the somewhat better ones don't want to claim that. to claim it somewhat reasonably, they have to be able to point objectively at various arguments they made that they claim were adequate and claim they addressed all concerns and objections and that it meets the standards that rationally should be enough. and often the conversation doesn't resemble that at all. there is nothing in that ballpark that happened. (edited)
they have to say "i made a adequately full and complete case that X. it consisted of the following points i made. and i addressed your first 7 questions and then i pointed out the error in the pattern of ad hoc questions you were asking rather than address additional questions individually"
something like that
then one can reasonably think they did enough. but ppl are content to move on without even trying to do that.
i'm not saying that pointing out one error like that is sufficient. it better be an important error or something. and really the key issue is the lack of error correction (which is an important error pretty regardless of what the first error is). but pointing out one error like that is necessary. if you don't, what you did is insufficient. if you don't objectively make the case that anything the other guy said is wrong, it's unreasonable for you to dismiss them.
some ppl think they have such a case in their head. but then they are hiding it from criticism. and the 7 questions (or criticisms and counter-arguments) part didn't happen properly in that case.
curi 22-Aug-19 01:14 PM
(to be clear: comments and interjections and whatever from anyone are welcome)
(i think lots of what i said is of general interest)
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 01:24 PM
I was reading some of the links you provided last night. One analysis (I think done by Alan) stood out to me. It looked at a short paragraph from Percival (Facebook CR) and found a bunch of analogies to violence. I do recall reading that particular exchange and the manipulation and appeals to violence and authority went right past me without notice.
curi 22-Aug-19 01:25 PM
the analogizing of discussion/debate and violence is common ๐Ÿ˜ฆ (edited)
it's even more common in politics
we must "fight" for our guy to win the election! (edited)
pointing it out has been a theme in the FI community for many years. i wonder who started it
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 01:29 PM
I don't know where I read that Wittgenstein threatened Popper with violence when he could not win via arguments.
curi 22-Aug-19 01:29 PM
it was with a "poker" if you wanna google it
alanforr 22-Aug-19 01:36 PM
Popper's account of the poker incident is in Section 26 of "Unended Quest".
๐Ÿ‘ 1
AnneB 22-Aug-19 01:59 PM
Another problem I have with making a video of myself doing FI is that I am imagining it getting posted on youtube where anyone could run across it. Most people wouldn't know the context of what I was doing. When I post in FI places, whatever I write is within the framework of the FI list/blog/discord. I suppose I could put something in the description to explain.
What kinds of things have people gotten out of making videos of themselves doing philosophy that they wouldn't have gotten out of just writing about it? Or that they wouldn't have gotten out of recording themselves and not sharing it with anyone else?
curi 22-Aug-19 02:20 PM
You can do unlisted videos that ppl only reach via direct link (edited)
AnneB 22-Aug-19 02:21 PM
I didn't know that.
curi 22-Aug-19 02:24 PM
re benefits u can e.g. see some feedback justin got on my stream
internetrules 22-Aug-19 02:24 PM
>1:25 PM] curi: the analogizing of discussion/debate and violence is common . . . 1:27 PM] curi: pointing it out has been a theme in the FI community for many years. i wonder who started it i remembered you saying something about a tweet and about people treating criticism as punches, rather than as gifts. so using basic google fu i just looked up "site:curi.us gift punches" and was able to find it in the second result. google fu is useful.
AnneB 22-Aug-19 02:25 PM
curi, do you mean Justin got feedback on something he said on a video that he didn't write anywhere?
Or was it more like feedback on his process?
curi 22-Aug-19 02:30 PM
both i think. but didn't u watch some and see for yourself? that's why i wasn't specific.
AnneB 22-Aug-19 02:31 PM
I watched but didn't remember what kinds of things he got feedback on.
AnneB 22-Aug-19 02:43 PM
I think I have my hands full with grammar so I don't want to take on the project of figuring out how to make videos now. It wouldn't be trivial for me to get started with that. It doesn't seem very important to me. But maybe I'm wrong?
curi 22-Aug-19 02:45 PM
up2u. re feedback i won't try to answer. justin will have a better perspective on it
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 02:51 PM
> 5:20 PM] curi: You can do unlisted videos that ppl only reach via direct link > [5:21 PM] AnneB: I didn't know that. (edited)
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 02:52 PM
curi wrote, >>> Some lies don't involve a conscious effort to deceive at the time they are told. For example, you might knowingly tell a lie a bunch of times, but then start saying the same thing habitually without consciously thinking about the fact that it's a lie. Do you think it's reasonable to count that as a lie? Another issue is when someone doesn't make a reasonable effort to find out if something is true or false. If you say something is true, then (in many contexts) you imply you made some reasonable effort to consider and investigate whether it's true or false. You're saying your belief that it's true was the result of a thought process, and you're implying various things about the nature of that thought process. If you didn't make that effort โ€“ e.g. if you just said it carelessly/thoughtlessly but in a writing style suggesting you gave it careful consideration โ€“ then I think it's a lie. Does that make sense to you? Even if the person didn't consciously think this all through? (edited)
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 02:52 PM
@AnneB if you were super eager to explore the idea of making videos you'd figure out a ton of ways to deal with various objections you have. And maybe you would still have objections that survive, but you'd have a different perspective on the project than you have now, and I think that would be good. (edited)
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 02:53 PM
Last paragraph is not meant to be quote. I don't know how to keep that from happening.
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 02:54 PM
@TheRatWay if you try and edit the message, is there a ">" on the same line as the stuff you don't want quoted OR the blank line preceding that stuff? (edited)
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 02:55 PM
The way I wrote it was >>>(Pasted curi's message) then shift enter enter my message. but it included my message as part of the >>> quotes.
Khaaan 22-Aug-19 02:55 PM
@TheRat: Do you believe it's possible to lie by implication? It looks to me like curi is talking about an instance of that.
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 02:56 PM
heh Rat now it's under quoted
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 02:56 PM
well that made it worse. Sorry. Fixing it
JustinCEO 22-Aug-19 02:56 PM
np
@AnneB re: videos I think it'd be worth trying to at least get to some level 2 objections instead of being like "my level 1 objections win, i'm not doing it"
by level 1 and 2 i mean like, level 1 = first set of crits of doing project u think of. then you refute those, but then come up with some more. those are level 2
if nothing else, even if u don't make videos, doing this will take u from
> But maybe I'm wrong? (edited)
to
saying (confidently): "I've thought about it carefully, and have other priorities right now."
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 03:11 PM
So that went form bad to worse in regards to clarity.(also got a phone call in the middle of this) I'll restate my interpretation of curi's quote above, As I understand it curi is explaining the difference between a mistake and a lie. If I make a statement X, and X is false, and I did not make the effort to find out the truth, then I am lying. Even if I am not consciously trying to deceive. However, If I state X after making a reasonable effort, then it is a mistake not a lie. Did I interpret that correctly?
curi 22-Aug-19 03:11 PM
(not caught up, saying my own stuff): lying is common. lying without consciously realizing it is common. hop being hostile to that type of criticism โ€“ about a common problem that ppl are commonly blind to having โ€“ is bad. i do not expect putting this perspective on it to fix it. but ppl should want to know if they might be lying. they should be enthusiastically seeking out info of that nature. it should be a high priority.
hop was adversarial today in a carryover from yesterday after lying, yesterday, that certain things were OK.
this came up WRT having a lie pointed out and WRT her unreasonable and illogical claim about handling everything fine and still being here implying it's fine. (edited)
WRT the first lie which i pointed out, she proceeded in a manner which implied that was fine, but was actually holding a grudge about it which she brought up later. the rational thing to do is address it at the time if you have a problem with it. but she does normal social conflict-hiding.
then is unhappy that ppl like me do not act according to the preferences she has but won't state
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 03:14 PM
Oh sorry I did not make it clear. The context of your quote was from the email in where you asked if people could spot LT's lies on that facebook post. Someone asked why you were using the word "lie" vs the word "mistake." And the quote above was your answer.
curi 22-Aug-19 03:15 PM
how can that work in general? b/c everyone is or is expected to be approximately the same in a variety of ways. e.g. ~everyone hates being caught lying, whether in fact they lied or not, either way. so the standard of interaction she's used ot, which is normal, is to treat ppl based on their assumed preferences instead of stated ones, so they don't have to state things like "i am closed minded about potential lying by me"
so ppl treat each other by stereotypes, by assuming everyone is conventional. this pushes ppl to be more conventional, b/c they get treated like it either way, it makes it harder to be anything else.
and ppl punish you if you do anything different. e.g. hop being unhappy with me for following FI forum norms โ€“ which she never asked about or tried to understand โ€“ instead of those standard social norms.
and ppl routinely ignore my explicit, direct, clearly stated requests to be treated certain unconventional ways, e.g. to be told true statements instead of biased, false exaggerations
ppl typically see making a request about how you're treated, or expressing a preference about it, as admitting weakness (and/or trying to control them) and they attack you for it rather than trying to help.
separately, hop ... fuck i had a MAJOR other point. i just need a tiny trigger and i'll remember it all. hmmm
remembered. ppl ignore lots of what others say. when hop didn't recognize the quote of herself from a few minutes earlier, the main issue wasn't the failure to recognize it (which is one sign, of many, of lack of discussion experience and skill). the main issue was not asking what the text was. she had no viable theory of what that text was for and proceeded as if it wasn't there or didn't matter. this is very standard. ppl do this with each other all the time. if they think some text doesn't make sense or is dumb, they will try to ignore it and respond to other stuff.
this is, in general from a universal perspective, irrational. one needs a non-refuted theory of what the other person is saying to respond to. without one, one should seek clarification. if you don't, you are causing misunderstandings. and a lot of the misunderstandings will be hard to trace back to what you did. they will be all over the place and you won't know their source. happens a ton. affected lots of my conversation with hop. came up all over in ways that are hard to identify.
there are some reasons ppl do this. the idea of actually understanding everything the other guy is saying is more work. but if you're going to have a conversation it's worth doing it effectively instead of doing it badly to save effort (so you're sabotaging the effort you do put in). and ppl see it as effort with low rewards b/c they often talk with dumb ppl who say a bunch of dumb, pointless, confused stuff.
in the short term, their conversations seem to improve when they ignore most of the crap instead of responding to all of it (which just gets them even more crap in reply, in the sub-topics they're creating, and it spirals out of control)
however, they make mistakes when judging what's crap โ€“ and those mistakes are systematically biased, not random (they have blind spots and keep ignoring some of the info they most need). so even if the mistakes are uncommon, they're still a big deal. and it does cause a lot of the misunderstandings in the discussion that they blame on the other guy being dumb. and their discussion method is unsuitable for talking with good, worthwhile ppl who aren't saying crap. and it's hard to turn off and change methods.
and their method results in them not understanding what ppl are like, b/c they've spent their life not thinking about a lot of what ppl say to them.
this results in misunderstanding the world as well as e.g. being friends, spouses or business partners with the wrong ppl
this is part of the general issue of whether or not to accept error, and just try to put up with it, or whether to only ever use ideas that you don't know any errors with.
when you don't understand why someone said something, there is an error in your understanding of their communication. if you try to ignore this, you're not doing rational problem solving and you're undermining the whole project of the discussion by inserting contradictions, errors, cracks, flaws, etc, into the foundation (later discusion will build on it)
if you think an error is tangential, you can say so and see if the other person agrees. (say you think X might be an error, but you think it can be disregarded either way, whoever is right, b/c of being off-topic, and see if the other person agrees or not)
this is a major way that smart ppl cause the confusions and problems in their conversations with dumber ppl. a way the smarter guy bears a lot of the fault. i think smart ppl do this more b/c they see more dumbness. however, dumb ppl do it plenty too, partly b/c they just find it too hard to figure out what stuff means and they gave up on clearly understanding much during childhood.
we have a clear example of hop doing this and i suspect she did it at least 10 other times.
if i'm right and have good points and whatever, her actions โ€“ ignoring parts she doesn't understand โ€“ would prevent her from finding out and learning.
it causes major chaos b/c i don't know which parts she didn't understand. it's hidden from me.
so i can't try again to explain those parts. and then when i build on something she didn't understand, she often won't tell me about that problem either, she'll ignore that too.
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 03:31 PM
Btw your Lying essay answered my question.
curi 22-Aug-19 03:33 PM
so there are basically all these errors throughout the discussion that i don't have much information about, i don't know where they are. from my perspective, there are a bunch of random errors being inserted into what happens. that's really hard to deal with. basically the only way to deal with random errors is with generic, general purpose methods. i can't target the specific misunderstandings if they are silently ignored. so what does that leave? try to get better at thinking in general, start with easy conversations and work your way up, be extra careful all the time. stuff kinda like that. which hop is hostile to doing. she doesn't want an extra layer of error-correction added to the conversation at every single step, but what else would work given all the errors chaotically throughout it?
in the alternative, if i'm wrong, hop ignoring a bunch of chunks of what i said will also sabotage the discussion. it'll make it much harder for her to figure out where i'm going wrong and give relevant criticism/corrections. it'll make it a lot harder for her to figure out a decent model of what i'm thinking.
when i try to not do this โ€“ not ignore problems โ€“ hop finds it burdensome and pedantic. dislikes it.
(as is super typical, this isn't rly about hop individually)
her basic attitude is the attitude of the overreacher: dealing with all the problems is too hard. there are too many. fixing them all is an overwhelming, unrealistic goal. give up and live with error and try to focus on some good bits and dodge the errors.
if you actually deal with error, it saves so much time in the long (and medium) run, and makes everything so much easier.
but only if you deal with it successfully, and most ppl are bad at that so when they try to deal with error (they do try it sometimes) they often have a bad experience.
curi 22-Aug-19 03:45 PM
that kind of symmetry โ€“ doing X will work out well regardless of which claims are correct, you can explain in both cases how it'll get a good result โ€“ is a standard property of rational methods.
> Last paragraph is not meant to be quote. I don't know how to keep that from happening. put a blank line btwn paragraphs
> As I understand it curi is explaining the difference between a mistake and a lie. If I make a statement X, and X is false, and I did not make the effort to find out the truth, then I am lying. Even if I am not consciously trying to deceive. However, If I state X after making a reasonable effort, then it is a mistake not a lie. Did I interpret that correctly? it depends on context. that's correct in general, that's how the default context works. by default in our culture, if you claim X, you are implying that you did some reasonable process to gain that knowledge, rather than just making it up.
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 06:45 PM
That makes sense. Adding to what I wrote based on your essay, if you qualify it with "I haven't done enough research but I think..." is also a way to avoid lying. As long as it is not a form of hedging to avoid sticking your neck out.
curi 22-Aug-19 06:47 PM
ya
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 08:45 PM
Bottomline: Universality fairly easily leads to the conclusion that humans anywhere out of the left tail are fundamentally the sameโ€ฆ
curi 22-Aug-19 08:48 PM
> The problem is that there is a countably infinite number of such machines, one for every computable real number. (Countably infinite just means as big as all of the counting numbers you learned in kindergarten.)
he doesn't know what he's talking about there. like really out of his depth. that means he's arrogant and doesn't know his own weaknesses or limits.
like he knows way less than introductory parts of the wikipedia articles on this stuff, and he's just wrong
his main claim is that computational universality makes ppl equivalent, which is, in short, wrong (edited)
by the same argument, a dog is just as intelligent as me
b/c a dog also has a universal computer for its brain
microwaves have them too.
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 08:56 PM
Dang. I thought he was making a similar claim as DD on the Jump to Universality. Out of all the concepts in BOI, I'd say I have the least grasp of is Universality. Was hoping this was an article that got close to what DD argued from a different place. (edited)
curi 22-Aug-19 08:57 PM
computational universality is known by a lot of ppl but DD adds a lot more
DD realized there are other types of universality
it's a more general concept, not just a thing about computers
does he say anything about the jump? haven't read it all
he's just wrong that computational universality means anyone can understand any idea. if that worked, my Mac could too, and so could a mouse.
these are not difficult examples to think of and see if what ur saying makes sense. they might look that way if you don't know the field, but he knows enough about computer stuff to think of examples of universal computers like that.
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 09:01 PM
No. He doesn't mention a jump to. Just explains why humans are universal and why that matters more than IQ (edited)
curi 22-Aug-19 09:01 PM
you need the jump argument or else might a person be 99% of universal? why does it have to be the full thing?
> So, who should care about IQ? Nobody! Why? Because we are universal!
this and other wording indicates he thinks there is only one type of universality
whereas FI ppl always label the type, e..g universal computer, universal explainer, universal constructor, universal integer number system
mb not always. sometimes drop the label based on context โ€“ if talking about the same one repeatedly.
he doesn't seem to be consider that the functionality of a human depends on what software they run on their universal computer
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 09:08 PM
I see. Humans are both Universal explainers and constructors right?
curi 22-Aug-19 09:09 PM
explainers yes. constructors are tricky b/c humans don't like to follow orders about what to construct.
the large images and video embeds in the medium post are social climbing stuff, not intellectual
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 09:14 PM
I didn't see what they are. They are incompatible with my privacy and anti tracking addons.
curi 22-Aug-19 09:14 PM
heh
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 09:16 PM
Have you seen (listened to) The Artificial Creativity Podcast?
curi 22-Aug-19 09:17 PM
Dennis is a fraud who doesn't want public criticism to reveal it.
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 09:20 PM
Oh no. I didn't catch the misconceptions on my first few listens.
curi 22-Aug-19 09:20 PM
i've talked with him directly a lot
he won't let me show you chatlogs though
it was mostly in a chatroom with 20 ppl where ppl normally will give permission to publicly quote anything interesting or important.
after some criticism re discussion and learning methodology โ€“ topics he did not want to consider โ€“ he said he would only reply to me on a phone call, and he would not give me permission to record and publish the call. then i asked if i could share the recording with just my friends from the chatroom, like justin and alan, who were already privy to the conversations and criticisms anyway. he said no and made it clear that the reason was he didn't want to risk looking bad.
he complained that FI didn't help him with AGI enough but he never wrote a single substantive post about AGI for ppl to reply to
he said he would, but didn't
he also said he'd learn YESNO, and some other epistemoloyg, but did not follow up.
after he got mad re methodology criticism, he left and is intentionally avoiding saying anything substantive somewhere that FI ppl might criticize it, b/c he's so reputation focused.
he doesn't value criticism. he hates it.
he tries to use DD's ideas that he doesn't really understand how to use
like he will claim stuff is hard or easy to vary, cuz he thinks that's a good argument, but he's bad at saying why.
or comparing its variability to the variability of any of the alternatives being discussed
this could all be fixed if he wanted to learn, but he prefers to pretend that he's already a top expert
this is all very typical
tho most ppl don't admit as much about how public reputation oriented they are
the conversations were a bit similar to the Hopenager stuff
including me writing a large amount of interesting stuff by myself afterwards, which he then didn't want to discuss
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 09:28 PM
Well that's unfortunate. Popperian in appearance only. Shaking the anti-criticism mentality is a tough one.
curi 22-Aug-19 09:28 PM
we talked about the importance of transcripts to make it easier to respond to material seriously. last time i checked, he'd intentionally not made them for his podcast, after previously saying they were a good idea. i think the reason was that he doesn't want us to comment.
same reason he didn't even post a single podcast link to FI after making them
prior to those conflicts he had spent months doing ~zero
that's really typical too. ppl just kinda don't do much to learn or make progress after saying how super interested they are
shortly b4 quitting he said how much he appreciated that i was making explanations of CR/DD/ET epistemology ideas available, and making it possible to get one's questions answered and get criticism to facilitate learning.
one day ur one of the most important ppl who is doing this great service for the world. a few days later he won't speak to you and doesn't want any service.
i haven't checked but i assume he uses some of my ideas about AGI, that i shared with him, in order to sound smart on the podcast (edited)
which would be a betrayal (edited)
lulie contributed to him leaving by pretending there is an alternative non-FI group of smart ppl to interact with, and by her various snipes at FI which he read some of.
also my negative opinion of her was itself one of his pieces of evidence to decide that i must be unreasonable
(he made this judgment without any counter-arguments to the LT analyzing lies discussion material. i think he maybe just didn't read any of it.)
it's hard for ppl to have it halfway and agree with half of FI's ideas and half of the mainstream conventional stuff. that's unstable, inconsistent, and doesn't really work. unless they are passive and the FI part is just lip service and abstract theory that they don't do much with. there is a choice to make, sides to pick/take, and most ppl have some normal things they are really committed to and don't want to go against or view badly.
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 09:40 PM
That's really unfortunate. Interest in CR is small as it is to be divided due to social posturing. ๐Ÿ˜ฆ
curi 22-Aug-19 09:40 PM
it's like a big thing tho to have major criticisms of your society
lots of ppl say they want that, they are so brave and willing to rebel, but mostly they don't really want it, not too much, just within certain limits
there are common patterns like
Q: how can u disagree with lots of experts and authorities and geniuses, and think ur right?
A: which of their arguments refutes what i'm saying?
[no answer]
or
Q: how can u think ur great?
A: who's better?
[won't give a single name b/c then that person's material could be criticized]
ppl's rationalizations for conformity are dumb
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 09:48 PM
Do you think its okay to play the game as long as you're aware that you're playing it. Like go through the classes that will let me get the necessary certification to do what I want.
curi 22-Aug-19 09:48 PM
short answer: no
who has ever succeeded that way?
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 09:48 PM
Even if most is not that useful, but on my own learn philosophy to be useful instead.
curi 22-Aug-19 09:49 PM
it's hard enough without a double life. it's hard enough consistently and honestly. it's too hard with the huge extra burden.
and why would you want to impress ppl you do not respect?
what for?
there are easier ways to get money
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 09:51 PM
> who has ever succeeded that way? I can't think of an example. What about like when David was promoting his book, he wouldn't always confront his interviewer when they said incorrect things. > and why would you want to impress ppl you do not respect? what for? Not impress. Just get through the certifications. Their approval is not my desire, but the licensing.
curi 22-Aug-19 09:51 PM
certification or licensing for what?
you don't need a license to think or write.
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 09:51 PM
Therapist
To be a clinical Psychologist you need a license
curi 22-Aug-19 09:52 PM
i bet you can be a "life coach" or something โ€“ and do basically the same work โ€“ with no credentials.
> What about like when David was promoting his book, he wouldn't always confront his interviewer when they said incorrect things. yeah that has worked out badly for him.
it made him stand out less. i bet he gave up a piece of his soul and it actually reduced his fame level.
did you see my stream where i wrote criticism of his email attacking Ayn Rand?
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 09:55 PM
> i bet you can be a "life coach" or something โ€“ and do basically the same work โ€“ with no credentials. I don't like this but I can't articulate why.
I think, I want to help people turn their lives around in a positive manner that is more long lasting. Life coach I've seen is a lot of fads, fad diets fad ideas. It strikes me as shallow but I haven't looked too much into life coaching.
curi 22-Aug-19 10:01 PM
whether it's long lasting depends on what help someone wants and what you do, not on your job title.
it depends on what sorta clients you find and what sorta advcie you give.
most therapy is not effective long term.
it's easier to get long term clients if you advertise in a typical way for attracting them, but ppl expecting typical therapy are very hard to help much
most ppl don't actually want to learn to think better and their problems are caused by their irrational thinking
this is what i deal with all the time
conventional therapy is basically a bunch of shortcuts and bandaids that partially work for common problems
but if it were more fundamentally wise, it'd be philosophy and it'd deal with issues like error correction
there's no fundamentally separating how to think and giving ppl help with their problems. thinking is what determines their success and failure with their problems.
ppl are systems of ideas. in the longrun what ppl need is epistemology. to have a separate thing to help it has to differentiate itself by e.g. being more focused on current culture or on short term solutions.
BoI talks about how all our problems are soluble with the right knowledge.
so ppl ought to get better at creating knowledge โ€“ learning
but the therapy tradition works more like: ask 10 million ppl what their problems are. find patterns. give some advice. try to see what seems to help some. find patterns in that. repeat that advice to more ppl.
there's a lot of pragmatism
(which i mean as a technical philosophy term)
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:08 PM
Definitely don't want to go with that approach (ask millions find pattern). I agree epistemology is essential.
curi 22-Aug-19 10:09 PM
what ppl expect from a therapist is that he's a few steps ahead of them on familiarity with their typical problems
they're really bad at knowing why they do things or how to stop being such as asshole or whatever. so the therapist just has to be a bit more knowledgeable about that stuff than the client is.
there are also well known tactics they use for when they don't know anything useful
like getting the client to talk a lot or just finding a different client
they say it just doesn't work for everyone
or there is a style clash or whatever
and ppl are bad at reading books and applying what they read to their own situation which is just slightly different than the example in the book
so a major thing therapists do is they learn a few books worth of advice and then are able to customize it just slightly to tell ppl how it applies to them. a lot of ppl have a lot of problems very similar to the typical ones, so this isnt' that hard.
the therapist has the advantage of a bunch of practice, experience and training. he puts way more work into it so he can be a bit better at it.
compared to his clients.
also the large majority of clients do not want to change much. they want limited, bounded help. they don't want to make infinite progress anymore than felix cat does.
this makes it much easier for the therapist. he can help them rationalize their problems and pay lip service to wanting to change. he can legitmize and authorize that.
he can say he's smart and wise and hang credentials on the wall and dress the part and have an impressive office and whatever and then tell the guy it's not his fault or some other message ppl like like that
also helping unimportant ppl with parochial problems, even if it works, doesn't change much in the world, it doesn't matter much. it's small. like it could be good, just like growing an apple is productive, but it doesn't address the big issues like free trade or CR or the underlying causes of why ppl have the problems they do (like school and parenting practices).
as long as parents and teachers are churning out broken ppl. helping them be a bit less broken is like pouring water into a leaky bucket.
a better analogy, i guess, is standing by a guy who is taking brand new toys and smashing them, and then you partially repair some of them.
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:22 PM
Yes I agree there's a lot of unnecessary, avoidable suffering. What I want to do would not address the causes, just alleviate. But I can't help fix the issue myself.
curi 22-Aug-19 10:22 PM
a lot of ppl go to therapy b/c they want someone else to take responsibility for their problems. and therapists don't really do that, but they often ambiguously pretend to.
> But I can't help fix the issue myself. what do you mean?
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:23 PM
I think a lot of what Peterson says is a form of putting personal responsibility on the client
curi 22-Aug-19 10:23 PM
he also says a lot of the opposite
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:23 PM
I mean, as you mention schools keep breaking spirits. I can't for example stop that.
curi 22-Aug-19 10:24 PM
he blames a lot of ppl's problems on diet or physiological issues to be addressed by drugs
> I mean, as you mention schools keep breaking spirits. I can't for example stop that. why not? i mean it's a big problem but do you think you couldn't make any progress on it at all if that was your goal?
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:26 PM
That seems way too big a problem for me to handle. I wouldn't even make a dent. Nor do I have a clue on how I would go about making any progress there.
curi 22-Aug-19 10:27 PM
i think a lot of ppl think that and then they all don't do anything
do you think this makes a dent? https://www.stopk12indoctrination.org
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:29 PM
I do not know who they are and what impact they have had.
curi 22-Aug-19 10:30 PM
i think u don't know much about the problem or what it'd take to make any change to it. i don't think you're in a position to make the evaluation that you did without a bunch of research and preliminary involvement to understand the matter better.
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:32 PM
The evaluation that I couldn't tackle that problem? Yes it was a gut reaction so I agree with all that.
curi 22-Aug-19 10:32 PM
ya that one
there are other very important problems btw like life extension
that area is really underfunded and underresearched and is a matter of life and death to you and to me.
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:35 PM
When you say life extension. Do you mean like cure to various diseases or some of the work of people like Aubrey de Grey?
curi 22-Aug-19 10:35 PM
trying to stop ppl from dying of aging, like AdG
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:36 PM
I see. Very ignorant about what he's doing, just recognize his name.
TheRatWay 22-Aug-19 10:44 PM
Hehe. Everytime I visit the discord, my to read list or topic to look into list grows by like 20. Which is fantastic. Off to bed. Gnite.