thank you for the support and for sharing it!!! one day it will be one big game, people trying to falsify my theories here and they either find successful corner cases, and we evolve the theory and learn something new about human culture and human minds, OR they realize for themselves that this magic really does work. Win win!!!
"But if we were friends, and were talking as you and I are now, I should reply in a milder strain and more in the dialectician's vein; that is to say, I should not only speak the truth, but I should make use of premises which the person interrogated would be willing to admit."
What exactly is Y in your conversation with @PartyAvantHarde? Is it engineers deeming humanities dumb? If so, how did you understand that from them saying "This is like D+G for dummies"?
X is "here is what this scientific field is, written in language that makes sense to engineers"
Y is "I've just discovered something new that it seems no one before me has figured out!"
It's not necessarily obvious from their response what Y they perceived - I guessed that based on their aggressive response. Why would someone who (1) seems to be knowledgeable about what I'm trying to say (2) be upset at me explaining it?
A common reason for that is that "dumber", simpler explanations getting more attention than the primary source. Creating new language for something you already know is annoying because, if people used the original language, you have an advantage - if people are using new language, you kind of have to re-learn it.
So, that was my guess. I tested if I was right by acknowledging that what I am doing IS annoying, but that it's necessary for these reasons. And my theory is validated by whether that triggers a positive response in the other side. If it fails, then, it gives *him* surface area to see what my perception of him is, and offer me a more correct Y.
This is the protocol of "Anatomy of an Internet Argument", you either succeed, or you create the scaffolding to inch you closer to success.
I love this, I love your goals and values here. I've just stumbled upon your page, and I feel an exciting connection. I've recently been able to articulate what I think my #1 value is, and that is wisdom defined as the use of reason to find a shared reality in a life-affirming truth. And you sir, seem to be doing exactly that, having hope for cooperation and manifesting the world you want to see right before our eyes.
oh yes, I think depending on how he's feeling that would be perceived as an attack. When you start by attacking someone, whatever they respond with will be perceived as a counter attack
I've had this happen where I was literally agreeing with someone and they continued to attack. It's REALLY hard to see through the "everyone is an asshole on the internet" frame even when the evidence is right in front of you.
Responding with "Yes!!" short circuits this. It's confusing, it's unexpected.
Basically they would have read "is there anything different" -> "i'm reinventing it from scratch, i don't see the point of reading what came before. I'm placing the burden ON YOU to prove there is value in what you know"
It's a really bad position for them to be in because (1) they could put in time & effort to explain it, only for me to say "nah, that sounds like BS, my way is better", so now they feel like they wasted time and they feel like their knowledge isn't useful (2) if they don't respond at all, they still feel bad, like an unmet challenge (like maybe their knowledge won't stand up to the challenge). Lose lose
We need to establish trust first before asking a question like that. I wrote about this in: "It's rude to ask for cognitive labor before establishing trust"
Pushing the culture of our civilization forward, one post at a time. Thank you Defender!
thank you for the support and for sharing it!!! one day it will be one big game, people trying to falsify my theories here and they either find successful corner cases, and we evolve the theory and learn something new about human culture and human minds, OR they realize for themselves that this magic really does work. Win win!!!
Indeed a win-win. 💪
"But if we were friends, and were talking as you and I are now, I should reply in a milder strain and more in the dialectician's vein; that is to say, I should not only speak the truth, but I should make use of premises which the person interrogated would be willing to admit."
-Socrates, Meno
What exactly is Y in your conversation with @PartyAvantHarde? Is it engineers deeming humanities dumb? If so, how did you understand that from them saying "This is like D+G for dummies"?
X is "here is what this scientific field is, written in language that makes sense to engineers"
Y is "I've just discovered something new that it seems no one before me has figured out!"
It's not necessarily obvious from their response what Y they perceived - I guessed that based on their aggressive response. Why would someone who (1) seems to be knowledgeable about what I'm trying to say (2) be upset at me explaining it?
A common reason for that is that "dumber", simpler explanations getting more attention than the primary source. Creating new language for something you already know is annoying because, if people used the original language, you have an advantage - if people are using new language, you kind of have to re-learn it.
So, that was my guess. I tested if I was right by acknowledging that what I am doing IS annoying, but that it's necessary for these reasons. And my theory is validated by whether that triggers a positive response in the other side. If it fails, then, it gives *him* surface area to see what my perception of him is, and offer me a more correct Y.
This is the protocol of "Anatomy of an Internet Argument", you either succeed, or you create the scaffolding to inch you closer to success.
I love this, I love your goals and values here. I've just stumbled upon your page, and I feel an exciting connection. I've recently been able to articulate what I think my #1 value is, and that is wisdom defined as the use of reason to find a shared reality in a life-affirming truth. And you sir, seem to be doing exactly that, having hope for cooperation and manifesting the world you want to see right before our eyes.
what do you predict his response would have been if you had said smth like "Oh! cool! What here is D+G? Is there anything different?"
oh yes, I think depending on how he's feeling that would be perceived as an attack. When you start by attacking someone, whatever they respond with will be perceived as a counter attack
I've had this happen where I was literally agreeing with someone and they continued to attack. It's REALLY hard to see through the "everyone is an asshole on the internet" frame even when the evidence is right in front of you.
Responding with "Yes!!" short circuits this. It's confusing, it's unexpected.
Basically they would have read "is there anything different" -> "i'm reinventing it from scratch, i don't see the point of reading what came before. I'm placing the burden ON YOU to prove there is value in what you know"
It's a really bad position for them to be in because (1) they could put in time & effort to explain it, only for me to say "nah, that sounds like BS, my way is better", so now they feel like they wasted time and they feel like their knowledge isn't useful (2) if they don't respond at all, they still feel bad, like an unmet challenge (like maybe their knowledge won't stand up to the challenge). Lose lose
We need to establish trust first before asking a question like that. I wrote about this in: "It's rude to ask for cognitive labor before establishing trust"
https://defenderofthebasic.substack.com/p/its-rude-to-ask-for-cognitive-labor
Ok, but what is meant by D+G?
Anyway, this looks like a good method.
D is for Gilles Deleuze and, and G is for Felix Guattari
Ah, thank you.