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!!!
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"
Part of the problem here is that good faith signals get taken up by bad actors in a neverending arms race because being bad faith but acting good faith is a winning strategy for ... something (engagement? bait? ego protection? idk)
For example, "hope this helps!" used to be a universal signal of good faith but is now exclusively said by the worst person you know.
Will "yes I agree!" also be used by bad faith actors? Or will we eventually reach a point where the optimal good faith strategy is a distillation of agreementness so pure that it couldn't possibly be bad faith?
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. 💪
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
Part of the problem here is that good faith signals get taken up by bad actors in a neverending arms race because being bad faith but acting good faith is a winning strategy for ... something (engagement? bait? ego protection? idk)
For example, "hope this helps!" used to be a universal signal of good faith but is now exclusively said by the worst person you know.
Will "yes I agree!" also be used by bad faith actors? Or will we eventually reach a point where the optimal good faith strategy is a distillation of agreementness so pure that it couldn't possibly be bad faith?
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.