No, it’s totally worth it to be polite or otherwise execute a communication strategy that in expectation satisfies your concerns. There’s no reason that needs to include what I might uncharitably call a neurotic fixation on how another person is going to perceive you, or what I would more charitably describe as an attempt to control how others think and feel about you.
“a neurotic fixation on how another person is going to perceive you”
This line at least communicates anything at all (whereas the control one still feels basically irrelevant semantics to me), but, it still doesn’t do anything to justify why “writing a giant wall of text” is bucked under “neurotic” instead of “practical strategy.”
It sounds like what you are actually saying, translated into stuff that I care about, is that “you are incorrect that a large number of people will predictably respond negatively to this.” Or, do you think that’s correct, but, still incorrect to care?
It sounds like what you are actually saying, translated into stuff that I care about, is that “you are incorrect that a large number of people will predictably respond negatively to this.” Or, do you think that’s correct, but, still incorrect to care?
I’m not saying large numbers of people will respond negatively or not. For example, sometimes I need to send a wall of text when having a technical discussion because many words are the only way to be precise.
I’m instead saying the mind that cooks up the wall of text strategy is the mind that believes it can exert more exacting control of another person’s thoughts than is generally possible. Pithily, I would say you can’t control another person. Less pithily, I’d say the level of influence you have to direct the behavior of another person via a wall of text is fuzzy enough that you are tricking yourself into being trapped in a local maxima by doing so (and this usually happens by projecting one’s perceived control of one’s own thoughts into a believe that by controlling the counterfactual model in your head you can control the world) and you should abandon this strategy for one that let’s you just interact with the world and see what happens rather than blowing past the limits of the precision of your model.
I’d like it if you just taboo’d all abstractions and value judgments and just describe the physical situations and consequences you expect to see in the world.
This still feels like someone who has some kind of opinion about an abstract level that I still haven’t been persuaded is a useful abstraction. We can tap out of the convo here, but, like, the last few rounds felt like you were repeating the same things without actually engaging with my cruxes.
(like, when you talking about “assuming you have control...” can you describe that the sort of naturalist way Logan Strohl would probably describe it, and like what predictions you make about what physically will happen to people doing that thing vs other nearby things?)
Sure, dropping it seems fine. I’m a bit hesitant to address your points too directly because I anticipate the conversation would require something like explaining our entire worldviews and me trying to convince you of mine, so I’ve been doing something more like just explaining my worldview as I see it as relevant to the points here in the hopes that it gets you to see what I’m pointing at, but if that’s not working no reason to continue since I’m not excited right now about making time to explain the whole thing.
faith vs acts. Raemon seeks salvation through their actions. what use is faith if it does not lead to proper behavior? Gordon finds salvation through faith alone. good acts cannot be trusted if they are not rooted in proper belief.
No, it’s totally worth it to be polite or otherwise execute a communication strategy that in expectation satisfies your concerns. There’s no reason that needs to include what I might uncharitably call a neurotic fixation on how another person is going to perceive you, or what I would more charitably describe as an attempt to control how others think and feel about you.
“a neurotic fixation on how another person is going to perceive you”
This line at least communicates anything at all (whereas the control one still feels basically irrelevant semantics to me), but, it still doesn’t do anything to justify why “writing a giant wall of text” is bucked under “neurotic” instead of “practical strategy.”
It sounds like what you are actually saying, translated into stuff that I care about, is that “you are incorrect that a large number of people will predictably respond negatively to this.” Or, do you think that’s correct, but, still incorrect to care?
I’m not saying large numbers of people will respond negatively or not. For example, sometimes I need to send a wall of text when having a technical discussion because many words are the only way to be precise.
I’m instead saying the mind that cooks up the wall of text strategy is the mind that believes it can exert more exacting control of another person’s thoughts than is generally possible. Pithily, I would say you can’t control another person. Less pithily, I’d say the level of influence you have to direct the behavior of another person via a wall of text is fuzzy enough that you are tricking yourself into being trapped in a local maxima by doing so (and this usually happens by projecting one’s perceived control of one’s own thoughts into a believe that by controlling the counterfactual model in your head you can control the world) and you should abandon this strategy for one that let’s you just interact with the world and see what happens rather than blowing past the limits of the precision of your model.
I’d like it if you just taboo’d all abstractions and value judgments and just describe the physical situations and consequences you expect to see in the world.
This still feels like someone who has some kind of opinion about an abstract level that I still haven’t been persuaded is a useful abstraction. We can tap out of the convo here, but, like, the last few rounds felt like you were repeating the same things without actually engaging with my cruxes.
(like, when you talking about “assuming you have control...” can you describe that the sort of naturalist way Logan Strohl would probably describe it, and like what predictions you make about what physically will happen to people doing that thing vs other nearby things?)
Sure, dropping it seems fine. I’m a bit hesitant to address your points too directly because I anticipate the conversation would require something like explaining our entire worldviews and me trying to convince you of mine, so I’ve been doing something more like just explaining my worldview as I see it as relevant to the points here in the hopes that it gets you to see what I’m pointing at, but if that’s not working no reason to continue since I’m not excited right now about making time to explain the whole thing.
faith vs acts. Raemon seeks salvation through their actions. what use is faith if it does not lead to proper behavior? Gordon finds salvation through faith alone. good acts cannot be trusted if they are not rooted in proper belief.