I do not have, and do not believe I have claimed to have, anything like “certainty in the superiority of my insight.” Happy to just state here explicitly: I don’t have anything like certainty in the superiority of my insight.
What I have is confidence that, when I’m perceiving that something is going sideways, something is, in fact, going sideways.
That’s a far cry from always knowing what it is, which is itself a far cry from having any idea how to fix it.
I’m confused as to how I’m perceived as claiming superiority of insight when e.g. all I could come up with in the above essay was a set of ideas that I myself identified as terrible and insufficient.
My comment is low context both because I don’t think I’ve seen you and Elizabeth talk before and also because I only skimmed the parent comments.
When you say
I’m confused as to how I’m perceived as claiming superiority of insight when e.g. all I could come up with in the above essay was a set of ideas that I myself identified as terrible and insufficient.
This doesn’t seem to me evidence against you claiming to have superior insight under Elizabeth’s usage of the term. My reading is that she uses the term relatively, I.e. that she believes that you believe your claims about the world are right while others’ claims are wrong (or more likely to be true than others’). Terrible, as you used it in the essay, I took to be in absolute terms, as in “will these interventions help? Idk”
I’m more confident in the quote not providing evidence against her usage of “superior insight” than I am in defining her intended meaning.
I do not have, and do not believe I have claimed to have, anything like “certainty in the superiority of my insight.” Happy to just state here explicitly: I don’t have anything like certainty in the superiority of my insight.
What I have is confidence that, when I’m perceiving that something is going sideways, something is, in fact, going sideways.
That’s a far cry from always knowing what it is, which is itself a far cry from having any idea how to fix it.
I’m confused as to how I’m perceived as claiming superiority of insight when e.g. all I could come up with in the above essay was a set of ideas that I myself identified as terrible and insufficient.
My comment is low context both because I don’t think I’ve seen you and Elizabeth talk before and also because I only skimmed the parent comments.
When you say
This doesn’t seem to me evidence against you claiming to have superior insight under Elizabeth’s usage of the term. My reading is that she uses the term relatively, I.e. that she believes that you believe your claims about the world are right while others’ claims are wrong (or more likely to be true than others’). Terrible, as you used it in the essay, I took to be in absolute terms, as in “will these interventions help? Idk”
I’m more confident in the quote not providing evidence against her usage of “superior insight” than I am in defining her intended meaning.