This is rude and unnecessary. It comes across as “we real people have real beliefs and goals; those fake people do not have real beliefs and goals.”
The truth is that beliefs and goals are vague generalizations that apply imperfectly to human beings, including to you. It is true that they apply better in some instances and to some people, but perfectly to none.
The problem isn’t rudeness, the problem is that this approach classifies the great majority of humanity as monkeys incapable of making any noises other than squeaks of affirmation towards the ingroup and screams of outrage towards the outgroup. At the very least, that’s… wasteful.
The truth is often painful. But this “squeaks of affirmation” is the way a group thinks about a problem.
A group might change its opinion about something by expelling some members and accept some fresh meat from the other group.
Or just by reversing its course on something. The fashion changes from time to time. I don’t wear Matrix style outfit anymore. Now it seems to me, I never did. The whole group has changed their wardrobes and forget how elegant we were back then. Or just silly.
“squeaks of affirmation” is the way a group remembers how something is until this group changes its mind about that. By some member shufflings or by adopting the new truth by the majority of its members. Or at least by its Politburo. Purges are necessary sometimes, though.
“What do good, high-status groups (that you can plausibly be a part of) think about Bound_up’s post ?”
Unless you mean some online groups (e.g. a subset of this forum), you misunderstand, because I am not the member of any groups in real life, whether low or high status. I live alone and very frequently do not see anyone at all in a particular 24 hour period, including at work.
Everybody is a member of various groups. For example, I consider myself as a member of Aristotelians, who prefer to speculate about the solution of a problem, then to conduct an experiment. Galileo is one of us because he logically proved how the Apollo 15 feather-hammer experiment will pan out. But those pesky experimentalists see Galileo as one of them too, since he conducted several crucial experiments as well. I have never met Galileo, they have never met Galileo, still, we chart our groups this way.
This rather bizarre example illustrates two such perceived groups. There are a billion at least such divisions (imaginary or not) out there. And some people consider themselves as members of some. Rightly or wrongly, doesn’t matter.
And then they judge what some high-status members of their group would say about the particular Quantum Mechanics conundrum. Then, they side with him about that.
Almost nobody actually ponders what the Hell is really going on with the Schrodinger’s poor cat. Almost nobody.
Siding with some prominent member of your (perceived) tribe is a proxy for the thinking about it. Even if you don’t see this high-status person named Heisenberg a lot, you side with him.
Most problems are not that deep. Like whether or not Antarctica is currently melting. People still don’t have their opinions about this, but just side either with Al Gore, either with me. Well, they side with me only incidentally, they don’t know that I exist. They know that lord Monckton exists and they maybe side with him. So they think Antarctica is melting very slowly, if at all.
If I tell you Antarctica is increasing its snow cover, you may be nerd enough to either believe me after some calculations … either be nerd enough to prove me wrong. Doesn’t matter which.
But most likely you will go to either Al Gore’s either to lord Monckton’s side. Even though you don’t meet with those two very frequently.
And then they judge what some high-status members of their group would say about the particular Quantum Mechanics conundrum. Then, they side with him about that.
Almost nobody actually ponders what the Hell is really going on with the Schrodinger’s poor cat. Almost nobody.
I find it harder to reason about the question “what would high status people in group X say about Schrodinger’s cat?” than about the question “based on what I understand about QM, what would happen to Schrodinger’s cat?”. I admit that I suck at modelling other people, but how many people are actually good at it?
Not to say that belief signalling doesn’t happen. After all in many cases you just know what the high status people say since they, well, said it.
I admit that I suck at modeling other people, but how many people are actually good at it?
Many, many times more people are good at judging other people than at pondering QM (or any other) conundrums. Even if they are not especially good psychologists, they suck in QM even more.
Sure, everyone has certain groups that they imagine themselves as members of. But if they don’t actually interact with those people, this is more a question of an imaginary tribe and imaginary status, not a real tribe or real status.
Which tribe do you consider “real”? Those, you have a physical paper to prove your membership are only a few of them. Others are pretty undefined, but who cares?
I am not talking about pieces of paper. I am talking about people you see and talk to face to face, as commonly happened and still happens in real tribal environments.
I’d go further, and say it’s grossly narcissistic and hypocritical. The framing of nerds vs. non-nerds is itself an example of the described mode of communication.
I read both this comment and the parent comment to be taking the OP in bad faith. Bound_up has taken the time to share their thinking with us and, while it may be there is an offensive interpretation of the post, it violates the discourse norms I’d at least like to see here to outright dismiss something as “bad”. Some of the other comments under the parent comment make this a bit clearer, but even the most generous interpretations I can find of many of these comments lack much more content than “shut up OP”.
If you walk away using a properly watered-down version of this over-the-top description with its “obvious exceptions and caveats,” then it will have exactly achieved its purpose.
I hope you won’t be equally rude (but memorable) if you discuss this with people who are liable to interpret it only as a status move, and not as an attempt to describe pieces of reality. If you are discussing it with people who instinctively form conscious models of the world and interpret propositions as propositions and not as social maneuvers, then you might find that an over-the-top description will make the central idea clearer and more memorable.
You’ll risk people not properly watering down the idea, of course, but if you trust your audience to water it down, you can enjoy the benefits of exaggeration. Nerdy or not, they are humans, after all, and exaggeration has its uses.
people who are liable to interpret it only as a status move … people who instinctively form conscious models of the world and interpret propositions as propositions and not as social maneuvers
The thing is, most people do both depending on the topic and the context. Exactly the same person who will be unthinkingly tribal with respect to, say, politics, will show amazing abilities to model and reason about the world when the subject switches to his hobby (say, sailing or gardening or BBQ).
The distinction you’re pointing at is not a distinction between people, it’s mostly a distinction between subjects (see e.g. “politics is the mind-killer”).
This is rude and unnecessary. It comes across as “we real people have real beliefs and goals; those fake people do not have real beliefs and goals.”
The truth is that beliefs and goals are vague generalizations that apply imperfectly to human beings, including to you. It is true that they apply better in some instances and to some people, but perfectly to none.
I understand this quotation as:
“What do good, high-status groups (that you can plausibly be a part of) think about Bound_up’s post ?”
Those good, high-status people groups abhor Bound_up’s post. They think it’s entirely useless and even “narcissistic and hypocritical.” Sure they do.
But some low life nerds like myself find it true. Just as it was expected to be.
The problem isn’t rudeness, the problem is that this approach classifies the great majority of humanity as monkeys incapable of making any noises other than squeaks of affirmation towards the ingroup and screams of outrage towards the outgroup. At the very least, that’s… wasteful.
The truth is often painful. But this “squeaks of affirmation” is the way a group thinks about a problem.
A group might change its opinion about something by expelling some members and accept some fresh meat from the other group.
Or just by reversing its course on something. The fashion changes from time to time. I don’t wear Matrix style outfit anymore. Now it seems to me, I never did. The whole group has changed their wardrobes and forget how elegant we were back then. Or just silly.
Yeah, this is painful, but what can you do?
No, this is the way a group maintains its current attitude towards a problem.
Combining the two words -- “group” and “thinking”—is a problem in itself.
“squeaks of affirmation” is the way a group remembers how something is until this group changes its mind about that. By some member shufflings or by adopting the new truth by the majority of its members. Or at least by its Politburo. Purges are necessary sometimes, though.
“What do good, high-status groups (that you can plausibly be a part of) think about Bound_up’s post ?”
Unless you mean some online groups (e.g. a subset of this forum), you misunderstand, because I am not the member of any groups in real life, whether low or high status. I live alone and very frequently do not see anyone at all in a particular 24 hour period, including at work.
Everybody is a member of various groups. For example, I consider myself as a member of Aristotelians, who prefer to speculate about the solution of a problem, then to conduct an experiment. Galileo is one of us because he logically proved how the Apollo 15 feather-hammer experiment will pan out. But those pesky experimentalists see Galileo as one of them too, since he conducted several crucial experiments as well. I have never met Galileo, they have never met Galileo, still, we chart our groups this way.
This rather bizarre example illustrates two such perceived groups. There are a billion at least such divisions (imaginary or not) out there. And some people consider themselves as members of some. Rightly or wrongly, doesn’t matter.
And then they judge what some high-status members of their group would say about the particular Quantum Mechanics conundrum. Then, they side with him about that.
Almost nobody actually ponders what the Hell is really going on with the Schrodinger’s poor cat. Almost nobody.
Siding with some prominent member of your (perceived) tribe is a proxy for the thinking about it. Even if you don’t see this high-status person named Heisenberg a lot, you side with him.
Most problems are not that deep. Like whether or not Antarctica is currently melting. People still don’t have their opinions about this, but just side either with Al Gore, either with me. Well, they side with me only incidentally, they don’t know that I exist. They know that lord Monckton exists and they maybe side with him. So they think Antarctica is melting very slowly, if at all.
If I tell you Antarctica is increasing its snow cover, you may be nerd enough to either believe me after some calculations … either be nerd enough to prove me wrong. Doesn’t matter which.
But most likely you will go to either Al Gore’s either to lord Monckton’s side. Even though you don’t meet with those two very frequently.
I find it harder to reason about the question “what would high status people in group X say about Schrodinger’s cat?” than about the question “based on what I understand about QM, what would happen to Schrodinger’s cat?”. I admit that I suck at modelling other people, but how many people are actually good at it?
Not to say that belief signalling doesn’t happen. After all in many cases you just know what the high status people say since they, well, said it.
Many, many times more people are good at judging other people than at pondering QM (or any other) conundrums. Even if they are not especially good psychologists, they suck in QM even more.
Sure, everyone has certain groups that they imagine themselves as members of. But if they don’t actually interact with those people, this is more a question of an imaginary tribe and imaginary status, not a real tribe or real status.
Which tribe do you consider “real”? Those, you have a physical paper to prove your membership are only a few of them. Others are pretty undefined, but who cares?
I am not talking about pieces of paper. I am talking about people you see and talk to face to face, as commonly happened and still happens in real tribal environments.
I’d go further, and say it’s grossly narcissistic and hypocritical. The framing of nerds vs. non-nerds is itself an example of the described mode of communication.
I read both this comment and the parent comment to be taking the OP in bad faith. Bound_up has taken the time to share their thinking with us and, while it may be there is an offensive interpretation of the post, it violates the discourse norms I’d at least like to see here to outright dismiss something as “bad”. Some of the other comments under the parent comment make this a bit clearer, but even the most generous interpretations I can find of many of these comments lack much more content than “shut up OP”.
This is one of those comments that presents itself as contradicting the post, but actually doesn’t.
If you walk away using a properly watered-down version of this over-the-top description with its “obvious exceptions and caveats,” then it will have exactly achieved its purpose.
I hope you won’t be equally rude (but memorable) if you discuss this with people who are liable to interpret it only as a status move, and not as an attempt to describe pieces of reality. If you are discussing it with people who instinctively form conscious models of the world and interpret propositions as propositions and not as social maneuvers, then you might find that an over-the-top description will make the central idea clearer and more memorable.
You’ll risk people not properly watering down the idea, of course, but if you trust your audience to water it down, you can enjoy the benefits of exaggeration. Nerdy or not, they are humans, after all, and exaggeration has its uses.
The thing is, most people do both depending on the topic and the context. Exactly the same person who will be unthinkingly tribal with respect to, say, politics, will show amazing abilities to model and reason about the world when the subject switches to his hobby (say, sailing or gardening or BBQ).
The distinction you’re pointing at is not a distinction between people, it’s mostly a distinction between subjects (see e.g. “politics is the mind-killer”).