Okay, so can you operationalize the distinction between the levels? Or offer an idea as to why the other levels would masquerade as fact-level exchanges? Plausible deniability?
And is ‘rationalist’ a good term for the behavioral pattern you’re writing about, seeing how it tends to get associated with the contrasting notion of empiricism (at least in my mind)?
Nice to see you registered here. Do stick around. :)
A decent operationalization is rather tricky, especially since the levels mix and intertwine with each other, as others have pointed out. As for why the others look like fact-level exchanges… good question. Plausible deniability doesn’t sound like a bad guess, especially in case of status games. Since a lot of the jockeying for status seems to happen without us even being consciously aware of it, there might also be a degree of self-deception involved. Though for what purpose, I am unsure.
Also, it might simply be the fact that it’s easier to layer on new content on existing systems of communication than come up with entirely new ones. If most people are capable of keeping the different levels apart without conscious thought, then there’s no particular reason to separate them more.
The definition of “rationalism” used on this site is somewhat different from the traditional rationalism vs. empiricism division—see this post. Of course, even going by our definition, it’s not that an inability to differentiate between the levels would be part of the rationalist definition in any way (quite to the contrary). It’s only that people drawn to the kind of analytical reasoning characteristic of rationalists tend to often have weaker social skills. (In other words, nerds are overrepresented among rationalists.)
Okay, so can you operationalize the distinction between the levels? Or offer an idea as to why the other levels would masquerade as fact-level exchanges? Plausible deniability?
And is ‘rationalist’ a good term for the behavioral pattern you’re writing about, seeing how it tends to get associated with the contrasting notion of empiricism (at least in my mind)?
Nice to see you registered here. Do stick around. :)
A decent operationalization is rather tricky, especially since the levels mix and intertwine with each other, as others have pointed out. As for why the others look like fact-level exchanges… good question. Plausible deniability doesn’t sound like a bad guess, especially in case of status games. Since a lot of the jockeying for status seems to happen without us even being consciously aware of it, there might also be a degree of self-deception involved. Though for what purpose, I am unsure.
Also, it might simply be the fact that it’s easier to layer on new content on existing systems of communication than come up with entirely new ones. If most people are capable of keeping the different levels apart without conscious thought, then there’s no particular reason to separate them more.
The definition of “rationalism” used on this site is somewhat different from the traditional rationalism vs. empiricism division—see this post. Of course, even going by our definition, it’s not that an inability to differentiate between the levels would be part of the rationalist definition in any way (quite to the contrary). It’s only that people drawn to the kind of analytical reasoning characteristic of rationalists tend to often have weaker social skills. (In other words, nerds are overrepresented among rationalists.)