I think there’s two common stories for comparing intersubjective experiences:
“Mismatch”: Alice loves a book, and found it deeply transformative. Beth, who otherwise has very similar tastes and preferences to Alice, reads the book and finds it boring and unmoving.
“Match”: Charlie loves a piece of music. Daniel, who shares a lot of Charlie’s taste in music, listens to it and also loves it.
One way I can think of unpacking this is that there is in terms of distributions:
“Mean”—the shared intersubjective experiences, which we see in the “Match” case
“Variability”—the difference in intersubjective experiences, which we see in the “Mismatch” case
Another way of unpacking this is due to factors within the piece or within the subject
“Intrinsic”—factors that are within the subject, things like past experiences and memories and even what you had for breakfast
“Extrinsic”—factors that are within the piece itself, and shared by all observers
And one more ingredient I want to point at is question substitution. In this case I think the effect is more like “felt sense query substitution” or “received answer substitution” since it doesn’t have an explicit question.
When asked about a piece (of art, music, etc) people will respond with how they felt—which includes both intrinsic and extrinsic factors.
Anyways what I want is better social tools for separating out these, in ways that let people share their interest and excitement in things.
I think that these mismatches/misfirings (like the LW post that set this off) and the reactions to them cause a chilling effect, where the LW/rationality community is not sharing as much art because of this
I want to be in a community that’s got a bunch of people sharing art they love and cherish
I think great art is underrepresented in LW and want to change that.
Intersubjective Mean and Variability.
(Subtitle: I wish we shared more art with each other)
This is mostly a reaction to the (10y old) LW post: Things you are supposed to like.
I think there’s two common stories for comparing intersubjective experiences:
“Mismatch”: Alice loves a book, and found it deeply transformative. Beth, who otherwise has very similar tastes and preferences to Alice, reads the book and finds it boring and unmoving.
“Match”: Charlie loves a piece of music. Daniel, who shares a lot of Charlie’s taste in music, listens to it and also loves it.
One way I can think of unpacking this is that there is in terms of distributions:
“Mean”—the shared intersubjective experiences, which we see in the “Match” case
“Variability”—the difference in intersubjective experiences, which we see in the “Mismatch” case
Another way of unpacking this is due to factors within the piece or within the subject
“Intrinsic”—factors that are within the subject, things like past experiences and memories and even what you had for breakfast
“Extrinsic”—factors that are within the piece itself, and shared by all observers
And one more ingredient I want to point at is question substitution. In this case I think the effect is more like “felt sense query substitution” or “received answer substitution” since it doesn’t have an explicit question.
When asked about a piece (of art, music, etc) people will respond with how they felt—which includes both intrinsic and extrinsic factors.
Anyways what I want is better social tools for separating out these, in ways that let people share their interest and excitement in things.
I think that these mismatches/misfirings (like the LW post that set this off) and the reactions to them cause a chilling effect, where the LW/rationality community is not sharing as much art because of this
I want to be in a community that’s got a bunch of people sharing art they love and cherish
I think great art is underrepresented in LW and want to change that.