This is evidence that the thing you described exists, everyday, even in this more filtered community. Sorry about that.
(The following 3 paragraphs use guesswork and near psychoanalyzing which is sorta distateful—I do it openly because I think it’s got truth to it and I want to be corrected if it’s not. Also hopefully it makes Duncan feel more seen (and I want to know if it’s not the case))
It feels JBlack’s reaction is part of the symptom being described. JBlack is similar in enough ways to have been often ostracized and has come up with a way that’s fine for them to deal with it, and then write “It just doesn’t seem to me to be a big thing to get upset about”, ie. “there exists no one for whom its legitimate to get upset about” ie. “you don’t exist Duncan”. I imagine for you Duncan that’s a frustrating answer when it’s exactly the problem you were trying to convey. (I feel john’s comment is much more appropriate about looking at the problem and saying they can see different solutions without saying that it should apply to you).
I’m interested in why “the thing” was not conveyed to JBlack. One important dimension to differ on is the “intuitively/fundamentally altruistic”. If you are high on that dimension, some things about other people matter in of themselves (and you don’t walk in the Nozick Experience Machine (necessary, not sufficient)). When someone else says they experience this or that, then (as long as you don’t have more evidence that they’re lying/mistaken) you care and believe them. You start from their side and try to build using their models a solution. In this mode, I read your (Duncan) post and am like “hm, I empathize to many parts, I could feel I understand him. But he’s warning strongly that he keeps being misunderstood and not seen, so I’m going to trust him, and keep in mind that my model of him is imprecise/incorrect in many directions and degrees. I’ll keep this in mind in my writing, suggesting models and wanting to get feedback”. I assume JBlack is not so high on the “intuitively/fundamentally altruistic” dimension and processes the world through their experience (I mean this in a stronger way than the tautologically true one, that JBlack discount what others say of their experience strongly based on if it corresponds to their own) and to some extent don’t care about understanding Duncan. So they don’t. I’m saying this because if it’s the case, Duncan’s shrug is appropriate, there’s not much point in trying to reach people who don’t care, it’s not sad to not reach someone who’s unreachable.
This is evidence that my attempt to convey the thing failed to work with you particularly. *shrug*
This is evidence that the thing you described exists, everyday, even in this more filtered community. Sorry about that.
(The following 3 paragraphs use guesswork and near psychoanalyzing which is sorta distateful—I do it openly because I think it’s got truth to it and I want to be corrected if it’s not. Also hopefully it makes Duncan feel more seen (and I want to know if it’s not the case))
It feels JBlack’s reaction is part of the symptom being described. JBlack is similar in enough ways to have been often ostracized and has come up with a way that’s fine for them to deal with it, and then write “It just doesn’t seem to me to be a big thing to get upset about”, ie. “there exists no one for whom its legitimate to get upset about” ie. “you don’t exist Duncan”. I imagine for you Duncan that’s a frustrating answer when it’s exactly the problem you were trying to convey. (I feel john’s comment is much more appropriate about looking at the problem and saying they can see different solutions without saying that it should apply to you).
I’m interested in why “the thing” was not conveyed to JBlack.
One important dimension to differ on is the “intuitively/fundamentally altruistic”. If you are high on that dimension, some things about other people matter in of themselves (and you don’t walk in the Nozick Experience Machine (necessary, not sufficient)). When someone else says they experience this or that, then (as long as you don’t have more evidence that they’re lying/mistaken) you care and believe them. You start from their side and try to build using their models a solution. In this mode, I read your (Duncan) post and am like “hm, I empathize to many parts, I could feel I understand him. But he’s warning strongly that he keeps being misunderstood and not seen, so I’m going to trust him, and keep in mind that my model of him is imprecise/incorrect in many directions and degrees. I’ll keep this in mind in my writing, suggesting models and wanting to get feedback”.
I assume JBlack is not so high on the “intuitively/fundamentally altruistic” dimension and processes the world through their experience (I mean this in a stronger way than the tautologically true one, that JBlack discount what others say of their experience strongly based on if it corresponds to their own) and to some extent don’t care about understanding Duncan. So they don’t.
I’m saying this because if it’s the case, Duncan’s shrug is appropriate, there’s not much point in trying to reach people who don’t care, it’s not sad to not reach someone who’s unreachable.