Archetypes are good (Caroline Myss is one author), trickster makes this world, and spiral dynamics are three places to look for modes of thinking.
Should this be its own post?
There are two cultures in this particular trade-off. Collaborative and adversarial.
I pitch collaborative as, “let’s work together to find the answer (truth)” and I pitch adversarial as, “let’s work against each other to find the answer (truth)”.
Internally the stance is different. For collaborative, it might look something like, “I need to consider the other argument and then offer my alternative view”. For adversarial, it might look something like, “I need to advocate harder for my view because I’m right”. (not quite a balanced description)
Collaborative: “I don’t know if that’s true, what about x”
Adversarial “you’re wrong because of x”.
Culturally 99% of either is fine as long as all parties agree on the culture and act like it. They do include each other at least partially.
Bad collaboration is not being willing to question the other’s position and bad adversarial is not being willing to question one’s own position and blindly advocating.
I see adversarial as going downhill in quality of conversation faster because it’s harder to get a healthy separation of “you are wrong” from, “and you should feel bad (or dumb) about it”. “only an idiot would have an idea like that”.
In a collaborative process, the other person is not an idiot because there’s an assumption that we work together. If adversarial process cuts to the depth of beliefs about our interlocker then from my perspective it gets un-pretty very quickly. Although skilled scientists are always using both and have a clean separation of personal and idea.
In an adversarial environment, I’ve known of some brains to take the feedback, “you are wrong because x” and translate it to, “I am bad, or I should give up, or I failed” and not “I should advocate for my idea better”.
At the end of an adversarial argument is a very strong flip, popperian style “I guess I am wrong so I take your side”.
At the end of a collaborative process is when I find myself taking sides, up until that point, it’s not always clear what my position is, and even at the end of a collaborative process I might be internally resting on the best outcome of collaboration so far, but tomorrow that might change.
I see the possibility of being comfortable in each step of collaboration to say, “thank you for adding something here”. However I see that harder or more friction to say so during adversarial cultures.
I advocate for collaboration over adversarial culture because of the bleed through from epistemics to inherent interpersonal beliefs. Humans are not perfect arguers or it would not matter so much. Because we play with brains and mixing territory of belief and interpersonal relationships I prefer collaborative to adversarial but I could see a counter argument that emphasised the value of the opposite position.
I can also see that it doesn’t matter which culture one is in, so long as there is clarity around it being one and not the other.
Why is that weird? Instead of carrying gold around just carry these promising pieces of paper that guarantee value.
And everyone agreed. Probably not at first.
You should add integral’s interior and exterior to the diagram.
There is no frame, and it’s not clear what this point is until about half way through a dialogue between several people which needs to be thought through carefully to really understand.
Google docs are good for saving content on the fly.
Are you acting as the moderator nitpicking, or acting as a user nitpicking?
Are you personally committed to arguing with this post because it potentially mandates moderation behaviour? Or because you want to demonstrate being the bully being described?
What on earth is going on with this whole comment thread??
Nope, hasn’t been done.
My experience is reactions are important for real time conversations with too many people at once. It allows one person to speak and several people to agree without adding another line of text and clogging up the discussion.
There is another use case of “supportive” emojis where I would react hug to “I’ve had a rough day” from a friend of mine.
There’s all the humour uses of emoji too but that’s not what we want on lw.
The battle over time and money (patient value for their time) (doc value for money) was more central to the discussion than life and death. Bringing in the subjective life and death claims helps to elevate the stakes of the discussion, but this “signalling game” was all about the time and the money, not the life and death as claimed by the report.
We can pretend it was about life and death but the ticking clock was still very long. I could think of it as a “runway”. Yes at the end of the runway if the patient did nothing they could die in a week. On the other hand they have access to money and plenty of options. Lots of start ups run with 6 months of runway and crash, instagram had huge success in a very short time.
The fake runway here has death at the end, before that point includes, “the patient spends exorbitant money” making the runway longer.
By my understanding, leverage is working on human effectiveness. How to take a human and make them more effective at what they are doing.
There’s a broad brush of choosing high leverage people to apply their efforts of effectiveness training and a broad brush of what counts as their effectiveness methodologies.
I am thinking of it as coaching from a perspective of “what works” above “what is proven”, so branching into the post rationality area.
For example, if a person is learning piano. And they have maxed out deep work hours, and teacher hours, and relevant study programs, and expertise training. At some point teaching small stuff like posture, reading skills, memory, productivity, start to become effective techniques to add to the pile. As does maybe meditation, diet, and seemingly unrelated fields like social relationship management to better enable happiness and well-being while maximising piano learning. At some point the pollution in the air becomes a relevant factor, the development of the surrounding society, and more.
There are definitely rationalist positions that have unexamined potential in the pr direction, where a good excuse is, “I haven’t looked yet”. (and a bad excuse might be, “that’s dumb I don’t want to look there”). In that sense there is rationality that is not yet at Post-rational investigations.
I had to have some sense and experience of investigating and knowing the world before I turned that machine on itself and started to explore the inner workings of the investigation mechanism.
I would think of this in terms of rights. Who has the right to post a new theory? Who has the right to challenge an existing concept? Who has the right to reply? Who has the right to defence?Who has the right to demand?
Everyone can choose which ones you want to and which ones you don’t want to, but it’s not possible to bind other people to your preferences against their will.
This question is better informed by the works of Martin Seligman and his happiness/wellbeing department of psychology, Jordan Peterson’s early book “Maps of meaning”, and Victor Frankl.
Seligman suggests that meaning is one of the big things required to live a fulfilling and happy life.
Jordan Peterson proposed that meaning is narrative based and you can write your own meaning by journaling about your past/present/future.
Victor Frankl (post holocaust book—“man’s search for meaning”) invented logotherapy, suggesting that people need a reason and a purpose to exist. Described that while surviving the camps he was propelled by the desire to be able to one day tell his story. V also describes his patients and some of the ways he reflects back a cognitively meaningful conclusion to their struggles (man who died before his wife, was suggested that it was to save his wife from dying first and suffering without the man).
Buddhist meditators realise that meaning is subjective. because meaning is located in the brain, we can change it, we can manipulate it and we can make it work differently. I can do things like discount how much I value something, whenever I notice a motivation I can examine it’s parts and find it’s impermanence, I can notice how meaning does not satisfy and is just some chemistry in my brain. I can notice the self is an illusion and my own meaning is made up to satisfy something like an “ego” (ego is a word being butchered by many definitions).
Post rationalists can approach the problem like a game. What’s the meaning at the end of the game? Okay, why don’t I just stop playing the game and just do that. I call this the “just stop playing the game” game, and I’ve wanted to do it for as long as I was a rationalist. Only to realise that, the “just stop playing the game” game, is just another fancier game. Seeing the game, playing the game anyway, and realising it’s a game, or seeing the game and not playing the game, starts looking like the same thing. A prison I can’t escape. knowing these details, from the PR perspective, how do I play the game of my own choosing, my own meaning, while knowing I’m still in a game.
There’s also the theory of spiral dynamics which describes how different people find meaning from different broad structures in a sociologically predictable and mapped out fashion. I will write an article about it at some point and have several drafts half written.
It’s important to separate meaning from meaningful and the reasoning around meaning from the core meaningful thing. The difference between, “I really like sweet deserts” and “I like ice-cream” (but for meaning, X matters, Y are the reasons why it matters).
Meaning is subjective, I accidentally made myself miserable by wanting things I could not have, then I accidentally made myself very disappointed by never wanting anything. It’s been a meditative challenge to find the balance where I can want something and not be sad if I don’t get it, and also not want something too hard that I feel meaningless being unable to get it, or meaningless once I do get it.
I explore what matters to other people, and that’s been fun and interesting. There’s a deep world of what matters to other people and why, and it’s worth sharing and enjoying.
There’s a complexity of validation for my own meaning, or some 1st person subjective desires never go away.
One thing I would like to acquire is the ability to have an enjoyable subjective experience almost all of the time.
This information should be publicly findable. And ideally anonymous information about reports received should also be published.
If it’s a non-public view count, I don’t see it becoming a goodheart metric. If something is too clickbait or trash, it would get downvotes. If it doesn’t get downvotes, maybe there’s good reasons.
Maybe it would be worth internally having:
page view count
vote total (also possibly up and down vote total)
some sort of relative metric that can compare this article to the other articles nearby.
There are two features. “author sees view count” and “public sees view count”. Which one are you talking about?
For me, I don’t write a clickbait and I don’t write a community drama. But I’ve written posts with 5 hours of work and posts with 30mins of work. And different styles and qualities of 30min posts. I’d love to know if people are reading them.
A post with 100 views and +10 up votes VS a post with 15 views and +10 up votes is a very different thing.