maladroit

• maladroit 28 Aug 2018 22:48 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: ESRogs’s comment on: Un­rol­ling so­cial metacog­ni­tion: Three lev­els of meta are not enough.

  I meant etcetera.

  Alex felt bad about the fact that, from Alex’s perspective, Baily keeps having bad feels about actions that Alex is taking (things analagous to leaving out the milk)

• maladroit 27 Aug 2018 5:17 UTC

  21 points

  0

  in reply to: Said Achmiz’s comment on: Un­rol­ling so­cial metacog­ni­tion: Three lev­els of meta are not enough.

  Is all of this really supposed to be a description of actual people? Or what?

  FYI this reads as incredulity-as-attack, when you might have instead written ‘I’m surprised, because as far as I know, none of the people I’ve ever met think or behave like that’ which would have contained the same critique but come across as 3x less dick

  edit: it seems in the spirit of the thread to unroll a little more. Your first comment seemed to say something like ‘I’m confused by the words you used,’ which when I read it I felt good about that. But then when it was explained enough so that ‘I’m confused’ was no longer a concern, you immediately switched tacks to be complaining about something else, without acknowledging that your first concern had been addressed or that your second concern was a brand-new complaint.

  That made me think that you just didn’t like this, and were going to find reasons to keep not liking it. I had a model that neither of your explicit complaints thus far was your true complaint, and that made me feel like you were being uncooperative and so I also felt less-inclined-to-cooperate. Then I checked your words again to see whether they were more compatible with “trying to understand” or with “trying to socially dominate” and if I had to bet I would bet on the latter, and that’s where my comment came from.

  I guess it’s possible I’m missing or misinterpreting stuff. But now you have something to work with if you want it.

• maladroit 27 Aug 2018 2:06 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: Said Achmiz’s comment on: Un­rol­ling so­cial metacog­ni­tion: Three lev­els of meta are not enough.

  1.4) Alex reflects on feeling judged, doesn’t like it, and concludes that Bailey is “a downer”.

  Unrolling of referents: Alex felt it was bad that Alex felt that Bailey felt that Alex leaving out the milk was bad.

  2.4) Multiple similar Scale 1 events happen Alex does something X, and ends up feeling that Bailey was “a downer” about it.

  Complete unrolling of referents: Alex felt it was bad that Alex felt that Bailey felt that Alex doing X was bad, for multiple values of X.

  In the first example, there’s [Alex feels that Baily [feels that leaving out the milk is bad]]

  Then Alex feels that that^ is bad, which probably isn’t ‘I feel bad about having this understanding of the situation’ but more like ‘I disapprove of this thing that I understand’. So Alex is grumpy or angry or frustrated or disappointed when looking at [their belief that Bailey thinks their actiosn are bad]

  I’m guessing the second example follows the same pattern. There’s [Alex has a general feel that Baily [has a general feel that Alex is doing bad stuff] where the word felt that Critch wrote is like a belief but isn’t necessarily explicit or justified.

  So then you get Alex felt bad about the fact that, from Alex’s perspective, Bailey keeps ETC.

  I think that’s different from both of the options you had in your top comment, but it’s closer to your due to the fact option. There’s a thing happening, and Alex doesn’t like it (is sad, irritated, mad, whatever, which Critch tagged as just ‘bad’)

  For your first edit, the downer thing reads to me as being more like ‘Baily is a bummer or a party pooper or likely to have emotional reactions to things that I Alex think are too small or too trivial to deserve such a reaction.’

  For your second edit, the snob thing reads to me as ‘Charlie sees Alex judging Bailey as a person over Baily’s judgements of Alex, and furthermore this pattern-matches for Charlie to a kind of snobbishness, E.G. Alex is judging Baily for not living up to Alex’s standards of what should or should not trigger emotion or what one should or should not do in response to emotion, and maybe Alex is being hypocritical too since they’re being emotional in response to that.’