Rationality interests include: charitable dialogues and gifted ed. (Oh! and optimizing to increase my productivity above a rather questionable baseline.)
WeDoTheodicyInThisHouse
Karma: 0
I got put in RavenClaw in one fun April 1st Discord prank...
...my hubbie shook his head and was like “which is funny because you’re a Hufflepuff!”
(This interaction is hilarious for multiple reasons, now that I’m typing it out & thinking about it.)
An example is having a bunch of insightful theories about social dynamics, but when actually in a situation where they could put those theories into practice, there is some kind of block. The models are not acting like felt models.
I think i’ve lived this one before as well!! (i mean… everyone has, maybe, either on a large scale or small.)
I have a X-ian example i want to share, but I don’t want to be seen as a pushy person “trying to convert people.” (I do think it’s an interesting and useful example though, and actually not-uncritical of Christianity, at least as practiced, anyway.)
I also had a block around “convincing other people of anything.”
Aughhh, yes. That rings true!
What I ended up doing that gave me a big breakthrough was HAMMER the person repeatedly; whenever the other person (for example, my aspie husband) was like “this is wrong because of X” and they hadn’t accounted something, I could be like “No, I don’t think so because of Y.”
(or, funnier, “Actually, I think it MIGHT be wrong because of X, but I want to make sure you know about Y, because I think you don’t.”)
Also remain very ready to turn around, and not be afraid of people’s threats of anger. (This required extensive community formation to get to… and I may not even be there yet, but standing up and opening my mouth—at the RIGHT MOMENT in the right way—seemed good.)
The tension of always being meek and ready to pivot to genuinely caring about your interlocutor’s (claimed) emotions when they say (or signal) they’re sincerly upset b/c of something you said...
...and also to say in my heart, (for a hypothetical example if it’s some woman I’m quarreling with), “this person said she was truth-seeking; I am going to loop back to her about how 1 thing might not have been accounted with her evidence. Even if it’s unnecessary for the plan going forward, even it it’ll look like nitpicking—it’ll build her trust of me in the future if she’s genuinely liking truth more than her own comfortableness.”
It appears you’re doing what amounts to “rolling applications,” where you make a decision on each application about 10 days after it’s submitted. You might want to publish your list of accepted applicants here as they are admitted.
NOTE: Of course, that’s with permission. You probably want to have a thoughtful conversation with each applicant about if they want to be published to this, (and under what name or pseudonym) given that anonymous online writing is deeply tied to the norms & history of the community.. and this would break the IRL/online identity separation.