3 ms·
There may be extremes, but if you generalize that example it's exhausting. Making a bad decision in one area does not mean that Jack's stupider than Steve and w
by rz2k 10y ago
There may be extremes, but if you generalize that example it's exhausting. Making a bad decision in one area does not mean that Jack's stupider than Steve and won't know exactly what he's trying to do. Furthermore, is Steve actually listening? I ask because a lot of what people are doing here, if it's innovative, is regularly met with skepticism.
Understanding naysayers' concerns, and learning a ready answer if they ultimately don't seem valid can be a good use of time. Giving a whole lot of air time to someone who has a foregone conclusion that they think merits some transparent rhetorical game is not.
- avindroth 10y agoMaking a bad decision in one area does not mean that Jack's stupider than Steve and won't know exactly what he's trying to do I never implied anything about stupidity. My claim is this sort of behavior is not conducive to change. Furthermore, is Steve actually listening? Of course he is. You are missing the point. Or you just haven't met that many people like Steve. Understanding naysayers' concerns, and learning a ready answer if they ultimately don't seem valid can be a good use of time. Absolutely. You should hold that standard for yourself. But just because you hold that standard for yourself doesn't mean the world all of a sudden is open to criticism. Have a vision for what the ideal world is, but do not be deluded when modeling the state of the real world. If you think this is just transparent rhetoric game, you seriously misunderstand the general population of human beings. And most likely, yourself. If you have a brain that remotely resembles mine, then you have emotions, biases - structural flaws in our brain. Understand those first. Reading LessWrong will help.