3 ms·

It allows one to achieve a view where they don't judge others in an attempt to speak for them as you have done here. While you can imagine someone patting thems

It allows one to achieve a view where they don't judge others in an attempt to speak for them as you have done here. While you can imagine someone patting themselves on the back for being aesthetic, the reality is that is only occurring vividly in your own mind, and not out here. If someone was indeed patting themselves on the back out here for these things, that is a separate problem created of their own judgement. Speaking for other's actions leading to judgement is itself viral irrationality, as doing so only spreads the behavior and irrationality further into the aggregate. For the nerds here, I present this as a recursive pattern which spreads by being computationally inefficient. Software bloat, maybe? As an aside, when I talk about a "dissonance" button for social media sites, your comment would be a perfect example of when to push it. That's not to say your leading question and comment on others future irrational actions shouldn't be allowed, but I think that it's important to call out content that is potentially "messy" in nature due to it's own innate ability to spread to others without your intervention (after saying it, of course). Maybe limiting replies to such "comments" would be one way to increase the overall aesthetic.

andrewmcwatters 10y ago
Your comment is barely comprehensible to me. Can you condense this to simple English? What are you even saying in half of your post? > It allows one to achieve a view where they don't judge others So you're telling me that being cultured allows one to not judge others, but while clearly having the effect of outwardly being smug to others? That's basically what I got out of your comment and the parent post. Your aside also implies that his comment basically shouldn't be allowed despite your explicit comment that it's "not to say." This seems all rather smug and rude.
- kordless 10y ago
  One side-effect of stating one's internal truth is that others may take it how they like. If you decide to take what I'm saying as smug and rude, then that's your prerogative to speak for me in an internal frame, inside your mind. Out here in the external frame, what appears to be a deterministic reality by all accounts, I'm telling you directly that I am not smug about this and I do not consider my actions rude given I'm not blaming you, personally, in my original comment. (The state of rudeness can only be evaluated by the entity which receives the comment, not someone who speaks for them out of turn.) In fact, it is my intent to help others achieve a state of understanding that allows their own assertion of my claims here. If Boothroid has something to say about me or my comments here, then that is their prerogative. I would encourage them to keep speaking for my internal frame to a minimum, however, and make observations instead of judgement. Only each of us may speak for our own internal frames. I will note that there is blame in my comments here now, which is being directed toward someone who is clearly speaking for another's thought processes - that would be you speaking for me being smug and Boothrid in my "being rude" to them, when I'm saying otherwise here publicly. This behavior can contribute to a cyclic behavior of increasing blame (from the irrationality spreading) if one decides to ignore what another is saying and continue speaking for their internal frame. Tending toward the aesthetic encourages letting go of personal judgement because once you stop judging yourself, you stop judging others. There's also a deeper cause for letting go of judgement, which involves understanding what all of this really is. You may think you are are separate entity and definitely have a right to claim separation from the whole, if that's what you want. OTOH, I think you are one part of a larger unidentified, unified entity: a global consciousness frequently mistaken for "God" by religions. However, me stating that internal thought to you here is direct blame if you don't believe that, given I (would and am) pointing out publicly that you are part of a global entity (which itself is an irrational thought). Again, spreading irrationality by broadcasting irrational logic is not ideal, so I really shouldn't do it. However, I did it here to prove a point. ;)
notduncansmith 10y ago
Most behavior is viral by default, human see human do. While I agree that this extends to judgemental and otherwise unproductive discourse, usually the factors driving those behaviors in people are unlikely to be resolved by having the symptoms pointed out repeatedly. If a software module is producing faulty output, you have to fix the problem on the inside rather than simply rejecting all of the output. People are the same, except you can't directly inspect or modify their internals; you have to rely on message passing and observation, which is way more difficult. The way to make this more efficient, IMO, is to give people the tools to identify and resolve the underlying bugs in their own perception. But that's a different topic altogether.
- kordless 10y ago
  If the behaviors are affecting the message passing, then measures must be put in place to limit that behavior. Buddhism calls the pointing out of this type of behavior "indirect pointing", but given we have a construct (the computer) we can now point to, I'd prefer to just point and say "This irrational statement is itself a producer of irrationality and therefore should be limited given its affect on the message passing".
Y_Y 10y ago
Just to provide a counterpoint to the two other comments which are disparaging of the parent, I thought this was a great contribution, even if it was written less like a HN comment and more like a philosophy essay.

andrewmcwatters 10y ago

Your comment is barely comprehensible to me. Can you condense this to simple English? What are you even saying in half of your post? > It allows one to achieve a view where they don't judge others So you're telling me that being cultured allows one to not judge others, but while clearly having the effect of outwardly being smug to others? That's basically what I got out of your comment and the parent post. Your aside also implies that his comment basically shouldn't be allowed despite your explicit comment that it's "not to say." This seems all rather smug and rude.

kordless 10y ago
One side-effect of stating one's internal truth is that others may take it how they like. If you decide to take what I'm saying as smug and rude, then that's your prerogative to speak for me in an internal frame, inside your mind. Out here in the external frame, what appears to be a deterministic reality by all accounts, I'm telling you directly that I am not smug about this and I do not consider my actions rude given I'm not blaming you, personally, in my original comment. (The state of rudeness can only be evaluated by the entity which receives the comment, not someone who speaks for them out of turn.) In fact, it is my intent to help others achieve a state of understanding that allows their own assertion of my claims here. If Boothroid has something to say about me or my comments here, then that is their prerogative. I would encourage them to keep speaking for my internal frame to a minimum, however, and make observations instead of judgement. Only each of us may speak for our own internal frames. I will note that there is blame in my comments here now, which is being directed toward someone who is clearly speaking for another's thought processes - that would be you speaking for me being smug and Boothrid in my "being rude" to them, when I'm saying otherwise here publicly. This behavior can contribute to a cyclic behavior of increasing blame (from the irrationality spreading) if one decides to ignore what another is saying and continue speaking for their internal frame. Tending toward the aesthetic encourages letting go of personal judgement because once you stop judging yourself, you stop judging others. There's also a deeper cause for letting go of judgement, which involves understanding what all of this really is. You may think you are are separate entity and definitely have a right to claim separation from the whole, if that's what you want. OTOH, I think you are one part of a larger unidentified, unified entity: a global consciousness frequently mistaken for "God" by religions. However, me stating that internal thought to you here is direct blame if you don't believe that, given I (would and am) pointing out publicly that you are part of a global entity (which itself is an irrational thought). Again, spreading irrationality by broadcasting irrational logic is not ideal, so I really shouldn't do it. However, I did it here to prove a point. ;)

notduncansmith 10y ago

Most behavior is viral by default, human see human do. While I agree that this extends to judgemental and otherwise unproductive discourse, usually the factors driving those behaviors in people are unlikely to be resolved by having the symptoms pointed out repeatedly. If a software module is producing faulty output, you have to fix the problem on the inside rather than simply rejecting all of the output. People are the same, except you can't directly inspect or modify their internals; you have to rely on message passing and observation, which is way more difficult. The way to make this more efficient, IMO, is to give people the tools to identify and resolve the underlying bugs in their own perception. But that's a different topic altogether.

kordless 10y ago
If the behaviors are affecting the message passing, then measures must be put in place to limit that behavior. Buddhism calls the pointing out of this type of behavior "indirect pointing", but given we have a construct (the computer) we can now point to, I'd prefer to just point and say "This irrational statement is itself a producer of irrationality and therefore should be limited given its affect on the message passing".

Y_Y 10y ago

Just to provide a counterpoint to the two other comments which are disparaging of the parent, I thought this was a great contribution, even if it was written less like a HN comment and more like a philosophy essay.