5 ms·

Ok, excellent, I believe we may have accidentally invoked an instance of the very problem I am talking about. Well, a milder version of it anyways, assuming yo

Ok, excellent, I believe we may have accidentally invoked an instance of the very problem I am talking about. Well, a milder version of it anyways, assuming you are willing to actually participate in a conversation. That is where things usually (I see I've managed to get a downvote already, an example of another fundamental problem imho) go off the rails, in that in my experience it seems, based on the literal words that people write, that they truly believe they are objectively and confidently correct, and I am objectively incorrect. But if so, why am I unable to ever meet someone who is willing to explain to me why they are correct, and how they know with certainty that they are correct. If I observe two people in a disagreement, both of whom believe they are correct, and one of the people will not defend their position, but rather simply refuses to discuss the matter, then my intuition would suggest that person is the incorrect one (and there's a good chance that they know/feel it). So, we shall see what happens this time... > I'm not blinded by rage, but these two top choices really do seem incompatible. This seems reasonable, but what does "seems" mean, in my sentence, and in yours? seem: "give the impression or sensation of being something or having a particular quality." To me, it seems completely logical on its face that my (type of) stance will always "seem" unusual, because it is unusual. But unusual isn't the word you used. You used "incompatible". incompatible: (of two things) so opposed in character as to be incapable of existing together. Excellent, here we have a non-ambiguous word to work with: incapable incapable: "unable to do or achieve (something)." Or in other words: ~"literally not possible" Ok, I think that should suffice for defining our terms and removing ambiguity. I hope I have set the stage successfully (and in a manner acceptable to you - if not, let me know) for a clear discussion. (META: Look how much work I had to put in here to ~ensure a high quality conversation. I believe this is absolutely necessary, and some day very soon I would love to have a HUGE discussion, with anyone who is interested, on whether this is necessary, and why, and if I made any mistakes, and if there are further improvements or techniques I could use, and if I'm the only one that believes that human communication in all its forms is sub-optimal (cuz it sure seems like I am, based on voting), and so forth and so on.) -------------------------------- So my question to you is: Why do you ~believe it is "literally not possible" for a person to hold my political stance (in a logically coherent manner)? Note: that sentence sounds like I am putting words in your mouth, doesn't it? But how do we propose to have high quality, productive conversations, particularly when stuck in an impasse (seems like a fair description of modern day America to me), if we do not explicitly define what the precise point of contention is? If you'd like to restate what you actually believe, feel free, but then are we not kind of right back to where we started? If you would like to make any modifications to the staged context I've set, or whatever, I'm in. I am willing to participate. I want to figure out what in the fuck is going on with respect to human communication? Why in God's name are what seem like such trivial things, to me, seemingly utterly incomprehensible to other people, even in high intelligence forums like HN? I am obsessed with this question, and I can't find anyone who seems to even find it interesting, let alone be willing to discuss it. And in the background the whole time during this conversation, there is literally a global pandemic underway, largely exacerbated by the fact that numerous highly industrialized first world countries, one of which landed a man on the friggin moon 51 years ago, now seem to struggle with a task as simple as stockpiling boxes of cheap paper masks in medical facilities. But I digress. So, if you're cool with the setup and can answer the question, excellent. If you'd like to tune it up a bit before answering, ok by me (providing the amended result continues to facilitate a high quality conversation). > Is your political goal mostly to shake up the status quo? Not quite. I would describe it more as: I would like to maximize happiness for all humans beings on earth. Furthermore, I would like to see that the system we find that can make that actually happen, is somehow made "sticky", so rogue politicians in the future are not able to dismantle it, even if they try. I also happen to personally believe that to finally start moving towards such a goal, the pre-requisite first step is for everyone to calm down and stop yelling at imaginary strawman avatars (transparently created by our subconscious mind) that they have mistaken for an actual real person. And once we've achieved a calm state of mind, finally start working together, to discover and enumerate that which we all agree upon, and that which we do not. And then, what we agree on: do it. And simultaneously, start working on figuring out precisely(!) why we disagree. And I mean, the true nature of the disagreements, not our assumptions of what they are (this is what we do now). To me, this seems like an obvious improvement over our current approach. And yet, my impression is that people who read this will believe I am mentally ill. Based on the nature of my interactions on HN, I literally believe that. It is not hyperbole. I look at the world, and I simply cannot believe my eyes. It is so far beyond absurd, it's hard to even wrap one's head around it. And yet beyond pointing fingers at their political opponents, it seems to that most people kind of think the situation sucks, but isn't terribly unreasonable. "It's just the way it is, don't dwell on it!" "God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference." - Ancient proverb "Fuck that. That mindset is dumb. Full stop. Is that what got humanity to where we are today? Is that how our ancestors behaved? Is that how our parents raised us to be? Is that how you're raising your children? What in the hell has gone wrong with people? What is going on? Jesus H Christ. Someone has to do something, and the time to start was 30 years ago. We are behind schedule, so quit fucking whining like a bunch of babies and fighting among yourselves about trivialities, and get your ass in gear cleaning up this fucking disaster we have turned this planet into. Everyone, including me, should be fucking ashamed of themselves." - Me Do you see my conundrum? Should I just get it over with and check into a mental hospital? I mean, there's no doubt in my mind that my mental state is is in fact....highly abnormal. But then, in a world gone mad (have you watched TV today?), should abnormal not be a goal worth pursuing? Yes, many instances of abnormal could be even worse, but when "normal" is what I see on TV, I am legitimately willing to (and am) risk my mental health to at least try and do something about it, to hell with all the defeatist status-quo defenders (who know not what they do).

Veserv 7y ago
I am not who you replied to, but since you seem to sincerely want an answer, let me help you out by adding the missing words I see when I read the original poster statement: > ... but these two top choices really do seem incompatible. Is your political goal mostly to shake up the status quo? I read as: > ... these two top choices really do seem incompatible (in standard political frameworks since in standard political frameworks individuals are ranked based on their proposed actions and they frequently propose actions that are fundamental opposites in certain dimensions (e.g. raise vs lower taxes on rich are clearly opposites in at least one important sense)). (Given that you propose that ordering, you must be using a non-standard framework. I can think of one framework off the top of my head which may result in that ordering, so let me ask you if that is the case.) Is your political goal mostly to shake up the status quo? (If that is not the case, can you explain what you are optimizing for and the step-by-step reason for why their stated goals/actions will help in achieving that even though the proposed actions are opposites in the normally considered dimensions. You will probably need to make an argument for why that dimension is irrelevant, less important than a different dimension where they are the same, or that the dimension has the same properties at both extremes.)
- mistermann 7y ago
  (Please pardon tyos and bad grammar, I ran out of time) Thank you, I sincerely appreciate your reply. Yours seems like a very reasonable interpretation. > ...let me help you out by adding the [missing words] [I see] when I read the original poster statement An issue I see, at least the way I view the world, is this: we have gone from 26 words to up to 186. Now, let's not obsess too much over these specific values, and their relative size to each other, particularly in this extremely simple (but not entirely risk free) example. You have personally interpreted what was meant by another person. Now, your interpretation is probably correct (especially in this simple case), but are we sure? Just a few ideas that come to mind of how communication can go wrong: - what if the scenario one is dealing with is more complex &/or nuanced than the example - what if neither of the two participants happen to have particularly strong skills in logic or communication (say, if the conversation is happening in a less technical forum)? - maybe one or both of the participants have seriously flawed ideas within their personal axioms (at this point, I'd say this can almost be assumed to be universal in most cases, due to people living in information bubbles as well as interpreting information in a biased manner) - what if the person doing the interpreting is not acting in a good faith matter to the same high degree you are (due to a lack of intent (up to and including outright lying), or a lack of ability)? - maybe they do have all the necessary skills, and the proper intent, but they accidentally misread or misinterpret the writers words, and they arrive at an interpretation that is significantly different than than the one intended, and then perhaps the conversation continues with neither party realizing that the model (of a person) they are arguing with is fundamentally flawed to the degree that it is not even remotely representative of the meatspace version of the person. - what if the conversation "doesn't go so well" (tempers flare, etc.), and maybe even gets into a downward spiral of sorts, such that the already sub-optimal communication skills are degraded even further (spite, revenge, etc) - I could go on and on I could also go on and write write an even longer list of all the different consequences that might result from an interaction, particularly when the pitfalls above are blended into various unique combinations. And then when the interaction is done, each party leaves with a slightly modified internal model of what members of <Tribe X> "are", or "believe", or what the "facts" are about a particular topic. And finally, these two people eventually wrap it up and go out into the world, carrying in their mind even more flawed models of reality than they started with, and repeat the process over and over. Meanwhile, there are often spectators involved in these conversations, who are in turn having their internal models of the participant's respective "tribes" modified by the events of the conversation. Let's take a scenario: say a Conservative and a Liberal are arguing, and let's say one of the participants is a bit of an asshole (take me for example) - now, in addition to the above pitfalls, all observers minds have been "infected" by the events they witness in this conversation, in particular in this case that the Conservative fellow was "a bit of a jerk". Can you then blame them for letting the idea form in their mind that Conservatives are jerks? After all, they just finished watching one in action! And it's likely not the first time time they've seen that sort of thing. I could easily fill several pages with enumerations of all the different other dimensions of reality (some of which are at least as important as what I've written here) that get layered on top to eventually construct this complex, multi-dimensional "thing" that we refer to as "reality" / "the world", "life" - but I imagine you et the gist of what I'm saying. So, that's a short summary of my take on that. One last minor complaint before I wrap up. I seem to notice a pattern of lots of people behaving as if they are extremely unhappy about the general state of affairs, but when it comes around to discussing ideas about how this situation can be improved, the general consensus recommendation that is shared almost universally across all tribes, is that the underlying problem is: the other tribe. If "they" would "just" do <x>, or stop doing <y>, we'd have this whole thing strightened out by late next week. I lied - one more complaint. HN is full of very smart people, who are generally very logical, right minded, and fair. I am not the cream of the crop around these parts, of that I have no doubt. And yet, what I am endeavoring to do, is to try to find a way to stop so many people from fighting, put down their weapons, and come together around the table with the sincere intent to start having some serious, productive discussions about where we go from here, and whether we can find a way to achieve the vision of the world that we all(!) share in our hearts. All people are good. This is not to say that all people are equally good, and sometimes that goodness is buried under so much emotional scar tissue and anger that it seems impossible to believe that anything of worth lies inside. But it is there, and it can be found if you look hard enough. But first, you have to be willing to look. How many people are willing to look I wonder. Oh sure, everyone sincerely believes they are willing, but I think we both know how rare it is to find a person whose theoretical morals perfectly align with their behavior. I know what I believe, and I believe it is good. I do my best to put these ideas on paper, in hope that I might one day find even one person who believes the same things I do, and then perhaps instead of one person trying to make the world a better place, then we have two. A team, of sorts. Maybe there are others out there who think like this, doing the same thing I am, but in their own unique way. But sometimes a battle is too big for one person, or even ten. Maybe the problem is so large that it needs lots of people. And then maybe sometimes you have special problem, one that is so big that even lots of people isn't enough. No, for those problems, the only solution is everyone. Everyone, all on the same team (more or less), all pushing the ball in the same direction. Instead of tearing each other down, build each other up. I'm not a student of history, but as far as I know I don't think this approach has ever been tried before. In fact, one might argue that what we've tried so far largely consists of the polar opposite of that. So if we all agree that things are less than perfect, and nothing we've tried so far seems to work terribly well, what's the harm in trying something new? Or at least even try discussing the idea? Oh right, my complaint. I am trying my hardest to do what seems (after several years of pondering the situation we find ourselves in) right. I am trying to suggest some new-ish ideas that might have some utility. But then when I come back to the page, hoping to finally find someone who may see the world through a similar lens to mine, it is not uncommon to find several downvotes instead, and it kind of hurts a bit to be honest. Not all that long ago, my reaction would be anger, and thoughts of "revenge". But that was then, and this is now. I still have a long ways to go, but that's fine. "All things come to those who wait" as they say. But in the meantime, it would be real nice if some day I could get even a small sign from one person, that the path I'm on is not wrong. But if not, so be it, I will contiinue down this path until I come up with a better idea on my own. Sorry for talking your ear off, it is one of my many bad character traits. Consider yourself lucky that you only had to sit through the Coles Notes version. Before I sign sign off, I would like to leave links to two articles that I found influential. The first I suspect you will have seen before, and then second is a one hour lecture by Ram Dass, one of the greatest men to ever walk among us, imho. I CAN TOLERATE ANYTHING EXCEPT THE OUTGROUP https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... In the Face of Chaos - Ram Dass Full Lecture 1994 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8NR6AM5oKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8NR6AM5oKk (2020 - 1994 = 26 years ago - how time flies. I wonder if things would look different around here if more people aspired to be like him, rather than our current popular role models. It might be a lot of fun to find out for ourselves, if we'd be willing to try.)

Veserv 7y ago

I am not who you replied to, but since you seem to sincerely want an answer, let me help you out by adding the missing words I see when I read the original poster statement: > ... but these two top choices really do seem incompatible. Is your political goal mostly to shake up the status quo? I read as: > ... these two top choices really do seem incompatible (in standard political frameworks since in standard political frameworks individuals are ranked based on their proposed actions and they frequently propose actions that are fundamental opposites in certain dimensions (e.g. raise vs lower taxes on rich are clearly opposites in at least one important sense)). (Given that you propose that ordering, you must be using a non-standard framework. I can think of one framework off the top of my head which may result in that ordering, so let me ask you if that is the case.) Is your political goal mostly to shake up the status quo? (If that is not the case, can you explain what you are optimizing for and the step-by-step reason for why their stated goals/actions will help in achieving that even though the proposed actions are opposites in the normally considered dimensions. You will probably need to make an argument for why that dimension is irrelevant, less important than a different dimension where they are the same, or that the dimension has the same properties at both extremes.)

mistermann 7y ago
(Please pardon tyos and bad grammar, I ran out of time) Thank you, I sincerely appreciate your reply. Yours seems like a very reasonable interpretation. > ...let me help you out by adding the [missing words] [I see] when I read the original poster statement An issue I see, at least the way I view the world, is this: we have gone from 26 words to up to 186. Now, let's not obsess too much over these specific values, and their relative size to each other, particularly in this extremely simple (but not entirely risk free) example. You have personally interpreted what was meant by another person. Now, your interpretation is probably correct (especially in this simple case), but are we sure? Just a few ideas that come to mind of how communication can go wrong: - what if the scenario one is dealing with is more complex &/or nuanced than the example - what if neither of the two participants happen to have particularly strong skills in logic or communication (say, if the conversation is happening in a less technical forum)? - maybe one or both of the participants have seriously flawed ideas within their personal axioms (at this point, I'd say this can almost be assumed to be universal in most cases, due to people living in information bubbles as well as interpreting information in a biased manner) - what if the person doing the interpreting is not acting in a good faith matter to the same high degree you are (due to a lack of intent (up to and including outright lying), or a lack of ability)? - maybe they do have all the necessary skills, and the proper intent, but they accidentally misread or misinterpret the writers words, and they arrive at an interpretation that is significantly different than than the one intended, and then perhaps the conversation continues with neither party realizing that the model (of a person) they are arguing with is fundamentally flawed to the degree that it is not even remotely representative of the meatspace version of the person. - what if the conversation "doesn't go so well" (tempers flare, etc.), and maybe even gets into a downward spiral of sorts, such that the already sub-optimal communication skills are degraded even further (spite, revenge, etc) - I could go on and on I could also go on and write write an even longer list of all the different consequences that might result from an interaction, particularly when the pitfalls above are blended into various unique combinations. And then when the interaction is done, each party leaves with a slightly modified internal model of what members of <Tribe X> "are", or "believe", or what the "facts" are about a particular topic. And finally, these two people eventually wrap it up and go out into the world, carrying in their mind even more flawed models of reality than they started with, and repeat the process over and over. Meanwhile, there are often spectators involved in these conversations, who are in turn having their internal models of the participant's respective "tribes" modified by the events of the conversation. Let's take a scenario: say a Conservative and a Liberal are arguing, and let's say one of the participants is a bit of an asshole (take me for example) - now, in addition to the above pitfalls, all observers minds have been "infected" by the events they witness in this conversation, in particular in this case that the Conservative fellow was "a bit of a jerk". Can you then blame them for letting the idea form in their mind that Conservatives are jerks? After all, they just finished watching one in action! And it's likely not the first time time they've seen that sort of thing. I could easily fill several pages with enumerations of all the different other dimensions of reality (some of which are at least as important as what I've written here) that get layered on top to eventually construct this complex, multi-dimensional "thing" that we refer to as "reality" / "the world", "life" - but I imagine you et the gist of what I'm saying. So, that's a short summary of my take on that. One last minor complaint before I wrap up. I seem to notice a pattern of lots of people behaving as if they are extremely unhappy about the general state of affairs, but when it comes around to discussing ideas about how this situation can be improved, the general consensus recommendation that is shared almost universally across all tribes, is that the underlying problem is: the other tribe. If "they" would "just" do <x>, or stop doing <y>, we'd have this whole thing strightened out by late next week. I lied - one more complaint. HN is full of very smart people, who are generally very logical, right minded, and fair. I am not the cream of the crop around these parts, of that I have no doubt. And yet, what I am endeavoring to do, is to try to find a way to stop so many people from fighting, put down their weapons, and come together around the table with the sincere intent to start having some serious, productive discussions about where we go from here, and whether we can find a way to achieve the vision of the world that we all(!) share in our hearts. All people are good. This is not to say that all people are equally good, and sometimes that goodness is buried under so much emotional scar tissue and anger that it seems impossible to believe that anything of worth lies inside. But it is there, and it can be found if you look hard enough. But first, you have to be willing to look. How many people are willing to look I wonder. Oh sure, everyone sincerely believes they are willing, but I think we both know how rare it is to find a person whose theoretical morals perfectly align with their behavior. I know what I believe, and I believe it is good. I do my best to put these ideas on paper, in hope that I might one day find even one person who believes the same things I do, and then perhaps instead of one person trying to make the world a better place, then we have two. A team, of sorts. Maybe there are others out there who think like this, doing the same thing I am, but in their own unique way. But sometimes a battle is too big for one person, or even ten. Maybe the problem is so large that it needs lots of people. And then maybe sometimes you have special problem, one that is so big that even lots of people isn't enough. No, for those problems, the only solution is everyone. Everyone, all on the same team (more or less), all pushing the ball in the same direction. Instead of tearing each other down, build each other up. I'm not a student of history, but as far as I know I don't think this approach has ever been tried before. In fact, one might argue that what we've tried so far largely consists of the polar opposite of that. So if we all agree that things are less than perfect, and nothing we've tried so far seems to work terribly well, what's the harm in trying something new? Or at least even try discussing the idea? Oh right, my complaint. I am trying my hardest to do what seems (after several years of pondering the situation we find ourselves in) right. I am trying to suggest some new-ish ideas that might have some utility. But then when I come back to the page, hoping to finally find someone who may see the world through a similar lens to mine, it is not uncommon to find several downvotes instead, and it kind of hurts a bit to be honest. Not all that long ago, my reaction would be anger, and thoughts of "revenge". But that was then, and this is now. I still have a long ways to go, but that's fine. "All things come to those who wait" as they say. But in the meantime, it would be real nice if some day I could get even a small sign from one person, that the path I'm on is not wrong. But if not, so be it, I will contiinue down this path until I come up with a better idea on my own. Sorry for talking your ear off, it is one of my many bad character traits. Consider yourself lucky that you only had to sit through the Coles Notes version. Before I sign sign off, I would like to leave links to two articles that I found influential. The first I suspect you will have seen before, and then second is a one hour lecture by Ram Dass, one of the greatest men to ever walk among us, imho. I CAN TOLERATE ANYTHING EXCEPT THE OUTGROUP https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... In the Face of Chaos - Ram Dass Full Lecture 1994 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8NR6AM5oKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8NR6AM5oKk (2020 - 1994 = 26 years ago - how time flies. I wonder if things would look different around here if more people aspired to be like him, rather than our current popular role models. It might be a lot of fun to find out for ourselves, if we'd be willing to try.)