3 ms·

You are taking this way more personally than you should be. You should probably check yourself and see if you aren’t being an asshole to other people with your

You are taking this way more personally than you should be. You should probably check yourself and see if you aren’t being an asshole to other people with your supposed “intelligence”. Ad hominem aside, is it so hard to understand the words “implicit” and “explicit”? They are English words, and implicit vs. explicit goals really isn’t all that hard to understand. Maybe people around you don’t use this language, but implicit vs. explicit models is a dichotomy I hear all the time among pretty smart people. And very useful distinction. I don’t think you are capable of ingesting in new information or original thought. Your response to what I said about “fake mission” clearly demonstrates this. I also never said you don’t know your desires. I don’t even know you. Do you have so much time that you feel personally attacked by some (you would call) random assortment of words on the internet? Jeez. I am seeing your other comments and you are just not that positive overall. Being skeptical and negative and doubtful isn’t a hallmark of intelligence, mind you. Please take your matters elsewhere.

kerkeslager 6y ago
> They are English words, and implicit vs. explicit goals really isn’t all that hard to understand. The problem isn't that they are hard to understand, the problem is that they have nothing to do with what anyone was talking about. When someone says, "Persevering in goals can alleviate negative feelings", saying "Explicit goals can distract from implicit goals" isn't a response, it's a non-sequitur. > Being skeptical and negative and doubtful isn’t a hallmark of intelligence, mind you. Being skeptical and doubtful are definitely hallmarks of intelligence. The alternative to skepticism is blind faith. The alternative to doubt is unjustified confidence. In the rest of your post you've decided to attack me personally, to which my only response is going to be: you're accusing me of ad hominem attacks?
- britr 6y ago
  Why do you think faith has to be "blind" and confidence "unjustified"?
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    They don't have to be, but in the absence of evidence, they are. That's just true by the definitions of the words. Put another way: not all faith is blind, but faith without skepticism is blind faith; not all confidence is unjustified, but in the confidence without justification (evidence) is unjustified.

kerkeslager 6y ago

> They are English words, and implicit vs. explicit goals really isn’t all that hard to understand. The problem isn't that they are hard to understand, the problem is that they have nothing to do with what anyone was talking about. When someone says, "Persevering in goals can alleviate negative feelings", saying "Explicit goals can distract from implicit goals" isn't a response, it's a non-sequitur. > Being skeptical and negative and doubtful isn’t a hallmark of intelligence, mind you. Being skeptical and doubtful are definitely hallmarks of intelligence. The alternative to skepticism is blind faith. The alternative to doubt is unjustified confidence. In the rest of your post you've decided to attack me personally, to which my only response is going to be: you're accusing me of ad hominem attacks?

britr 6y ago
Why do you think faith has to be "blind" and confidence "unjustified"?
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  They don't have to be, but in the absence of evidence, they are. That's just true by the definitions of the words. Put another way: not all faith is blind, but faith without skepticism is blind faith; not all confidence is unjustified, but in the confidence without justification (evidence) is unjustified.