3 ms·

People tend to only say something that has contextual relation to the conversation at hand. You don't interrupt a conversation about aqueducts to say "I got mu

People tend to only say something that has contextual relation to the conversation at hand. You don't interrupt a conversation about aqueducts to say "I got mud on my shoe once", so a reasonable interpretation is that something they said made you think they're not something; and, since the conversation was about relating things to other things and that's a very philosophical act, the insinuation is that they're bad at it.

rolph 6y ago
that sounds like a somewhat unrealistic reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference_focused_psychotherapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference_focused_psychothe... so help me out here, im insinuating that someone is bad at philosophizing by guessing they are not a philosopher, when they make a statement that has the hallmarks of a scientist, and none of the hueristic qualities of philosophy. i know its impossible to tell now, however my original comment was the first response to the parent submission, the philosophy was the interrupt event.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- t-writescode 6y ago
  If you were going to say they seem like a scientist, it would have been better to go with "I'm guessing you're a scientist or in a science field?" A similar kind of way of speaking would be something like "I'm guessing you never went to college". This would be similar to calling someone an idiot. Or "you program like someone that's never taken a class in it". These are difficult to take positively because nearly every connotation implies that they're somehow lacking something. Rather than speaking about how someone is lacking, it's wiser to speak about how what they're doing is a positive. "You didn't go to college, did you?" is negative; but, "Are you self-taught?" is a positive. Self-taught implies a sort of stick-to-it-iveness and discipline, where as not going to college, again, implies a failing on that person. Does this make sense?
  - godelski 6y ago
    I appreciate the defense but you probably shouldn't argue with them. I'm guessing they are trolling or egocentric (not a meaningful difference). I mean they are supposing that one cannot be both a scientist and a philosopher at the same time, which illustrates quite a naive viewpoint of what science actually is (there's a reason physics was called natural philosophy). Such a notion is a bit ludicrous and so I didn't even want to give it merit by acknowledging the insanity of it. And I mean come on, they said "machine learning is just bio-mimicry big whoop" and I responded "yeah, that's kinda the point"[0] because clearly they don't understand the bio-inspiration of ML and its history, which is a bit obtuse considering we call them "neural networks." And that's without even looking at things like dropout (inspired by sex), genetic programming (sex again), or exploration/exploitation strategies (which are directly related to play). Just let them ride their imaginary high horse. But I do have to give them props for the strangest insult I've gotten all year. [0] It would be very naive to actually say that ML is bio-mimicry. It has a lot of bio-inspiration but does things vastly differently than what biology actually does. But one cannot ignore the inspiration despite the implementation being vastly different.
    - t-writescode 6y ago
      I've met plenty of people that: * English is their second or third language * don't perceive statements the way others do for a variety of reasons I'm treating it as though this situation is one or the other; but, yes, you're right, I've put enough energy into it. Hope you're getting some free time over Christmas - if you've worked a lot; or get that break and a new job! - if you've been in trouble lately

rolph 6y ago

that sounds like a somewhat unrealistic reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference_focused_psychotherapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference_focused_psychothe... so help me out here, im insinuating that someone is bad at philosophizing by guessing they are not a philosopher, when they make a statement that has the hallmarks of a scientist, and none of the hueristic qualities of philosophy. i know its impossible to tell now, however my original comment was the first response to the parent submission, the philosophy was the interrupt event.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
t-writescode 6y ago
If you were going to say they seem like a scientist, it would have been better to go with "I'm guessing you're a scientist or in a science field?" A similar kind of way of speaking would be something like "I'm guessing you never went to college". This would be similar to calling someone an idiot. Or "you program like someone that's never taken a class in it". These are difficult to take positively because nearly every connotation implies that they're somehow lacking something. Rather than speaking about how someone is lacking, it's wiser to speak about how what they're doing is a positive. "You didn't go to college, did you?" is negative; but, "Are you self-taught?" is a positive. Self-taught implies a sort of stick-to-it-iveness and discipline, where as not going to college, again, implies a failing on that person. Does this make sense?
- godelski 6y ago
  I appreciate the defense but you probably shouldn't argue with them. I'm guessing they are trolling or egocentric (not a meaningful difference). I mean they are supposing that one cannot be both a scientist and a philosopher at the same time, which illustrates quite a naive viewpoint of what science actually is (there's a reason physics was called natural philosophy). Such a notion is a bit ludicrous and so I didn't even want to give it merit by acknowledging the insanity of it. And I mean come on, they said "machine learning is just bio-mimicry big whoop" and I responded "yeah, that's kinda the point"[0] because clearly they don't understand the bio-inspiration of ML and its history, which is a bit obtuse considering we call them "neural networks." And that's without even looking at things like dropout (inspired by sex), genetic programming (sex again), or exploration/exploitation strategies (which are directly related to play). Just let them ride their imaginary high horse. But I do have to give them props for the strangest insult I've gotten all year. [0] It would be very naive to actually say that ML is bio-mimicry. It has a lot of bio-inspiration but does things vastly differently than what biology actually does. But one cannot ignore the inspiration despite the implementation being vastly different.
  - t-writescode 6y ago
    I've met plenty of people that: * English is their second or third language * don't perceive statements the way others do for a variety of reasons I'm treating it as though this situation is one or the other; but, yes, you're right, I've put enough energy into it. Hope you're getting some free time over Christmas - if you've worked a lot; or get that break and a new job! - if you've been in trouble lately