3 ms·
This argument ignores the context of the conversation. The goal is rarely (almost never?) to find an optimal solution (if that's even possible). Also why woul
by solarmist 5y ago
This argument ignores the context of the conversation.
The goal is rarely (almost never?) to find an optimal solution (if that's even possible).
Also why would you assume outcomes would converge? That is not a given in most situations.
You’ve never gotten tired of a conversation with someone that didn’t know when to stop? If so then you are exceptional in you're curiosity. I am a very curious person, but I have plenty of topics that are like nails on a chalk board to me.
Plus, every conversation burns energy, and at some point, people will get tired or bored or both, so continuing indefinitely does not rationally lead to better outcomes. Continuing past that point will lead to worse and worse conclusions.
- solarmist 5y agoA good analogy is making pancakes or biscuit batter. You have to stop far earlier than I'm comfortable with, or the outcome is ruined. This is because there are tons of (nearly) invisible processes going on, and you need to trust the recipe that people have come up with for getting good results. And trying to understand every input and process could quickly become an entire career for any of these topics.