4 ms·

Do you think it is an incorrect analysis in this case? I’d love to have a discussion about the topics raised, but it’s no fun to have a discussion with someone

by trevyn 5y ago

Do you think it is an incorrect analysis in this case? I’d love to have a discussion about the topics raised, but it’s no fun to have a discussion with someone who is repeatedly critical and a little fired up before even understanding the fundamentals. Skeptical is fine, but the specific criticisms raised don’t even make sense in the way that I understand the space.

zepto 5y ago
I don’t know anything about the other person’s emotions. I know that you are reading emotion into their comments. It’s my observation that people make comments that ‘don’t make sense in the way that I understand the space’ very frequently, and while it’s certainly an indication that we don’t understand each other, and may be an indication that someone is mistaken, it is not obviously indicative of emotion, and in any case the presence of emotion isn’t obviously indicative of incorrectness or irrationality. Regardless of the correctness of your diagnosis (which you now will never be certain of) the move is a conversational gambit that isn’t likely to lead to anything constructive.
- trevyn 5y ago
  Got it, thank you. It’s a long-term play, repeated game theory, all that.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > It’s a long-term play, repeated game theory, all that. What are you referring to as the long-term play? What’s the goal?
    - trevyn 5y ago
      A lot of conversations these days seem to be two sides in their camps yelling over the walls. I think both camps are coming from reasonable positions, and it’s important to me to try and find middle ground when I can. Sometimes I can’t find a way to nudge a particular conversation toward constructiveness, but I can raise a way in which we all might be able to have more constructive conversations in the future. A small drop of antidote against the psychological warfare going on. I’m still learning, but it feels right.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Accusing people of being emotional seems more like doubling down on psychological warfare than an antidote. Once you have declared someone’s position invalid because of their emotional state rather than their logic, that person can no longer trust you to take anything they say seriously. In effect, you are declaring yourself to be an untrustworthy interlocutor. I recognize that you may have the goal of increasing constructive conversations, but it’s not clear how this technique is going to serve that goal, game theory or not.

by trevyn 5y ago

zepto 5y ago

I don’t know anything about the other person’s emotions. I know that you are reading emotion into their comments. It’s my observation that people make comments that ‘don’t make sense in the way that I understand the space’ very frequently, and while it’s certainly an indication that we don’t understand each other, and may be an indication that someone is mistaken, it is not obviously indicative of emotion, and in any case the presence of emotion isn’t obviously indicative of incorrectness or irrationality. Regardless of the correctness of your diagnosis (which you now will never be certain of) the move is a conversational gambit that isn’t likely to lead to anything constructive.

trevyn 5y ago
Got it, thank you. It’s a long-term play, repeated game theory, all that.
- zepto 5y ago
  > It’s a long-term play, repeated game theory, all that. What are you referring to as the long-term play? What’s the goal?
  - trevyn 5y ago
    A lot of conversations these days seem to be two sides in their camps yelling over the walls. I think both camps are coming from reasonable positions, and it’s important to me to try and find middle ground when I can. Sometimes I can’t find a way to nudge a particular conversation toward constructiveness, but I can raise a way in which we all might be able to have more constructive conversations in the future. A small drop of antidote against the psychological warfare going on. I’m still learning, but it feels right.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Accusing people of being emotional seems more like doubling down on psychological warfare than an antidote. Once you have declared someone’s position invalid because of their emotional state rather than their logic, that person can no longer trust you to take anything they say seriously. In effect, you are declaring yourself to be an untrustworthy interlocutor. I recognize that you may have the goal of increasing constructive conversations, but it’s not clear how this technique is going to serve that goal, game theory or not.