4 ms·

Having spent the greater part of my life trying to be an unbiased, descriptivist bent on being a realist---I've realized it was a waste of time; and I was a cow

Having spent the greater part of my life trying to be an unbiased, descriptivist bent on being a realist---I've realized it was a waste of time; and I was a coward. Neither world exists. There is no objective observation. Our senses are limited, and our neurons filter through what we "observe," in order to create a cohesive story that doesn't disturb the one that's been continuously built all our lives. (Elsewhere, one could write an encyclopaedia's-worth of examples how our rational faculties are lacking in the absolute sense.) The only thing that is different between the two is their proclivity for (or lack thereof) taking action.

vinceguidry 5y ago
You do you. But when you're talking to others people listen to you to the extent that your observations and conclusions reflect reality, not just ideals. Just explaining what should be is the equivalent of the "biz guy" who only has ideas, not the skills to execute. > There is no objective observation. This is a thing you can believe in. But if you do it will very much make it more difficult to relate. Striving to be objective is a very valid and worthwhile thing to work towards. Throwing your hands up and saying it's impossible is ultimately worse. I don't know you, but I'd be willing to guess that your "unbiased, descriptivist bent" was rather overly rational. HN gets hyper-rational and rewards that frame of mind, to the detriment of the community. What I mean by working to be objective is to work to understand subjective, emotional states of mind. Emotionally, we want the world to be a certain way and when it's not, we become irrational, in ways that are actually rather predictable when you can reflect on them. Objectivity is earned when you can understand not only the logical aspects of the world, but also the subjective ones too.

vinceguidry 5y ago

You do you. But when you're talking to others people listen to you to the extent that your observations and conclusions reflect reality, not just ideals. Just explaining what should be is the equivalent of the "biz guy" who only has ideas, not the skills to execute. > There is no objective observation. This is a thing you can believe in. But if you do it will very much make it more difficult to relate. Striving to be objective is a very valid and worthwhile thing to work towards. Throwing your hands up and saying it's impossible is ultimately worse. I don't know you, but I'd be willing to guess that your "unbiased, descriptivist bent" was rather overly rational. HN gets hyper-rational and rewards that frame of mind, to the detriment of the community. What I mean by working to be objective is to work to understand subjective, emotional states of mind. Emotionally, we want the world to be a certain way and when it's not, we become irrational, in ways that are actually rather predictable when you can reflect on them. Objectivity is earned when you can understand not only the logical aspects of the world, but also the subjective ones too.