4 ms·

Meh not sure what the big deal is with "self selecting" and "self defined circumstances". Perhaps you should make more arguments for it so I don't have to but y

by hpen 5y ago

Meh not sure what the big deal is with "self selecting" and "self defined circumstances". Perhaps you should make more arguments for it so I don't have to but you do you. That circumstance I presented isn't actually as rare as you might think. It was a genuine use case for myself and actually opened my mind from thinking it was completely useless, to thinking it is a niche.

rektide 5y ago
> Meh not sure what the big deal is with "self selecting" and "self defined circumstances". Perhaps you should make more arguments for it so I don't have to but you do you. You're not sure, but self selecting/self-defining matters a lot to me. Whether we merely apply our own pre-dispositions & already-knowns as to what is, what we know, & regard that as what shall be, or whether we admit that we don't fully know the possibilities that are about & haven't really tried outside possibilities matters a lot. To me. You can be meh about it if you want, but knowing our unknowns is vitally important to me. One needs to try to have experiences, in my book, before they are adequately rejectable. Even if it doesn't work for me, understanding how it works for another is just as important. Good experience sharing relies on empathy & openness, in my view; that's how we begin to figure out what foundations we may or may not personally share. > That circumstance I presented isn't actually as rare as you might think. It was a genuine use case for myself and actually opened my mind from thinking it was completely useless, to thinking it is a niche. I'm not sure what scale of current, existing plurality we need to start ignoring & telling those other people that their points of view & engagements are relevant. You're basically saying you are the status quo here, and I don't really disagree. I think that's probably accurate. Probably isn't rare. Where we seem to differ is that you think that matters a lot. I don't think that really matters for trying to read & understand the value latent here. We don't really know yet, we can't really assess the genuine value of this. There's definitely some segment that stands to be helped immediately, strongly. But if this tech really is as valuable as it feels like it could be, it will be a changer, it will ongoingly beget new & different experiences. Me and you are both limited in our crystal ball reading on this. Neither of us really knows what potentials are afoot here. Even if we don't end up seeing radical vast & different change, we still won't really know what potential there was here. There's all manners of good reasons to believe this isn't significant, that it won't change things. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of value. For this basic Pascal's Wager belief, I think it's worth spending more effort trying to explore why we might opt to believe in this tech, to wonder about it's possibilities, instead of reflecting on why we think it doesn't readily apply to current circumstances. Not that we should reject counter-though. But it seems pre-emptory, since we have so much left to explore about why-for, which will inform strongly what why-against concerns are most important to look at.
- hpen 5y ago
  My original reply to you was actually me agreeing with you and slightly modifying your use case for me. How is that self selecting or self defining? > I'm not sure what scale of current, existing plurality we need to start ignoring & telling those other people that their points of view & engagements are relevant. I am just confused about what you mean here..

by hpen 5y ago

rektide 5y ago

> Meh not sure what the big deal is with "self selecting" and "self defined circumstances". Perhaps you should make more arguments for it so I don't have to but you do you. You're not sure, but self selecting/self-defining matters a lot to me. Whether we merely apply our own pre-dispositions & already-knowns as to what is, what we know, & regard that as what shall be, or whether we admit that we don't fully know the possibilities that are about & haven't really tried outside possibilities matters a lot. To me. You can be meh about it if you want, but knowing our unknowns is vitally important to me. One needs to try to have experiences, in my book, before they are adequately rejectable. Even if it doesn't work for me, understanding how it works for another is just as important. Good experience sharing relies on empathy & openness, in my view; that's how we begin to figure out what foundations we may or may not personally share. > That circumstance I presented isn't actually as rare as you might think. It was a genuine use case for myself and actually opened my mind from thinking it was completely useless, to thinking it is a niche. I'm not sure what scale of current, existing plurality we need to start ignoring & telling those other people that their points of view & engagements are relevant. You're basically saying you are the status quo here, and I don't really disagree. I think that's probably accurate. Probably isn't rare. Where we seem to differ is that you think that matters a lot. I don't think that really matters for trying to read & understand the value latent here. We don't really know yet, we can't really assess the genuine value of this. There's definitely some segment that stands to be helped immediately, strongly. But if this tech really is as valuable as it feels like it could be, it will be a changer, it will ongoingly beget new & different experiences. Me and you are both limited in our crystal ball reading on this. Neither of us really knows what potentials are afoot here. Even if we don't end up seeing radical vast & different change, we still won't really know what potential there was here. There's all manners of good reasons to believe this isn't significant, that it won't change things. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of value. For this basic Pascal's Wager belief, I think it's worth spending more effort trying to explore why we might opt to believe in this tech, to wonder about it's possibilities, instead of reflecting on why we think it doesn't readily apply to current circumstances. Not that we should reject counter-though. But it seems pre-emptory, since we have so much left to explore about why-for, which will inform strongly what why-against concerns are most important to look at.

hpen 5y ago
My original reply to you was actually me agreeing with you and slightly modifying your use case for me. How is that self selecting or self defining? > I'm not sure what scale of current, existing plurality we need to start ignoring & telling those other people that their points of view & engagements are relevant. I am just confused about what you mean here..