3 ms·

> Please don't misrepresent me as agreeing with you as well. Unfortunately, it seems to me that your comments are in agreement with @nonrandomstring's comments

> Please don't misrepresent me as agreeing with you as well. Unfortunately, it seems to me that your comments are in agreement with @nonrandomstring's comments. You did happen to admit to the efficacy of experiencing nightmares as a means of reflection[0] and are now only trying to argue that 1) it's not necessary for nightmares to be experienced past a certain point[1] and 2) it's possible for this reflection to be done via other means[0]. @nonrandomstring's point[2] has been that experiencing the nightmares is therapeutic as a means of reflection. To speak to possibly why this miscommunication happened, I can look at their comments and see places where they could use "a" instead of "the" or "can be" instead of "is" but it's worth noting that I can also look at your comments and see similar things. [0] > First, it's one stream of reporting among many. [1] > And second, you don't need 1,000 nightmares to gather that reporting. Ten or twenty will be sufficient. [2] > Suppressing them may not be helpful and actually just kick the can down the road.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
You make some fair and useful observations on nuances of language which I'll try to pay more attention to. I really wish that, had I said; "Glad we've established a principle and now we're just arguing over some details" it would have made a difference. But I get the feeling there is underlying hostility toward my reasonable and prudent critique of a technology, and not specifically anything to do with crazygringo's disputation. Two things make me think that. One is that immediately I was deluged with low-rent "show us proof" comments, which frankly seem childish because a cursory search on "why we dream" would turn up hundreds of results, many theories and links to experimental evidence that are widely considered common sense today. I subsequently replied with links to some of the lowest hanging fruit in recent psychology literature. The other is that a simple, sincere question designed to open up a discussion and get to the nub of the matter was immediately and tactically downvoted to -3. Does the question "why do people have nightmares?" strike anyone as provocative, sarcastic, fulminating or in bad faith? I think what happened here in this thread remains as evidence for coordinated resistance to rational enquiry and supports my case that there are elements of anti-intellectualism here on HN.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

You make some fair and useful observations on nuances of language which I'll try to pay more attention to. I really wish that, had I said; "Glad we've established a principle and now we're just arguing over some details" it would have made a difference. But I get the feeling there is underlying hostility toward my reasonable and prudent critique of a technology, and not specifically anything to do with crazygringo's disputation. Two things make me think that. One is that immediately I was deluged with low-rent "show us proof" comments, which frankly seem childish because a cursory search on "why we dream" would turn up hundreds of results, many theories and links to experimental evidence that are widely considered common sense today. I subsequently replied with links to some of the lowest hanging fruit in recent psychology literature. The other is that a simple, sincere question designed to open up a discussion and get to the nub of the matter was immediately and tactically downvoted to -3. Does the question "why do people have nightmares?" strike anyone as provocative, sarcastic, fulminating or in bad faith? I think what happened here in this thread remains as evidence for coordinated resistance to rational enquiry and supports my case that there are elements of anti-intellectualism here on HN.