6 ms·

Being unwilling to even try talk through your emotions with the /person who you are going to marry/ is absolutely a bad signal and deal breaker.

aatd86 3y ago
Exactly, that's what leads to partner hopping until these multiple digits are reached most likely.
- scns 3y ago
  And you know that because you talked to every person ever changing partners? Snark semi intended.
  - aatd86 3y ago
    So I can't give a hunch/conjecture from my observations? Not very scientific... (snark semi-intended :P)
    - scns 3y ago
      Sure, you can. > Exactly, that's what leads to partner hopping until these multiple digits are reached most likely. I oversaw the last two words, apologies. Without them the sentence would be logically wrong, the worst kind of wrong ;) They signal that it's up for debate, sorry. Logic pedant out.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
I'm unconvinced that "talking through your emotions" makes sense or is wise. Both "talking" and "emotions" developed in central nervous systems at times far removed from each other, and there's little reason to believe that those software systems are connected... or even compatible.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Talking is important especially for those that aren’t able to have internal dialog. That type of talking is thinking out loud for them.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    People without internal dialogues (I'm one myself), don't require "thinking out loud" at all. Internal dialogues aren't even thinking... it's when this particular faculty of your mind, the "rehearsal simulator" is overactive. Functioning correctly, you can bounce questions off of a fictionalized version of someone and get back replies that can be a useful prediction of what they might say when confronted in reality. Those whose rehearsal simulators malfunction end up simulating themselves, who then goes on to start jabbering constantly, like some documentary narrator on crack, until they can no longer think at all. We (those of us who can actually think) have a pretty good idea how this faculty even works. The principle seems rather similar to the LLMs we've all been talking about... it just predicts the most likely word that comes next, with some pseudo-random seed to start it all off. People with the "internal dialogue" only seem able to "think" of things, once everyone has talked about it enough that it amounts to training their LLM with it. When people without internal dialogues try to explain a new idea to them, they tend to respond in ways that indicate their thinking is much like how the LLMs function. Irrational, confused, denialism. I don't particularly trust self-reporting, but maybe MRIs can empirically measure whether someone has an internal dialogue or not? I would be curious to see the IQ differences between the two groups. It's probably a massive gap. The rehearsal simulator starves the rest of your brain of resources while active. If you ever learned to turn yours off, you'd probably never want it turned back on again. For instance, someone who does the internal dialogue thing may not even be able to correctly report their emotions. They may not recognize them at all. Instead, that little LLM in their skull is just "hallucinating" for them, coming up with plausible sentences for how someone might feel, based on training data they've accumulated over the years, but having absolutely nothing to do with their emotional state. Anyone who accepts their self-reported emotional state as correct can be very confused by it... visibly, they're in one emotional state, but verbally they're reporting something completely different. There's no reason to suspect dishonest reporting, but also no real way to reconcile the contradictions.

aatd86 3y ago

Exactly, that's what leads to partner hopping until these multiple digits are reached most likely.

scns 3y ago
And you know that because you talked to every person ever changing partners? Snark semi intended.
- aatd86 3y ago
  So I can't give a hunch/conjecture from my observations? Not very scientific... (snark semi-intended :P)
  - scns 3y ago
    Sure, you can. > Exactly, that's what leads to partner hopping until these multiple digits are reached most likely. I oversaw the last two words, apologies. Without them the sentence would be logically wrong, the worst kind of wrong ;) They signal that it's up for debate, sorry. Logic pedant out.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

I'm unconvinced that "talking through your emotions" makes sense or is wise. Both "talking" and "emotions" developed in central nervous systems at times far removed from each other, and there's little reason to believe that those software systems are connected... or even compatible.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
Talking is important especially for those that aren’t able to have internal dialog. That type of talking is thinking out loud for them.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  People without internal dialogues (I'm one myself), don't require "thinking out loud" at all. Internal dialogues aren't even thinking... it's when this particular faculty of your mind, the "rehearsal simulator" is overactive. Functioning correctly, you can bounce questions off of a fictionalized version of someone and get back replies that can be a useful prediction of what they might say when confronted in reality. Those whose rehearsal simulators malfunction end up simulating themselves, who then goes on to start jabbering constantly, like some documentary narrator on crack, until they can no longer think at all. We (those of us who can actually think) have a pretty good idea how this faculty even works. The principle seems rather similar to the LLMs we've all been talking about... it just predicts the most likely word that comes next, with some pseudo-random seed to start it all off. People with the "internal dialogue" only seem able to "think" of things, once everyone has talked about it enough that it amounts to training their LLM with it. When people without internal dialogues try to explain a new idea to them, they tend to respond in ways that indicate their thinking is much like how the LLMs function. Irrational, confused, denialism. I don't particularly trust self-reporting, but maybe MRIs can empirically measure whether someone has an internal dialogue or not? I would be curious to see the IQ differences between the two groups. It's probably a massive gap. The rehearsal simulator starves the rest of your brain of resources while active. If you ever learned to turn yours off, you'd probably never want it turned back on again. For instance, someone who does the internal dialogue thing may not even be able to correctly report their emotions. They may not recognize them at all. Instead, that little LLM in their skull is just "hallucinating" for them, coming up with plausible sentences for how someone might feel, based on training data they've accumulated over the years, but having absolutely nothing to do with their emotional state. Anyone who accepts their self-reported emotional state as correct can be very confused by it... visibly, they're in one emotional state, but verbally they're reporting something completely different. There's no reason to suspect dishonest reporting, but also no real way to reconcile the contradictions.