3 ms·

Does his mother not grasp the seriousness of this trial? These people must live in ivory towers.

rightbyte 3y ago
Isn't laughing a quite common hysteric response, even when inappropriate?
themodelplumber 3y ago
Making it clear that you don't take a thing seriously is another way of saying "this (trial) is unnecessary". Saying "this trial is unnecessary" in a way that gets attention is also a way of highlighting your experience (especially when not exactly given a podium in the event), expressing an opinion, and possibly holding onto some respect. Which is pretty relevant at all sorts of levels. Maybe even keeping a given job, etc. Strange and especially strong expressions, lacking nuance, in the face of e.g. "why TF would you act like that in this setting" is sometimes a telling characteristic of extremely logical people. Logical to the exclusion of lots of other perspectives, even. So, this is really lining up well with the concept of SBF as logic-first, everything else second. Maybe morals second, ethics second, or whatever. If you want to know where SBF's moral education went missing, you are probably going to have to look at the grandparents or further back at this point. The parents are right in the hard-logic, high-negotiation wheelhouse. This is a situation with known dynamics to them. They are looking to be players. That is a different mindset than most are used to. These parents are logic- and rhetoric-focused minds, they are used to theatrics deployed for strong effect, they have seen power abused left and right, and you can see that they are very amenable to open protest. My guess is that they are also pretty fed up with seeing particular aspects of their area of expertise used in an especially emotive way, as opposed to logical, for example. IMO this is a fascinating study in "the law" (thing we all agree to obey; covert social contracts) vs. "the quote 'law' unquote" e.g. the mindset of deciding whether you don't like it, and if you don't like it DO NOT SUPPORT IT. Cry foul and make yourself known. That's a very, very uncomfortable dichotomy due to the relatively crosswise distribution of legal/political power by comparison. In the US the legal branch is effectively held captive by stabilization-focused psychology. SBF-type people are going to get crushed perhaps more than most, because stabilization-focused organizations fear innovation and novel thought structures even more than they fear immorality. Mom & Dad are seriously leaning into their chosen role here and doing so in the face of power; it's worth taking note, and I would add especially so at a theoretical level. (Practical people will always tell you it's best to shut up and not make any waves, but this POV is not exactly where the future of law is coming from, for one)

Isn't laughing a quite common hysteric response, even when inappropriate?

Making it clear that you don't take a thing seriously is another way of saying "this (trial) is unnecessary". Saying "this trial is unnecessary" in a way that gets attention is also a way of highlighting your experience (especially when not exactly given a podium in the event), expressing an opinion, and possibly holding onto some respect. Which is pretty relevant at all sorts of levels. Maybe even keeping a given job, etc. Strange and especially strong expressions, lacking nuance, in the face of e.g. "why TF would you act like that in this setting" is sometimes a telling characteristic of extremely logical people. Logical to the exclusion of lots of other perspectives, even. So, this is really lining up well with the concept of SBF as logic-first, everything else second. Maybe morals second, ethics second, or whatever. If you want to know where SBF's moral education went missing, you are probably going to have to look at the grandparents or further back at this point. The parents are right in the hard-logic, high-negotiation wheelhouse. This is a situation with known dynamics to them. They are looking to be players. That is a different mindset than most are used to. These parents are logic- and rhetoric-focused minds, they are used to theatrics deployed for strong effect, they have seen power abused left and right, and you can see that they are very amenable to open protest. My guess is that they are also pretty fed up with seeing particular aspects of their area of expertise used in an especially emotive way, as opposed to logical, for example. IMO this is a fascinating study in "the law" (thing we all agree to obey; covert social contracts) vs. "the quote 'law' unquote" e.g. the mindset of deciding whether you don't like it, and if you don't like it DO NOT SUPPORT IT. Cry foul and make yourself known. That's a very, very uncomfortable dichotomy due to the relatively crosswise distribution of legal/political power by comparison. In the US the legal branch is effectively held captive by stabilization-focused psychology. SBF-type people are going to get crushed perhaps more than most, because stabilization-focused organizations fear innovation and novel thought structures even more than they fear immorality. Mom & Dad are seriously leaning into their chosen role here and doing so in the face of power; it's worth taking note, and I would add especially so at a theoretical level. (Practical people will always tell you it's best to shut up and not make any waves, but this POV is not exactly where the future of law is coming from, for one)