3 ms·

Whether or not a social convention is "real" or not is entirely the point of my original comment. If we throw out arbitrary sets of social conventions and call

Whether or not a social convention is "real" or not is entirely the point of my original comment. If we throw out arbitrary sets of social conventions and call them fake we effectively operate in our own non-shared reality. My primary point is that this trend seems to be accelerating from my perspective so it's fitting for online maps to reflect this as well.

nathan_compton 3y ago
"If we throw out arbitrary sets of social conventions and call them fake we effectively operate in our own non-shared reality." No, we all operate in the same reality no matter what. That is kind of what "reality" is - the set of physical facts which obtain regardless of our particular state of mind or coordinate system, local velocity, etc. The idea that we should elevate some subjective opinions to the level of reality that we expect everyone to share is actually really damaging to the idea of truth and objective reality. No doubt accidentally, you're advocating for a subjective notion of what is real, not an objective one.
- harimau777 3y ago
  I think that you may be misunderstanding the terminology being used. When someone says that two people operate in a non-shared reality, they mean that their way of perceiving, understanding, and interpreting the world are so different that it becomes difficult for them to communicate effectively or operate effectively in the same culture. No one is saying that different people are subject to different natural laws. Nor is anyone saying that certain perceptions or interpretations of the world should be elevated to the level of natural laws.
  - nathan_compton 3y ago
    Sorry, but its quite difficult for me to understand the assertion that a failure to agree upon borders is a breakdown of a shared "reality" as anything but an assertion that certain perceptions should be elevated to the level of natural laws. I don't dispute the utility of shared social conventions and rules. They are very handy, no doubt. But they aren't reality, and, in my experience, the people most vociferously asserting that they are are the jerks. If two nation states _agree_ on a border because it simplifies administration, then bravo. If two nation states disagree about a border then the problem isn't that one has lost touch with reality. The problem is just a dispute about power and suggesting its a problem with perception of reality is propaganda. At a fundamental level borders aren't real. If there is a conflict over them, the only recourse is to the human beings involved, hopefully through diplomacy, but unfortunately often through violence, but never via an objective process which reveals by experimental or theoretical action an objective truth. Confusion between that which is real and that which is not is the deepest, most destructive of intellectual maladies.
    - harimau777 3y ago
      Shared reality doesn't break down when people disagree. It breaks down when people are unable to understand the other side's perceptions/interpretations enough to understand the disagreement. As a concrete example, many conservatives in the United States understand border control in terms of national security, sovereignty, cultural integrity, etc. They often do not understand the interpretations that advocates of open borders base their views upon; things like viewing freedom of movement as an inherent human right, seeing borders as a way that corporations undermine labor, seeing Mexicans as having historically inhabited the American South West, etc. As a result, those conservatives misinterpret advocates of open borders as unpatriotic, attempting to undermine America's sovereignty, attempting to replace their culture, etc. Basically, the issue isn't the disagreement, it's lacking the shared understanding of the situation that would allow discussion of the disagreement.

nathan_compton 3y ago

"If we throw out arbitrary sets of social conventions and call them fake we effectively operate in our own non-shared reality." No, we all operate in the same reality no matter what. That is kind of what "reality" is - the set of physical facts which obtain regardless of our particular state of mind or coordinate system, local velocity, etc. The idea that we should elevate some subjective opinions to the level of reality that we expect everyone to share is actually really damaging to the idea of truth and objective reality. No doubt accidentally, you're advocating for a subjective notion of what is real, not an objective one.

harimau777 3y ago
I think that you may be misunderstanding the terminology being used. When someone says that two people operate in a non-shared reality, they mean that their way of perceiving, understanding, and interpreting the world are so different that it becomes difficult for them to communicate effectively or operate effectively in the same culture. No one is saying that different people are subject to different natural laws. Nor is anyone saying that certain perceptions or interpretations of the world should be elevated to the level of natural laws.
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  Sorry, but its quite difficult for me to understand the assertion that a failure to agree upon borders is a breakdown of a shared "reality" as anything but an assertion that certain perceptions should be elevated to the level of natural laws. I don't dispute the utility of shared social conventions and rules. They are very handy, no doubt. But they aren't reality, and, in my experience, the people most vociferously asserting that they are are the jerks. If two nation states _agree_ on a border because it simplifies administration, then bravo. If two nation states disagree about a border then the problem isn't that one has lost touch with reality. The problem is just a dispute about power and suggesting its a problem with perception of reality is propaganda. At a fundamental level borders aren't real. If there is a conflict over them, the only recourse is to the human beings involved, hopefully through diplomacy, but unfortunately often through violence, but never via an objective process which reveals by experimental or theoretical action an objective truth. Confusion between that which is real and that which is not is the deepest, most destructive of intellectual maladies.
  - harimau777 3y ago
    Shared reality doesn't break down when people disagree. It breaks down when people are unable to understand the other side's perceptions/interpretations enough to understand the disagreement. As a concrete example, many conservatives in the United States understand border control in terms of national security, sovereignty, cultural integrity, etc. They often do not understand the interpretations that advocates of open borders base their views upon; things like viewing freedom of movement as an inherent human right, seeing borders as a way that corporations undermine labor, seeing Mexicans as having historically inhabited the American South West, etc. As a result, those conservatives misinterpret advocates of open borders as unpatriotic, attempting to undermine America's sovereignty, attempting to replace their culture, etc. Basically, the issue isn't the disagreement, it's lacking the shared understanding of the situation that would allow discussion of the disagreement.