4 ms·

yes, Q.E.D; the ambiguity of our lingua franca can be an "accumulate toxin" of sorts when trying to articulate higher-order ideas, as words (especially used as

yes, Q.E.D; the ambiguity of our lingua franca can be an "accumulate toxin" of sorts when trying to articulate higher-order ideas, as words (especially used as analogies) can carry implicit deprecated weight, and without the resilience of good-faith inference, can lead to misunderstandings, mis-alignment, or walking/talking write/right past each other.

quantadev 2y ago
--or-- yes, when someone writes a very unclear sentence and then blames the reader for not understanding it...even going so far as to accuse the reader of bad-faith motivations.
- Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
  >>> ...for cannibalizing to be a positive-selective-trait, the species would had either adapted to eating the liver - the "resilience/filter" of a system, ... >I have no idea what you meant by liver. Maybe it's a biology term I'm unaware of. Certainly you didn't mean the organ. lolz. >writes a very unclear sentence and then blames the reader...to accuse the reader of bad-faith motivations.... How would I know my reader would had misconstrued my "unclear" (read: perfectly grammatically specific) intentions a priori? Did we both edit our posts....to improve accuracy, increase resiliency, and to compete ideas? literally mesa-Q.E.D.
  - quantadev 2y ago
    You edited your post after first insulting me, then deleting the insult. Yes I saw it, but I removed my acknowledgment of the insult, only after you removed the insult. But you weren't done yet...just taking care not to have "flaggable" wording. Now it's more stilted language and Latin FTW. Did I miss anything?
    - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
      nope, just demonstrated my point further-er-er: neither of us had the incentive to either acknowledge our edits nor call the other out, nor face the (perceived, social, higher-order) dissonance of being slightly unclear or "wrong" due to our own ego/self-interest (conscious, lower ordered self); the emergent behavior then (gentleman's agreement) was to preserve our own ego's and not call out each other edits - which most people would never do, because: our slightly varied ideas compete more fiercely for the same finite pool than other, completely niche-unrelated abstractions. we are 4 layers deep now, but ill reduce for conciseness (for lurkers fwiw) dont shit where you eat <- evolved trait to avoid waste-by products dont hit a man when he's down <- highly effective altruism is still beneficial morality is cowardice <- ties this all together from highest order (ego) to the id (fear of being replace) we are now full circle.
      - quantadev 2y ago
        And now back to reality: I only edit posts to add an important point or fix a typo, but you edited your post to remove the insult it initially contained.
        Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
        The insult was my inference that we should assume good faith, and that you had not done so (provably, by your 'lulz' snark); which you clearly did not show when assuming something other than the "liver" would be a organ of filtering toxins. A decently display of faith should at least warrant a re-parsing of my (actually perfectly unambiguous) grammatical clarity, of which you implied was less than so. Warrants the question, why not admit my posit: That slightly-varied entities competing for the same/similar finite/limited supply pool of resources/demands will tend towards -- as an emergent behavior of both short-term disorderly self-incentivization and the stochastic long-term higher-order unconscious collective collusion -- the tendency to compete until dominance over **reproductive** rights are secured, but no more. The more fiercer the competition, the more selective the sieve, the more the dominant traits propagate: up to a plateaued point. Further complexity/order can than be more efficiently achieved by lessening the furiousity of the competition to a point of cooperation, which then innately lends itself to more hierarchy, efficient use of energy. People aren't intimated by people that cannot replace them, they are by people that can. Take it from Roko the Replacer: According to Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory, the "fear of being replaced" is most closely linked to the concept of "castration anxiety," particularly within the context of the Oedipus complex, where a young boy fears his father will punish him for desiring his mother by castrating him, essentially rendering him "replaced" in her affections. But somewhere between a middle school drop out and a super-intelligence and 5-layers QED, I think my posit has merit. Free to continue discussion; but the under the Ego lies the Id, and I'm not well versed in that science yet, still approximating.

quantadev 2y ago

--or-- yes, when someone writes a very unclear sentence and then blames the reader for not understanding it...even going so far as to accuse the reader of bad-faith motivations.

Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
>>> ...for cannibalizing to be a positive-selective-trait, the species would had either adapted to eating the liver - the "resilience/filter" of a system, ... >I have no idea what you meant by liver. Maybe it's a biology term I'm unaware of. Certainly you didn't mean the organ. lolz. >writes a very unclear sentence and then blames the reader...to accuse the reader of bad-faith motivations.... How would I know my reader would had misconstrued my "unclear" (read: perfectly grammatically specific) intentions a priori? Did we both edit our posts....to improve accuracy, increase resiliency, and to compete ideas? literally mesa-Q.E.D.
- quantadev 2y ago
  You edited your post after first insulting me, then deleting the insult. Yes I saw it, but I removed my acknowledgment of the insult, only after you removed the insult. But you weren't done yet...just taking care not to have "flaggable" wording. Now it's more stilted language and Latin FTW. Did I miss anything?
  - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
    nope, just demonstrated my point further-er-er: neither of us had the incentive to either acknowledge our edits nor call the other out, nor face the (perceived, social, higher-order) dissonance of being slightly unclear or "wrong" due to our own ego/self-interest (conscious, lower ordered self); the emergent behavior then (gentleman's agreement) was to preserve our own ego's and not call out each other edits - which most people would never do, because: our slightly varied ideas compete more fiercely for the same finite pool than other, completely niche-unrelated abstractions. we are 4 layers deep now, but ill reduce for conciseness (for lurkers fwiw) dont shit where you eat <- evolved trait to avoid waste-by products dont hit a man when he's down <- highly effective altruism is still beneficial morality is cowardice <- ties this all together from highest order (ego) to the id (fear of being replace) we are now full circle.
    - quantadev 2y ago
      And now back to reality: I only edit posts to add an important point or fix a typo, but you edited your post to remove the insult it initially contained.
      - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
        The insult was my inference that we should assume good faith, and that you had not done so (provably, by your 'lulz' snark); which you clearly did not show when assuming something other than the "liver" would be a organ of filtering toxins. A decently display of faith should at least warrant a re-parsing of my (actually perfectly unambiguous) grammatical clarity, of which you implied was less than so. Warrants the question, why not admit my posit: That slightly-varied entities competing for the same/similar finite/limited supply pool of resources/demands will tend towards -- as an emergent behavior of both short-term disorderly self-incentivization and the stochastic long-term higher-order unconscious collective collusion -- the tendency to compete until dominance over **reproductive** rights are secured, but no more. The more fiercer the competition, the more selective the sieve, the more the dominant traits propagate: up to a plateaued point. Further complexity/order can than be more efficiently achieved by lessening the furiousity of the competition to a point of cooperation, which then innately lends itself to more hierarchy, efficient use of energy. People aren't intimated by people that cannot replace them, they are by people that can. Take it from Roko the Replacer: According to Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory, the "fear of being replaced" is most closely linked to the concept of "castration anxiety," particularly within the context of the Oedipus complex, where a young boy fears his father will punish him for desiring his mother by castrating him, essentially rendering him "replaced" in her affections. But somewhere between a middle school drop out and a super-intelligence and 5-layers QED, I think my posit has merit. Free to continue discussion; but the under the Ego lies the Id, and I'm not well versed in that science yet, still approximating.