4 ms·

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 (perceive

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
    The crux of the misunderstanding was that you assumed any reader would know a reference to liver is a reference to "toxicity" apparently based purely on the nearby words "resilience" and "filter". That was a flawed assumption, and ambiguous unclear writing.

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
  The crux of the misunderstanding was that you assumed any reader would know a reference to liver is a reference to "toxicity" apparently based purely on the nearby words "resilience" and "filter". That was a flawed assumption, and ambiguous unclear writing.