For He's A Jolly Good Fellow Lyrics
For he's a jolly good fellow [...] which nobody can deny
Phrasing it in terms of what other people can deny is second-handed. It views the world in terms of other people's opinions instead of truth.
Please post dozens examples of second-handedness in the comments below. It'll help you be a better person.
This post shares recent conjectures. I’m less confident than usual. I’m confident there’s something important and irrational about social dynamics (which is not a recent or original thought), but I’m less confident about the connection with static memes in particular (which is an original idea covering specifics that David Deutsch left mostly unspecified).
The core static memes (see Third Type of Meme: Static Companion Memes and comments, which I'm following up on) are second-handedness (see The Fountainhead) and related social orientation instead of reality orientation. The way static memes suppress critical faculties is by getting people to judge in terms of the opinions of other people, and their social status, rather than in terms of facts, logic and reality. Static memes get people to replace their connection with objective reality with a connection with social dynamics.
Static societies are similar to what Elsworth Toohey described to Peter Keating in The Fountainhead (emphasis added):
“ ... A world of obedience and of unity. A world where the thought of each man will not be his own, but an attempt to guess the thought in the brain of his neighbor who’ll have no thought of his own but an attempt to guess the thought of the next neighbor who’ll have no thought—and so on, Peter, around the globe. Since all must agree with all. A world where no man will hold a desire for himself, but will direct all his efforts to satisfy the desires of his neighbor who’ll have no desires except to satisfy the desires of the next neighbor who’ll have no desires—around the globe, Peter. Since all must serve all. A world in which man will not work for so innocent an incentive as money, but for that headless monster—prestige. The approval of his fellows—their good opinion—the opinion of men who’ll be allowed to hold no opinion.... Judgment, Peter? Not judgment, but public polls. An average drawn upon zeroes—since no individuality will be permitted.... I want power.... Let all live for all. Let all sacrifice and none profit. Let all suffer and none enjoy. Let progress stop. Let all stagnate. There’s equality in stagnation. All subjugated to the will of all. Universal slavery—without even the dignity of a master. Slavery to slavery. A great circle—and a total equality....”
Static companion memes, then, are socially calibrated behaviors – they compete to better fit into the social game instead of being useful or reality-oriented. Most of the social rules (in detail re particular things) and behaviors don’t create or cause the social game itself, they just make sense within it. An example is being passive-aggressive (or more specifically a particular insult like saying something is a “bad look” or “weird”). That’s something which is adapted to the selection pressures of social games instead of the selection pressures of dealing with reality. Wearing fashionable clothes, learning recent jargon for a subculture, trying to please others, and all sorts of social climbing are static companion memes. They’re evolved not to directly suppress thinking but to be effective in the social world created by the core static memes to shut down creative thought about reality.
Consequently, it’s informative to analyze many things in two ways: in terms of reality (facts, logic, science, literal meanings of word, etc.) and in terms of social reality (what people think of it, its meaning in social status contests). Many misunderstandings and clashes between people in our mixed society are because one person, at this time, is focusing on real reality while the other is focusing on social reality.
David Deutsch described in The Fabric of Reality how (in his experience) scientists only have a scientific mindset at certain times and use a social mindset at other times. Italics are DD’s, bolds are my emphasis:
I have sometimes found myself on the minority side of fundamental scientific controversies. But I have never come across anything like a Kuhnian situation. Of course, as I have said, the majority of the scientific community is not always quite as open to criticism as it ideally should be. Nevertheless, the extent to which it adheres to ‘proper scientific practice’ in the conduct of scientific research is nothing short of remarkable. You need only attend a research seminar in any fundamental field in the ‘hard’ sciences to see how strongly people's behaviour as researchers differs from human behaviour in general. Here we see a learned professor, acknowledged as the leading expert in the entire field, delivering a seminar. The seminar room is filled with people from every rank in the hierarchy of academic research, from graduate students who were introduced to the field only weeks ago, to other professors whose prestige rivals that of the speaker. The academic hierarchy is an intricate power structure in which people's careers, influence and reputation are continuously at stake, as much as in any cabinet room or boardroom — or more so. Yet so long as the seminar is in progress it may be quite hard for an observer to distinguish the participants’ ranks. The most junior graduate student asks a question: ‘Does your third equation really follow from the second one? Surely that term you omitted is not negligible.’ The professor is sure that the term is negligible, and that the student is making an error of judgement that someone more experienced would not have made. So what happens next?
In an analogous situation, a powerful chief executive whose business judgement was being contradicted by a brash new recruit might say, ‘Look, I've made more of these judgements than you've had hot dinners. If I tell you it works, then it works.’ A senior politician might say in response to criticism from an obscure but ambitious party worker, ‘Whose side are you on, anyway?’ Even our professor, away from the research context (while delivering an undergraduate lecture, say) might well reply dismissively, ‘You'd better learn to walk before you can run. Read the textbook, and meanwhile don't waste your time and ours.’ But in the research seminar any such response to criticism would cause a wave of embarrassment to pass through the seminar room. People would avert their eyes and pretend to be diligently studying their notes. There would be smirks and sidelong glances. Everyone would be shocked by the sheer impropriety of such an attitude. In this situation, appeals to authority (at least, overt ones) are simply not acceptable, even when the most senior person in the entire field is addressing the most junior.
So the professor takes the student's point seriously, and responds with a concise but adequate argument in defence of the disputed equation. The professor tries hard to show no sign of being irritated by criticism from so lowly a source. Most of the questions from the floor will have the form of criticisms which, if valid, would diminish or destroy the value of the professor's life's work. But bringing vigorous and diverse criticism to bear on accepted truths is one of the very purposes of the seminar. Everyone takes it for granted that the truth is not obvious, and that the obvious need not be true; that ideas are to be accepted or rejected according to their content and not their origin; that the greatest minds can easily make mistakes; and that the most trivial-seeming objection may be the key to a great new discovery.
So the participants in the seminar, while they are engaged in science, do behave in large measure with scientific rationality. But now the seminar ends. Let us follow the group into the dining-hall. Immediately, normal human social behaviour reasserts itself. The professor is treated with deference, and sits at a table with those of equal rank. A chosen few from the lower ranks are given the privilege of being allowed to sit there too. The conversation turns to the weather, gossip or (especially) academic politics. So long as those subjects are being discussed, all the dogmatism and prejudice, the pride and loyalty, the threats and flattery of typical human interactions in similar circumstances will reappear. But if the conversation happens to revert to the subject of the seminar, the scientists instantly become scientists again. Explanations are sought, evidence and argument rule, and rank becomes irrelevant to the course of the argument. That is, at any rate, my experience in the fields in which I have worked.
DD describes a world in which social behavior is the norm, but some men temporarily set it aside to think like scientists capable of learning something about reality instead of about who thinks who has a higher social rank than who.
See also The Law of Least Effort as an example of insightful analysis of social dynamics. While some basics about social status and interaction are well known, lots of the details and rules are not well known (or there are well known myths about them).
The core static memes are things which cause this situation and create the social game in the first place, rather than the consequences and details of it. It's whatever makes people second-handed rather than the latest fashion which isn't responsible for the situation. The law of least effort is something deep enough it could be closely related to a core static meme instead of being a superficial consequence like men holding doors open for women, but it's hard to tell.
In response to the basic idea that social dynamics are the essence of irrationality, there's a question one should ask. What about some other candidates for major irrationality issues? For example, superstition, religion and coercive parenting. How do those things fit into this picture?
Religion is a mix of social interaction and superstition (and some useful life advice), so let's turn to superstition. When people are oriented to social reality instead of physical reality, they lose touch with facts and logic. They judge a superstition not by whether it's true but by whether high social status people believe it.
For parenting, a lot of what parents do is socialize their children. They make them learn to defer to parental authority. They make them learn the social hierarchy of society and how to get along with others. When they say "Because I said so..." they mean because a higher status person said it to a much lower status person.
The problem I've been thinking about, which this post is in response to, is what's going on with people who won't/can't read literally, think logically, get facts right, be precise, etc. Why can't we have some common ground, as a basis for discussion, using standard dictionary English and some simple facts?
It's because they read and write sentences in terms of the loose gist for the reality meaning and focus mostly on the social meaning. While I read and write in terms of the reality meaning while paying only a little attention to the social meaning (overall, I do a lot better than random chance at e.g. not being rude – that shows some awareness of social meanings).
When I ask people to meet me, as common ground, at facts and logic – try to get some little details correct and focus on correctness and go step by step – it doesn't work because they're so oriented to the social world.
When I talk about problems like overreaching or lack of paths forward, those don't work with most people because they are reality/facts/etc oriented. They seem fundamental to me from my perspective, but they aren't designed to have the right social meanings to work for socially-focused people. Overreaching is not the fundamental problem of an overreacher. Living in social reality instead of actual reality is their fundamental problem.
There are two broad mindsets for how to deal with life: dealing with reality and dealing with social reality, social dynamics, social metaphysics, social climbing. Some people second-handedly focus on the opinions of other people, while others focus on dealing with nature, logic, facts and science. Most people do a mix of both, but many individual statements or actions are primarily related to one mindset.
I conjecture that social reality is the primary mechanism of static memes. That's how they make people irrational, prevent critical thinking, etc.
Social thinking is the primary reason people fail at being rational intellectuals. It's an ongoing cause of misunderstanding and conflict because e.g. I say something and people read it according to a non-literal, social meaning. Social thinkers aren't very connected to real reality because they're focusing on a whole separate reality.
Some of the messages I comment on in this post are from TheRat Chat.
This is from the public Fallible Ideas Discord.
curi:
looked thru #off-topic stuff. good tries alan, GISTE, J, anne. i thot u all did fine re logic. didn't address the bad faith tho which is why that didn't work
curi:
e.g.
You should read the response above if you need a good laugh.
curi:
when ppl are saying things like that, they are basically admitting their bad faith
curi:
curi:
the basic underlying problem is 2 different approaches to life: facts/logic/physical-reality and social climber approach, social rules, social dynamics, social metapysics
curi:
is a whole separate way of thinking
curi:
it's the way of static memes
curi:
VSE is a cargo culter. his scientific logical mindset sounding statements are fakery for social posturing, which is why he can't engage with arguments, he just knows the kind of things to say but not how to understand arguments and respond substantively.
curi:
he thinks everyone is like this. doesn't know real scientists, logicians, etc., exist
curi:
this is one of the reaosns they hate meta. meta lets you call them out. if you only respond with topical statements, it actually helps them make it look like a real discussion
curi:
if you call out non sequiturs or otherwise talk about their errors, or the overall situation, that's a threat to them
curi:
if you just make statements re e.g. logic of scientific discovery, they can derail and fake forever. that's what they know how to do.
curi:
ppl ignore stuff they find socially inconvenient and then get mad about "meta" if u comment on this
curi:
and they have double standards: they make all kinds of demands that you do things, answer things, etc. which are meta comments
curi:
anyway when you see the kind of people who never give direct answers to questions, and don't read statements in a way that's very well connected to the dictionary meanings of the words, it's b/c they don't think in terms of facts and logic, they think in terms of social meanings
curi:
that's the big divide in the world which prevents ppl from engaging with FI and ruins their minds
curi:
that's the key principle of irrationality
curi:
social metaphysics doesn't do error correction.
curi:
ppl who manage to do some programming, science, engineering, math, etc., often either 1) don't get along well with ppl socially (especially common with the best ones) or 2) it's an exception which they turn off when they aren't in professional mode, like DD talking about the scientists leaving the lecturehall, going to the meal hall, and then going into social dynamics mode and not being scientists anymore.
curi:
1:18 PM] TheRat: I count it after one asks, and he refuses. For example, he has yet to explain his assertion that I don't know what progress in a conversation looks like. After I asked for an explanation he asked me for my mode. Which is irrelevant as to how he came up with the assertion himself.
[1:19 PM] TheRat: model*
curi:
that is factually false. i've already corrected him on his factual errors many times. he has an unlimited supply of them.
curi:
sometimes he changes mindset and is able to think some but right now he's in a hostile and social mode, so he loses touch with reality and its facts.
curi:
the English language is closely connected to reality, as i blogged about yest, which is why social metaphysicians won't use it right
curi:
that's why all the conflicts re words
curi:
and the misreadings which are egregious from factual pov
curi:
there isn't a proper name for the reality/facts/logic/science side
curi:
that identifies it
curi:
cuz it's the default and there is a broad assumption that everyone is on that side
curi:
scientific mindset is too narrow
curi:
i like the contrast of social reality/metaphysics vs. real reality/metaphysics
curi:
but that's custom terminology
curi:
curi:
"a fair amount" is literally a quantifier
curi:
the examples are endless
curi:
he's just cargo culting to sound like a logician
curi:
TheRat: The whole writing in a channel one can't respond to is the most bizarre behaviors I have seen him display.
calling stuff bizarre is an example of a social judgment. similar to abnormal.
curi:
the use of "whole" is social
curi:
there's a factual error too. can you spot it?
curi:
the mindset of behaviors being on display, and putting things in terms of who has seen who do what, is also socially oriented.
JustinCEO:
they can (and have) responded
curi:
indeed
curi:
it's a double pronged error. cuz he maybe meant can't respond in the channel, which is not what he said. would that be true?
JustinCEO:
well i read him as speaking of e.g. VSE and SS, who i think are locked to off-topic. so if that's what he meant (can't respond in the channel) it seems true, unless maybe TheRat was gonna serve as a go-between or they were to ask for an unmute
JustinCEO:
needed to think about that one lol
curi:
he said "one" not VSE or SS
JustinCEO:
ahhh
curi:
so consider if TheRat could reply here or not
curi:
talking about issues like discussion methodology or social vs. actual metaphysics is meta discussion. anything where you point out patterns of error instead of individual errors is meta discussion. their hostility to meta discussion is part of how they protect their racket. they have an unlimited source of errors and they don't want the pattern or source to be discussed.
curi:
also "behaviors" is an error, should be singular. and he left out the word "thing" after "respond to" to match "whole".
curi:
And i don't think the use of "most" is an honest, logical, factual thought.
JustinCEO:
i thought the complaining about channel thing was interesting cuz
JustinCEO:
in the face of the hostility level these folks have demonstrated
JustinCEO:
very standard approach would be to kick
JustinCEO:
for discord
JustinCEO:
and you figured out a way to not kick, to allow some discussion to proceed
JustinCEO:
and get flamed for it
JustinCEO:
TT
curi:
Thought: People are dishonest because (one reason, not only) honesty is related to reality and they are acting in social reality which has its own rules. They are often honest re social rules, in some sense, e.g. they will back off when 100 people say they're wrong (as SS accused me of being unwilling to do – he was calling me socially dishonest).
JustinCEO:
i thought the off-topic channel was a rather elegant/clever solution
JustinCEO:
like the server's purpose is for people interested in FI
JustinCEO:
including people who disagree, that's fine
curi:
yes tho i don't think rat was talking about OT channel and u haven't given a direct answer.
JustinCEO:
but it's not really about enabling hostile flaming, appeals to authority and active disinterest in this community's ideas...
JustinCEO:
oh re: answer you mean "4:46 PM] curi: so consider if TheRat could reply here or not"
curi:
yes
curi:
the reason i can't back off to simpler stuff and get common ground with ppl is they back off to simpler social claims while i back off to simpler facts and logic.
JustinCEO:
well he could reply to stuff said here in another channel
curi:
could he reply in #contributors ?
JustinCEO:
oh lol
JustinCEO:
i see
JustinCEO:
yes he could
curi:
it seems like you thought the answer was "no" but didn't want to disagree with me, or assumed i had some other point in mind, so were avoiding direct response
JustinCEO:
ya i was leaning no but didn't wanna respond right away
JustinCEO:
actually
JustinCEO:
yeah
curi:
so why is the answer yes? u didn't explain.
JustinCEO:
right
JustinCEO:
he could become a contributor
curi:
yes. $2 for a month is not an impenetrable barrier to replying.
curi:
he also acts like i'm talking to him but not letting him reply
curi:
but i was talking to my contributors
curi:
my messages were aimed at the audience of ppl who like my stuff
curi:
back to main theme: notice how often they accuse me of social errors
curi:
i think lots of those are real opinions involving some (social) thought and not just lying in ways they hope to get away with.
curi:
whereas their accusations of factual errors are all cargo cult stuff, skin deep, no details, no examples, no analysis (sometimes a little bit of that stuff, which is always fake cardboard cutouts and they derail if you try to look behind the curtain)
curi:
:06 PM] TheRat: nobody cares about his alleged skills at coming to a conclusion. What matters is his explanations of his conclusions
curi:
notice the social emphasis re what people care about
curi:
and the disrespect for facts. "nobody" is egregiously factually false
curi:
second-handed.
curi:
but that sort of factually false exaggeration like "nobody" is allowable in social rules. it's actually encouraged. it's like saying "you were 3 hours late" to someone who was 2 hours late. if they correct you, they have to admit to being 2 hours late and spend time focusing attention on that fact which is bad for them. so it's lose/lose for them.
curi:
ppl will be like "holy shit how are you defending being 2 hours late?"
curi:
in social rules, a lot of stuff can be taken out of context. i think the context rules are different.
curi:
the social context is stuff like how prestigious someone is, not what is the parent statement of a statement.
curi:
social stuff has so much selective attention. hypocrisy is a facts and logic concern related to consistency and general principles.
curi:
the social world has other general principles like that low status is bad and that the appearance of effort is bad (with exceptions but it has a lot of generality).
curi:
but it doesn't worry about consistency like if you say X is bad when Joe does it, then X should be deemed bad when you do it. the person who is doing it is major differentiating context in social metaphysics. what you can get away with socially is a big issue based on your social status.
JustinCEO:
i was reading about an applied example of effort is bad
curi:
in some sense they see it as not being hypocritical b/c ppl with different social status levels doing the same actions are not the same things
curi:
just like we think "ofc joe can lift that and bob can't, joe is stronger"
JustinCEO:
the idea of "sprezzatura" as applied to male fashion
curi:
what ur allowed to do or say is based on ur social status level
curi:
and that's a thing they're always taking into account as relevant, differentiating context
JustinCEO:
That's the interesting dichotomy of good style: you want to look good but you also don't want to look like you're trying too hard.
There needs to be an element of nonchalance or sprezzatura (aka artful dishevelment) to your look.
curi:
going into details like node by node analysis of discussion is high effort
curi:
so the social ppl super resist it whether they could do it or not
curi:
not b/c they are avoiding effort itself – they will sometimes e.g. put lots of effort into days of derailing and BS, and make the conversations use more resources not less – but more b/c appearance of effort (as judged in a particular way that isn't very factually accurate) is socially bad and they internalized that social rule
curi:
you have a blindspot for curi
social statement
curi:
who is allies with who
curi:
I don't want to go off topic because as we have seen that never works.
social re what the group has seen. that's how something is determined to be true
curi:
it's so ingrained they are bad at hiding it
curi:
also let him defend himself. You shouldn't fight his battles
heh, nice example simultaneous to me saying they're bad at hiding it
curi:
and he goes and openly admits he views discussion as battle
curi:
and he's talking about the sources of statements, treating the same arguments as different depending on who says them
curi:
social metaphysics is very interested in sources of ideas. it needs those to judge ideas by the social status of the speaker.
curi:
and rat is saying: you shouldn't be allies with that guy cuz he's a pariah
curi:
he wouldn't tell a marxist you shouldn't fight marx's battles for him.
curi:
he wouldn't do it with a live and high status person either, like he wouldn't tell a DD fan not to fight DD's battles for him meaning don't argue in favor of FoR and BoI.
curi:
he's hurting you by making you his proxy, you aren't thinking for yourself.
rat wants to talk about who is doing what to who
curi:
who is whose ally and what is the relative status of the ppl in the group
curi:
2:25 PM] TheRat: its not good
he thinks justin is being hurt by having a low status place in my group
curi:
he also claims i'm the actor here, the puppet master, that i'm "making" justin, which is a good example of lack of interest in physical reality and its facts
curi:
there's also the fact that i responded to rat and he ignored me
curi:
and responded to justin only
curi:
so who exactly chose that rat should be talking with J instead of me directly?
curi:
but rat is talking social facts, which don't care about facts
curi:
You've successfully derailed the conversation.
says the guy who won't answer one question, and claims to dislike meta discussion but keeps doing it
JustinCEO:
was gonna say this if Rat conceded assertions: even if curi did make explanationless assertions -- which I doubt, but let's stipulate it for the heck of it -- even if he did, and you also made assertions, @TheRat , then at the very best ya'll would be a symmetrical position re: making some assertions in the conversation. Reason doesn't say making assertions is okay cuz the other guy started it... but instead of trying to bridge the gap of (at best, for you) mistakes on both sides, Rat, you seem more into being mad, flaming people you disagree with as not thinking for themselves, etc.
JustinCEO:
writing here cuz rat didn't wanna engage
curi:
no one explains all their assertions
curi:
methodology is needed re which to explain, when, why
curi:
and there is the whole regress issue
JustinCEO:
i guess part of the issue is
curi:
when you explain one u make other assertions
curi:
is like how u can't define all the words
JustinCEO:
i view explanationless assertion as
JustinCEO:
something for which there is no explanation available
JustinCEO:
like a bluff
curi:
you need some common ground so u don't have to explain everything infinitely
curi:
and I refuse to move from that until he addresses it.
curi:
i factually already addressed it and rat just ignored me
curi:
he is making unexplained, unargued assertions
curi:
he's cargo culting what a principled stand looked like
curi:
but it's so divorced from reality
curi:
Since curi is clearly not afk but crying in his own channel,
curi:
social comment
curi:
curi:
it's all this social stuff about what people have done what actions and who the burdens should fall on, who deserves what treatment and which people should do what actions in the future
curi:
rat enjoyed sending my debate policy to ppl. did he think it was a good way to socially bully them? now when he has an issue with me he doesn't want to use it. does he think the policy is too unfair or unreasonable to use? but then why did he keep linking others to it to challenge them? more social dynamics crap going on?
curi:
enjoyed is the wrong word. i'd guess it's true but the issue is more that he seemed to think it was good and rational to do that.
curi:
Imagine if anyone thought that flew as an explanation. "Vaccines don't work." Why? "See my debate policy www.blogsmahfeels.com"
curi:
can you spot the 4+ social attacks here?
JustinCEO:
anti-blogger flaming, comparison to low status vaccine deniers, "mah feels" to claim the status of being more rational vs an emotional person
JustinCEO:
struggling to get to 4
curi:
u missed the biggest one!
JustinCEO:
😄 doh
curi:
he smeared me as a person who thinks differently than anyone else
JustinCEO:
ah
curi:
u cud phrase it other ways but he's saying ~everyone thinks i'm wrong and he put stuff blatantly in second handed terms of what ppl think
curi:
the msg has other issues like he's misrepresenting what i said
curi:
and the method of imagining a counterfactual world instead of analyzing
curi:
and the appeal to the obvious dumbness of the scenario rather than arguing why
curi:
and the not saying his conclusion: that woudl be bad
curi:
the structure is "Imagine if X."
curi:
with no conclusion statement b/c it's assumed to be so obvious it doesn't need saying
curi:
there's also no direct connection btwn the msg and what i said, and no attempt at one
curi:
that's only implied
curi:
he focused on social instead of logic
curi:
the point of it, the purpose, was the 4 social smears
curi:
@Freeze perhaps you can learn something about how and why ppl quit FI. or perhaps you can try to talk to him.
curi:
curi:
lol/sigh @ the unargued assertion (got schooled, which is also an anti-student social smear) in the msg accusing me unargued assertions
curi:
@Mingmecha you also asked re ppl quitting FI
GISTE:
I was asking SS about what he meant by one of his statements that included the word “force”, where he misused the word. After some back and forth I asked him to restate without the word “force”. He was surprised that I wanted that. He said something like that he couldn’t do it cuz force is what he meant. That made no damn sense. Like he wanted me to make sense of his statement despite it containing a word that he knew didn’t really fit. And he put so much effort in the meta, effort that he instead could have put into restating without the word “force”.
GISTE:
I was pretty surprised by that.
GISTE:
I didn’t know that people did that.
GISTE:
So that’s something I learned. And SS said shortly after that convo that he thinks I didn’t learn anything from the meta discussion.
curi:
curi:
good answer GISTE
Example of how irrational people are and how hard it is to deal with. Think you're better at reason youreslf or better able to engage with people productively? Test your skills in discussions and share transcripts for critical analysis. If you never test how good you are, and take other steps to get good, you should assume you're highly irrational. Highly irrational is the default.
This is from the public Fallible Ideas Discord.
TheRat:
However, I reject your summary of the discussion.
JustinCEO:
hey Rat, do you think curi puts in a fair amount of effort in general re: explaining things carefully, doing things like making discussion trees, referring people to resources relevant to the point at hand, etc?
JustinCEO:
@TheRat
TheRat:
I think he does both things. Put a lot of effort in some things, and make unargued, unexplained assertions too.
JustinCEO:
Rat has their been any instance you can point to where there was no path forward, nothing you could have done to try to address some conversational impasse? Where curi left no route for making progress in the discussion? If you answer in the affirmative, link or quote please
TheRat:
and tilts when someone even slightly presses him to explain himself
TheRat:
like yesterday
TheRat:
called it "demanding' and nonsense of the sort
curi:
rat have you ever done this? https://curi.us/2232-claiming-you-objectively-won-a-debate
curi:
or ever used my debate policy?
JustinCEO:
@TheRat I suggest you consider whether an organized attempt to demonstrate what you regard as curi's unreasonableness (with quotes, discussion tree, whatever) might be a better use of your time than venting in the chat.
JustinCEO:
make it clear as day for us all if you can. the more clearly right you are, the easier your task should be.
TheRat:
I think the situation from yesterday is quite clear
curi:
oh that reminds me, the vegan never got back to me who was reading BoI and said he would write 3 blog posts then debate me (i said i'd take 3 instead of 20 for debate policy)
JustinCEO:
TheRat: I think he does both things. Put a lot of effort in some things, and make unargued, unexplained assertions too.
JustinCEO:
do you think there might be a relationship between the effort you put into some area and what sort of things you can quickly come to a correct judgment about within that area?
TheRat:
What's the relevance?
TheRat:
nobody cares about his alleged skills at coming to a conclusion. What matters is his explanations of his conclusions
TheRat:
which he fails to do
JustinCEO:
1:34 PM] TheRat: I think the situation from yesterday is quite clear
Do you think you explained why you regard the situation as clear, Rat?
TheRat:
Don't shift it
TheRat:
He made the assertions
TheRat:
ot me
JustinCEO:
Do you concede you've made assertions?
curi:
curi:
why is rat doing meta discussion?
curi:
he says meta sux?
TheRat:
Let me put it as clear as I can, and hopefully you'll see it but you have a blindspot for curi so I don't have high hopes. Curi makes assertions he refuses to explain, what efforts he puts in other areas or how good he is at getting to conclusions etc.. is utterly irrelevant. Does he explain his assertions? No. If he asserts "You don't know how to do X" and is asked for an explanation, saying "What is your system to do X" is not an explanation. It is a dodge. He already made the assertion "You don't know how to do X" and he refuses to explain himself. This is an ongoing pattern with curi I have labelled PatternB.
JustinCEO:
Rat do you concede making assertions or not
TheRat:
Irrelevant
JustinCEO:
humor me?
TheRat:
Yes, but after we have resolved the problem of PatternB
JustinCEO:
by "humor me?" i was asking for an immediate reply on that discrete issue
JustinCEO:
Y/N?
TheRat:
I don't want to go off topic because as we have seen that never works.
JustinCEO:
one char direct reply would be lower effort than non-substantive reply alternatives!
TheRat:
also let him defend himself. You shouldn't fight his battles
JustinCEO:
this isn't a battle
TheRat:
he's hurting you by making you his proxy, you aren't thinking for yourself.
TheRat:
its not good
JustinCEO:
you're being disrespectful and offensive
TheRat:
You've successfully derailed the conversation. I'll go back to
Curi makes assertions he refuses to explain, what efforts he puts in other areas or how good he is at getting to conclusions etc.. is utterly irrelevant. Does he explain his assertions? No. If he asserts "You don't know how to do X" and is asked for an explanation, saying "What is your system to do X" is not an explanation. It is a dodge. He already made the assertion "You don't know how to do X" and he refuses to explain himself. This is an ongoing pattern with curi I have labelled PatternB.
TheRat:
and I refuse to move from that until he addresses it. Or concedes he makes unargued assertions frequently.
TheRat:
I am under no delusions that he will do either.
JustinCEO:
maybe part of the reason you won't give a one character reply to me in good faith is that you view discussion as a battle
TheRat:
Irrelevant Justin, please refer to my quote.
TheRat:
Since curi is clearly not afk but crying in his own channel, I can safely assume he is here and has read what I wrote. His inability to defend it here (this channel) I am willing to take as a concession that he is incapable of defending his assertions. And I can drop the matter of PatternB.
JustinCEO:
he tried to engage with you, just now
JustinCEO:
here
TheRat:
He failed to address the issue.
JustinCEO:
"crying in his own channel" you're being a really douchebag rat
JustinCEO:
super hostile flaming
TheRat:
Irrelevant Justin
TheRat:
please refer to my quote
JustinCEO:
You can't force a mind I guess. gl i'm afk
TheRat:
I accept your concession curi.
TheRat:
ill bbl
curi:
i wrote 2 msgs to rat and he hasn't responded yet... https://discordapp.com/channels/304082867384745994/304082867384745994/660595900346925077 [The link goes to the message "rat have you ever done this? https://curi.us/2232-claiming-you-objectively-won-a-debate"]
curi:
he's just baiting by lying
curi:
he thinks the nastier the accusations, the more social pressure he's exerting
curi:
and having them be false makes them extra annoying to facts-and-logic oriented ppl. bonus!?
curi:
and it's baiting by making it looks fairly easy to correct b/c it's simple, basic factual errors. but even this isn't actually fixable b/c he won't engage with reality.
TheRat:
I already said that asking me what I have done is not an explanation to your assertion
TheRat:
please read more carefully
curi:
if you think i've made an error, see https://elliottemple.com/debate-policy
TheRat:
Still not an explanation
TheRat:
Imagine if anyone thought that flew as an explanation. "Vaccines don't work." Why? "See my debate policy www.blogsmahfeels.com"
Shadow Starshine (SS) was already tilted before this discussion, ever since I decided we had an Inferential Distance problem and he refused to read any articles to find out what that means.
He also wouldn't discuss the concept when I and others wrote several explanations for him in chat messages. In short it means there are major differences in our background knowledge and premises, and we need to find some points of common ground to build on (but SS refused to try to do that).
For context, here is the SS discussion tree I made for part of my discussion with SS, and here is the VSE discussion tree that he was actually talking about below. I had been unable to get substantive responses to either tree, and sadly that doesn't change in this chat.
This is from the public Fallible Ideas Discord.
curi:
That mindmap by curi is so dishonest
SS, are you going to write down an error in it? then, step 2, explain why you think that error was made dishonestly?
Shadow Starshine:
@curi I'm not writing down an error in it. It's dishonest because of where you started it, like taking a video clip of someone talking out of context to make it seem like there's another problem.
curi:
can you point out how any node is misleading or wrong b/c of missing context? that is, an error.
Shadow Starshine:
The first node makes it look like TheRat's question should be answered or was at all the topic at hand.
Shadow Starshine:
What should be shown is how that question was an avoidance of something already being asked of him.
curi:
which mindmap are you talking about? i figured it was the one about you.
Shadow Starshine:
Negative, TheRat and VSE
curi:
ok, you think rat's question shouldn't have been answered b/c of some message(s) i didn't include in the graph. the appropriate thing for you to do is quote those messages, right? then explain how they indicate rat's question shouldn't be answered.
Shadow Starshine:
Well I don't hold a belief that this would be a fruitful use of my time in a discussion with you in particular, but if someone else wishes to understand where I stand on that and why, they may ask.
curi:
if you won't argue your case, don't make claims here
curi:
you just say over and over that i'm wrong but you never substantiate it
Shadow Starshine:
That's rich coming from you
curi:
i'm the one who makes trees, writes articles, gives details
curi:
i ask you for details when you try to make claims that i'm wrong
curi:
you don't give them
JustinCEO:
ya there's a huge effort asymmetry
curi:
if you think i fucked up in some previous part of a discussion
curi:
provide it
curi:
you just keep referring to my past bad behavior that you don't specify or argue
curi:
when i try to go thru issues with you in detail
Shadow Starshine:
The amount of fuck ups you make is simply not worth my time, especially in a discussion where I want to convince you of them. I just told you if someone else has the same questions, i'll put in the effort.
curi:
you consistently stop part way
curi:
so that they don't get resolved
curi:
you haven't established i was wrong a single time
curi:
you have never made a case i was wrong about anything
curi:
that you have even claimed was objectively adequate
Shadow Starshine:
curi your position has been noted
curi:
since you don't want to resolve disagreements or argue your flaming-adjacent claims, you're on the wrong server.
Shadow Starshine:
Yet again, I'll say this for the third time
Shadow Starshine:
I'm interested in it with other people other than you
curi:
you say i made many fuckups but haven't explained even one
JustinCEO:
so it seems spurious that someone is going to tell me that I've been doing it wrong and that they can tell me the underpinning problems.
SS fyi your ultra hostile attitude towards curi doesn't really serve you well in helping establish your case as a veteran debater to whom a certain level of respect/deference should be granted re: judging discussion issues.
Shadow Starshine:
If I'm on the wrong server specifically because of my disinterest with you in particular, fine. But you can't say my disinterest is categorical.
Shadow Starshine:
and that's one error you can note right now
curi:
his methodology for objectively establishing an error is to write a sloppy sentence or two, then assume he's done
curi:
amazing
Shadow Starshine:
@JustinCEO depends who I'm trying to convince
Shadow Starshine:
I've already established I think curi is a waste of time, far beyond the amount of effort it would take
Shadow Starshine:
just to engage with some shit tier blogger
JustinCEO:
dude wtf
JustinCEO:
so hostile jeez
JustinCEO:
i'm out
curi:
https://curi.us/2232-claiming-you-objectively-won-a-debate
This chat followed immediately after the DavetheDastard Chat. That's what my first four messages relate to.
This is from the public Fallible Ideas Discord.
curi:
i don't like talking with people who aren't interested and also aren't adequately literate or precise.
curi:
and who don't want to address that problem e.g. by reading my articles on how to discuss or the Inferential Distance articles
curi:
or making a serious effort to propose a way forward that works from my pov
curi:
i don't like when people say things like "my lord" instead of recognizing the large culture clash, being tolerant and curious, trying to deal with it rationally instead of assuming bad faith, etc.
footsoldier:
(pinned)
"i don't like talking with people who [...don't want to read...] my articles on how to discuss"
footsoldier:
are you aware that doesn't sound so cool curi?
curi:
i suggest that your next message do something to persuade me of your good faith interest in productive discussion.
footsoldier:
So far all I have gotten from this server is people talking meta, being arrogant and getting caught up on miscommunication and nitpicking. I'm not interested in persuading you of my good faith, I'm interested in talking to cool people. I've come in here with an open mind but you aren't doing much to convince me you aren't arrogant and annoying to talk to. So at this point my interest in being in this server has wained to close to zero. Feel free to ban me, at least it will end my umming and arring about leaving 😂
curi:
you quoted me in a misleading way to make me look bad, then didn't give any explanation of what you think is bad. neither you nor any of your friends has made a reasonable effort to objectively establish any significant error by me or in FI philosophy. there hasn't even been a claim that a particular set of messages was objectively, rationally adequate to win the debate. see e.g. https://curi.us/2232-claiming-you-objectively-won-a-debate
footsoldier:
I never claimed I won any debate
footsoldier:
I came here to debate
footsoldier:
and got meta
footsoldier:
and links to articles
curi:
you're judging me and some ideas negatively. the rational way to do that is to back up that claim with arguments and attempt to actually win the debate re whether your arguments are correct or not, rather than just arbitrarily believing it or believing it while ignoring counter-arguments, or other errors like that.
footsoldier:
what am I arguing for?
curi:
you claimed e.g.
being arrogant and getting caught up on miscommunication and nitpicking.
curi:
but you aren't arguing your negative beliefs like these
curi:
so it's unreasonable to conclude they're correct, because you might be incorrect and aren't taking adequate steps to find out if you're mistaken
curi:
establishing a negative claim in argument is one of the reasonable ways to reach a negative judgment about people. if you have some other method for reaching negative judgments that you think is rational and truth-seeking-compatible, you haven't explained it and i wasn't able to figure it out from your comments.
footsoldier:
you are proving my point
footsoldier:
I came to discuss and got meta
footsoldier:
and you are continuing meta
curi:
this is discussion of how to be rational
curi:
if that topic doesn't interest you, you're on the wrong server
footsoldier:
so the goals in this server are to discuss the meta of discussion?
footsoldier:
if so then cool but i didn't know that
footsoldier:
i thought this was a general philo server
curi:
discussing how to think, learn, judge ideas, etc – epistemology – is a common topic here
curi:
you can also discuss other things
footsoldier:
well epistemology doesn't mean talking about a conversation about epistemology
curi:
however, if your discussion methodology differs from that of others, then you may run into major problems. as has happened with e.g. SS and ppl here.
footsoldier:
for example, if I said to you, can music be judged objectively?
footsoldier:
and you said, I don't like the way you posed the question
footsoldier:
and then we argue the meta
footsoldier:
then that's meta
footsoldier:
and not the actual discussion itself
curi:
you aren't similar to the FI people. you don't seem to want to learn our ideas about how to think, learn and discuss. you want discussion to just work automatically without doing anything to bridge the gap.
curi:
it's really up to you if you're interested enough to learn something about ideas that are different than your current ideas, or not.
curi:
but if you try to ignore that this is the situation you're in when you come here, it isn't going to work well.
footsoldier:
i appreciate that you are interested in meta discussion
footsoldier:
but what if I want to discuss my previous example, whether music can be judged objectively... is that appropriate to do here? Or would we only want to discuss the way we can discuss whether music can be objective without actually discussing whether music can be objectively judged??
curi:
you can try but i expect you to run into problems like when i think you read something i say in a non-literal, biased way
curi:
then, in my understanding, you won't want to discuss or try to solve that problem
curi:
and i won't think the original discussion is productive given ongoing, unsolved problems like that
footsoldier:
ok that's a fun goal. Let us attempt to discuss whether music can be objectively judged but before we get to that, let us immediately resolve any outstanding issues
footsoldier:
please can you give the first issue to resolve?
curi:
i don't know if you're being sarcastic or what you mean
footsoldier:
what is it I have said? Are we speaking about the quote you felt I manipulated?
footsoldier:
or are there other things?
footsoldier:
is the [mis]quote the most important issue here?
curi:
my biggest concern is that i predict certain types of problems will come up and that you then won't want to continue in a way i regard as productive, as i just explained.
footsoldier:
well that is irrational
footsoldier:
both you and I can predict anything we like
footsoldier:
or are you claiming to have access to future knowledge? This is suddenly a bizarre conversation.
curi:
my take on this is that you aren't reading and understanding what i say, and that you aren't responding in a way that's good at clarifying.
footsoldier:
can you point to an example?
curi:
me: i expect ... you won't want to
you: what is it I have said?
curi:
i talked about an expectation and used future tense. your response was to ask about the past.
footsoldier:
what is your prediction based off?
footsoldier:
I must have prompted you to think that
footsoldier:
otherwise you are just being mystical
curi:
you don't understand where
then, in my understanding, you won't want to discuss or try to solve that problem
is coming from and how it relates to anything prior in the discussion?
footsoldier:
no because I am currently tying to discuss and solve problems RIGHT NOW
footsoldier:
LOL
curi:
can you point to an example?
do you accept the first example i gave?
curi:
you didn't respond
footsoldier:
could you confirm what constitutes you example? I do not feel you have given a clear example yet.
curi:
footsoldier:
You seem to be confused as to the flow of the conversation.
NOW - it seems that this example is derailing from the conversation. It seems your objections are prophetic. If there are no CURRENT issues preventing us from discussing objectivity in music, could we stop getting caught up in meta and move to the conversation of objectivity in music?
curi:
could you try responding more directly to what i said? e.g. do you agree that i talked about the future and you responded about the past? if so, why did you do that?
footsoldier:
i already explained this......
footsoldier:
you cannot make a prediction based upon nothing
footsoldier:
but this is derailing
curi:
i talked about an expectation and used future tense. your response was to ask about the past.
footsoldier:
what is your expectation predicated upon?
curi:
you aren't responding to me.
footsoldier:
i am
footsoldier:
is it because you think you can make predictions based upon nothing previously being observed?
curi:
why did you respond with the wrong tense?
footsoldier:
because I assumed that you weren't foolish enough to base predictions on nothing
footsoldier:
so skipped a step
footsoldier:
and went stright to asking you what your predictions were based upon
footsoldier:
so again what you are predictions based upon?
footsoldier:
because now your predictions are based upon something which occurred after the fact of you originally predicting
curi:
ok so here i am worrying about miscommunications followed by them not being fixed b/c discussing miscommunications is meta discussion and you expressed your negative opinions of meta discussion ... and what you do is skip steps which makes miscommunications more likely and larger.
footsoldier:
lol
footsoldier:
curi:
ok gl talking wtih someone else
footsoldier:
you've confirmed my opinion of you mate
footsoldier:
You assert we cannot discuss any given topic because you prophesize issues will arise - therefore we are limited to discussing how we ought to discuss but which is itself a discussion. Either you are a comedian or need to pull your head out of your ass. Leaving the server. No interesting discussion to be had here.
This is an example of how bad at thinking people are regarding facts, logic and details. I think that's because they think socially instead.
Are you better? Join some discussions and test your belief and create documented evidence of your higher quality discussions.
The key point is that I disagreeed with him about some philosophy stuff and asked if he was interested in discussing. His replies included "Hahaha what" and "I’ll be willing to have a discussion to demonstrate that you’re talking utter nonsense in an unnecessarily hostile manner". Those replies indicated that he wasn't intellectually interested in the matter. I took that, combined with no answer to my question (re interest), as a "no", and told him so. He later followed up on that initial conversation in the chat below.
After this chat, Dave came back the next day to ask if I was "actually retarded" before leaving the server.
This is from the public Fallible Ideas Discord.
DavetheDastard:
Freeze Today at 02:45
maybe this relates to the point you had that Dave might be wasting his career
curi Today at 02:48
it's related sure, but it isn't really what i was talking about. i think the specialization he works in is building complicated ideas on top of many layers of false premises, and that it doesn't have paths forward or engage seriously with other schools of thought which criticize it
Freeze Today at 02:49
ah
curi Today at 02:49
his response was typical: he wasn't interested and also, despite the sort of work he allegedly does, he misread what i said and didn't respond meaningfully to my question.
the sort of work he allegedly does requires being great at accurate, detail reading of words, to the point that's easy and automatic
Curi, could you be more specific with the following:
In your initial message, you never explained in detail how my area of study rests on false premises - could you please identify which premises my area of study rests upon, and then demonstrate them to be "false"?
In what way(s) does my field of study fail to interact with other areas of study? Could you name a few, but then clarify how and why those areas of study would be relevant; i.e., my field of study does not relate with the study of Hospitality, but we wouldn't say that that is a problem. Also, whilst we're at it, could you acknowledge the fields of study which my area does interact with?
Your second message says that I wasn't interested [in your message informing me that my career is a waste due to the area of which it focuses is based on false premises] , and that despite the work I allegedly do, I misread what you said. Further, you say that I didn't respond meaningfully to your question.
You only asked one question, and that was whether I would be willing to discuss the matter with you.
I said that I would discuss the matter with you, and I then invited you to a VC to discuss the matter directly. I had hoped that to be a meaningful answer.
curi:
In your initial message, you never explained in detail how my area of study rests on false premises - could you please identify which premises my area of study rests upon, and then demonstrate them to be "false"?
this is not responsive to what i already said to you and how our conversation went.
curi:
You only asked one question, and that was whether I would be willing to discuss the matter with you.
that is not the question i asked. you should read.
DavetheDastard:
https://discordapp.com/channels/304082867384745994/482766203983626255/658871776708919316 in my considered and professional opinion, i think your specialization is based on incorrect premises and so it's a waste of a career. is that something you're interested in discussing? @DavetheDastard
DavetheDastard:
you said that
DavetheDastard:
that is your initial message, is it not?
And is it not true that in it you have stated that my area of study rests on false (incorrect) premises?
Also, is it not the case that you asked a single question, which is what I reported?
curi:
read it.
DavetheDastard:
I have
curi:
have you read it today?
DavetheDastard:
I have just copied and pasted it to you
curi:
where?
DavetheDastard:
in what way is me asking you to identify the incorrect premises which you have asserted to exist, not responsive to what you have said?
DavetheDastard:
I have pasted it here from #slow
curi:
oic, you didn't quote it and it started wtih a link
curi:
very confusing
DavetheDastard:
the link is what you posted in your initial message.
curi:
ok well, factually, does it ask if you're willing to discuss?
DavetheDastard:
if I have failed to quote directly, then so had you
DavetheDastard:
"is that something you're interested in discussing?
curi:
when i said you didn't quote it, i meant you didn't do this:
quote
DavetheDastard:
right, would that make a notable difference to you? it would merely alter the layout
curi:
it would have prevented the confusion, but nvm
curi:
is interest in discussing something the same as willingness?
DavetheDastard:
I would have hoped you would recognise your message to me, the one which you have been referencing in other messages.
In the context which you asked it, it would be a fair reading to believe that you had asked me to interact with you, and not merely wonder if I am interested in discussing this area. One would have thought that I would be interested in discussing the field of study which I specialise in.
DavetheDastard:
Look, if you are going to be unbelievably difficult in communication, then I am not wasting my time with you.
If you do not want to actually engage and have a discussion, fine, but in that case, would you please refrain from making further comments about my field of study and specifically my engagement in it.
curi:
the belief that the other guy is difficult re communication is symmetric. you aren't offering a symmetry breaker. i am offering one: your way of communicating contradicts the dictionary.
DavetheDastard:
pardon?
curi:
which is the first word that you don't follow?
DavetheDastard:
it's just that you seem to be saying that I am contradicting the dictionary in my communication, and yet you are not capitalising your use of "I", in contrary to the dictionary.
curi:
in contrary to the dictionary.
DavetheDastard:
are you or are you not asking whether I would like to meaningfully discuss the topic of whether my area of study rests upon incorrect premises?
DavetheDastard:
sorry, is that a direct quote? Oughtn't we mark that with quotation marks?
curi:
i had in mind dictionary definitions, not minor typos or informalities like omitting trailing periods in one sentence messages
curi:
curi:
that is what a block quote indicator looks like on discord
DavetheDastard:
that isn't quotation marks
DavetheDastard:
a quotation marks appears as follows - "X is the case"
DavetheDastard:
usually accompanied with a time stamp for mutual reference
DavetheDastard:
are you not familiar with references?
curi:
do you want to try to actually resolve an issue?
DavetheDastard:
again, I am only having this discussion with you to see whether or not you want to meaningfully discuss the question of whether my area of study rests on incorrect premises. If you do not wish to have such a discussion, and perhaps it may be fair to reason that you would likely not to have this current one either, then merely tell me so, and I will leave this discussion here. In doing so, however, I ask that you refrain from asserting that I am wasting my career on a field of study due to faults of that study, until you directly inform me of those premises and the nature of their falsity.
curi:
do you want to try to actually resolve an issue?
DavetheDastard:
are you struggling to understand my previous message?
DavetheDastard:
the only issue I wish to resolve is the question of whether my field of study rests upon incorrect premises, hence me having earlier asked you to identify those premises and to explain to me how they are incorrect.
curi:
you brought up other issues which you now grant you don't wish to resolve. that was inappropriate.
DavetheDastard:
my lord.
DavetheDastard:
you have just acknowledged that I have brought up issues in order for them to be resolved, and that due to you not acknowledging or engaging them, it is I who has been inappropriate.
curi:
i refer you to https://discordapp.com/channels/304082867384745994/647276416857276426/659136940607799309
DavetheDastard:
right - to which bit in particular?
your not wanting to have a vc?
DavetheDastard:
this is a waste of time, I'm leaving; please ping me in the future if you wish to meaningfully engage on the question of whether my field of study rests upon incorrect premises.
curi:
i don't like talking with people who aren't interested and also aren't adequately literate or precise.
curi:
and who don't want to address that problem e.g. by reading my articles on how to discuss or the Inferential Distance articles
curi:
or making a serious effort to propose a way forward that works from my pov
curi:
i don't like when people say things like "my lord" instead of recognizing the large culture clash, being tolerant and curious, trying to deal with it rationally instead of assuming bad faith, etc.
VSE on Discord, lying about the reasoning for relegation (he omitted the flaming he did) and misuing the term "simpler":
Doesn't it seem like it would have been simpler to ask a follow-up question instead of relegating me to a single channel?
i did ask a followup question. they're so bad at engaging with words. i said:
are you going to answer my simple, direct question or not?
this was both 1) a followup 2) a question
there's still something amazing to me about how much they retreat from English meanings of words
i think it's related to retreat from reality in genreal and social metaphysics. standard dictionary English has strong connections to reality.
but they operate in a social reality with social metaphysics, not in real reality. so they use words in a different way that is much less tied to reality, facts, logic, dictionaries, etc, and more tied to social rules and social meanings
i think their inability and/or unwillingness to read literally or to resolve any of these factual disputes is an indication of just how second-handed and social climbing they are. that's what the basic thing at issue is. how do you approach life, do you focus on facts/etc or on social dynamics?