This is associational thinking. “If two things are associated, they’re basically the same, right?” It runs on clustering, not grammar; it can’t ask “in what *sense* are these things related?”
-
Show this thread
-
To cluster-mind, words are magic. Enactive. To say a thing is to make it real. Going meta and thinking *about* the words is impossible. So of course criticism hurts if you’re stuck in this mode.
2 replies 2 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
This is related to the frame of mind where “okay”, “allowed”, “acceptable”, are felt to be primary objects in the world, not reducible to predictions like “these people will treat me this way in this context.”
1 reply 1 retweet 23 likesShow this thread -
That’s a very scary headspace to be in; trying to describe it makes it sound like it’s a very severe mental illness; but it’s actually common among so-called “healthy” people. Heidegger got this.
2 replies 1 retweet 20 likesShow this thread -
You actually feel like social opinions are ontological primaries, and things like atoms, tables, or even sense perceptions are abstractions *over* social judgments. It’s as spooky as it sounds.
2 replies 3 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
We all use associational cognition constantly; we literally could not see if we didn’t. It’s not a “bad” mode of thought, it’s essential.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
But using *exclusively* associational cognition *for interpreting language* is, I think, a flattened, contracted, degenerate state, relative to what human minds can do in general. Being “insecure” or “easily triggered” is *not* just due to having finite computational power.
1 reply 1 retweet 23 likesShow this thread -
The usual cynical explanation is that being “insecure” is a subconscious self-interested power move — “I precommit to getting upset unless you devote more resources to me.” But I think it’s actually even creepier than that.
2 replies 1 retweet 20 likesShow this thread -
I think it’s a selfish gene thing. A gene for being “triggerable” isn’t there to benefit the organism it’s in, but to benefit its *kin*, who also have the gene, and can benefit from having victims who are easier to abuse and manipulate.
1 reply 4 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
This is pure speculation on my part, but once I saw it I couldn’t unsee it. The selfish-gene figure-ground inversion applies to behavior too — which means not all your instinctual behaviors were evolved to benefit *you*. Some may be evolved to benefit your kin at your expense.
2 replies 1 retweet 33 likesShow this thread
wait, I missed a step: how does being triggerable benefit kin?
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @vgr
The Wicked (not actually step-)Mother can get more work out of Cinderella if Cinderella fears her disapproval.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Also having a button you can push to enrage people makes them willing to fight wars and bring you the loot.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.