The argument here isn't just for the sake of empathy - my stronger claim is that to understand someone well enough to change their mind you need to understand them using their own words. So any external theorizing risks diluting your understanding and is to be used sparingly
-
-
Yes! There’s actually good empirical support for this (some cited in my thing)pic.twitter.com/PRzq4FsE1I
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Ok let me finish the whole thing first
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yeah, this is an interesting discussion. I think your original point about SSC/IDW/etc may clarify something I don’t understand yet (but I’m not sure because I don’t understand it yet :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This was a fantastic read! I'd say your analysis manages to avoid the issue I've highlighted with SCC/IDW the most of anything I've seen. There's much of the map that I'd draw differently, but it's clear that we're looking at the same thing.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tangled_zans @Meaningness and
Ven has gotten pretty close in the sense that I know he's looking at the same thing, but his personal disdain for the territory has made his map too stylistic for me to build on. Still get some good insights from it though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tangled_zans @Meaningness and
Zanzi Retweeted Zanzi
But there is a humbleness in both that's lacking in SCC/LW/IDW. The latter attempt to draw a map that centres their own position, which turns it into a sort of solipsistic trap - they become *more* entrenched in their own position and self-righteousnesshttps://twitter.com/tangled_zans/status/1220726629795815425 …
Zanzi added,
Zanzi @tangled_zansReplying to @tangled_zans @mwotton and 3 othersAnd I *could* create a meta-level that favors my own ethical position. Just as SCC/IDW tried to do. But that'd make me *less* able to communicate with them, not more. And no one I disagree with will accept my meta-level if to them I only invented it to change THEIR mind1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tangled_zans @Meaningness and
"post-rationalism" takes care to avoid the rationalist mistake of self-centering itself on the map, but it doesn't *quite* succeed yet. perhaps it tries to be too nebulous and hard-to-define out of fear that by defining itself it will fall into the tribe-trap
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tangled_zans @Meaningness and
but perhaps by not defining itself, it inadvertently side-steps its own criticisms by omitting itself from its own analysis. so there's still an accidental "us versus them" thing going. "them are the knightly status seekers, and us are the folks trying to stop them!" heh
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tangled_zans @Meaningness and
so what im trying to articulate is a meta-level that treats itself on the same footing as all the other positions. so while on the object level i ie abhor IDW, my meta-analysis needs to make no judgement on which position is more correct/coherent/valid/logical/good-faith
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Thinking out loud… maybe a useful framing is that everyone mixes genuine good intentions, emotional confusions, conceptual confusions, self-interested status-seeking, enjoyment of communication even with enemies, tribal loyalty, attempts to gain material advantage, &c…
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @tangled_zans
If we admit that, then we can cut opponents some slack, ask that they do the same, try honestly to help them clarify their confusions, and try to work together to sort out what everyone actually wants/needs vs demands that are fake due to genuine confusion or tactical maneuvering
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.