i saw from both and something about arguments being collaborative and i really didn't get it at the time but i think i'm starting to. arguments are *for collaborating*, there's no actual point to having them otherwise
Conversation
Replying to
social media trains you to have arguments with strangers which is insane. an argument with a stranger cannot possibly have any real stakes. it's all psychodrama, two people shouting at projections. you might learn something but you'd learn the same things shouting at yourself
4
39
arguments are for people whose actions materially affect your life and vice versa: friends, family, partners. there need to be real decisions at stake for the two arguers to care enough to resolve the disagreement, among other things to care enough to even try to understand
1
1
22
in terms of "jamming vs. honing," imo the proper mode of interaction with strangers, especially on twitter, is jamming only. there's no point in honing with someone you're not collaborating with. jamming is how you find out who you'd like to hone with
Quote Tweet
Honing mode vs Jamming mode (in conversation) goo.gl/NnzneK #Communication #DivergentThinking #Brainstorming
Show this thread
2
22
twitter is also imo poorly suited to honing, which requires a lot of being careful and establishing shared meanings. what twitter incentivizes is riffing. consider: anyone can branch a thread's replies arbitrarily but no one can "prune" except for their own replies
1
14
