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
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
Replying to
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
Replying to
one of the first things I did on Twitter was get into a giant shit fight about hormones and sterilization
at the time I was defensive, as one is, but in the aftermath I ended up agreeing to parts of their argument
it can definitely have stakes, but usually not during the fight
Replying to
Broke: "psychodrama and shouting at projections"
Woke: online overseas-experience and cross-cultural ideological pollination