Reading books or building model trains is virtually never done in some arbitrary way; the mastery drive is pretty apparent in ever more complex mechanical/logistical train systems or an ever more interesting/complex set of models for the life of the mind to inhabit
-
-
where one misses the boat is if one proceeds from the idea that it's one's actual social status that matters rather than the output of a black box that vaguely wants to evaluate social status but really just knows what it gets fed
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Yeah, it's really important to recognize that the same phenomena exist on and are explainable in dramatically different ways on different layers. Evolutionary psychology trips up a lot of people — maybe most — this way
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Is the claim here that validation from other human beings isn’t intrinsically meaningful but is simply an input into a system that evolved a dysphoric response to a lack of this stimulus?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
It's more like... I dunno, I think it can be helpful to remember that on an everyday basis, it doesn't really matter whether a god or an evolutionary process created you. If knowing the truth helps you figure out how to be a happy part of a communal positive feedback loop, cool
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I guess my concern about reductionism is that it implies that it would be a good thing if billions of people could take a pill that simulated the input of social validation and made it easy to live meaningless solitary lives. It just seems a bit Brave New World-ish.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I don't really know what to say; if you think I've argued anything like this I have to imagine you've been reading me in some manner that I wouldn't even recognize. I'm not even sure what to try to correct
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Sorry, I should've directed that tweet at
@chaosprime instead of replying to you, as it was a response to his reductionist perspective on the value of human connection. I didn't mean to imply you shared that view. Apologies for the confusion here.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
weird to be regarded as having a reductionist perspective on anything, lol i, uh, do not mean to imply by paying particular attention right now to one particular self-destruct mechanism in human wetware that human connection has no significance beyond a hackable signal into it
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Matt Diamond Retweeted Matt Diamond
I mean, that was the impression I got when you responded "yes" to the following tweethttps://twitter.com/mattdiamond/status/1153071050235813891 …
Matt Diamond added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
oh, right, that makes sense. i didn't mean to be dismissing all broader meaning to human interaction ("intrinsic" aside), i thought we were addressing the specific context
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime @mattdiamond and
the assertion i meant to be making is that it doesn't intrinsically matter to this subsystem whether the input it's receiving comes from actual validation by other humans or not
0 replies 0 retweets 2 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.