2/ Lately, I've been trying to classify arguments as: i. Asserting a model of reality; ii. Estimating rates of change with respect to models; iii. Declaring trade-offs (i.e. loss functions).
1/ Disagreements that form because people misinterpret their interlocutor's positions are common enough that it's cliché: "talking past each other". But, are there any frameworks or ontologies for classifying the contextual mistakes (maybe, in #rhetoric)?
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/ Confusing (i) for (ii) and vise versa seems to be common. Alice (i): Extant [bad thing] is bad. Bob (ii): [Bad thing] is getting better. *simultaneously* Alice (i): That's not evidence that it doesn't exist! Bob (ii): But you're wrong in this instance!
Show this thread -
4/ (iii) Has to do with norms and declaring values. I wrote about it before, and I think people generally underestimate how important this mode is for navigating reality. Misinterpretation as (i) or (ii) is, like, the sine qua non of twitter.https://dispatches.artifexdeus.com/what-is-your-political-loss-function-a32749c5c37f …
Show this thread -
5/ But, my ideas are still pretty fuzzy, and I suspect other people have much more concrete ideas, frameworks, and earned intuition. Any guidance would be appreciated.
Show this thread
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.