So, when people think, "oh those two people are talking past each other, but they really agree," they're making a mistake. They agree over an artificial, constrained projection; but their mental models disagree, as evidenced by expressive propensities.
-
-
Replying to @generativist @Aelkus
It's also the place where so much fuckery hides because it's the hardest to quantify easily. E.g. GSS/ANES asks "What's your opinion on [X]?" it doesn't observe what beliefs you express and sample from in your life. It measures the wrong thing.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Aelkus
Kinda? Mostly, it's an overly-sophisticated way of saying something like, "yea, opinions on abortion aren't actually about abortion." We don't actually constrain our expressions or evaluations to a narrow context.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @generativist @Aelkus
So does this mean our expressed opinions are proxies for our mental models and that even if they align with expressed opinions of others that doesn’t necessarily mean the mental models align?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_a_n_u_s_h_a @Aelkus
I believe it does, yes. Except that I also believe that aligned expressions tend to induce contagious alignments, just in heterogeneous ways. E.g. if we agree, I may just perceive an identity we share and strengthen my belief in that.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @generativist @Aelkus
And this (perceived) shared identity via aligned expressed proxies becomes another belief within the existing network? Or does it simply reinforce the belief in shared mental models? Sorry, I’m just trying to conceptualize the relationship between the three :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_a_n_u_s_h_a @Aelkus
Oh I'm still unclear on it all, too. I wanted to decompose it much more rigorously, but the data don't really exist! I believe (intuitively and from extant work) that the social identities are what we're mostly evaluating, and the rest of the graph was a happy accident.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
So to use an extremely bad metaphor; people look at us successfully equating function outputs and, from the fact that the same value was generated this one time, assume the actual functions work the same way?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Sorry this thread got a bit sprawling so I'm kinda mentally spread over the whole thing. If I'm reading your analogy correctly, I'd say people use the output (expression) to update their beliefs while also doing backprop it over (stochastic samples) of identities.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Like, I disagree with parts of this that I wrote a while ago, but the structure is kinda there in a more accessible example. But the gist would be, what we say and what we judge aren't the same, and identity seems to be the most informative cue.https://dispatches.artifexdeus.com/donald-trump-is-hari-seldon-75bd789637d9 …
-
-
Replying to @generativist @farbandish and
And what aspects we select to emphasize in our beliefs seems to be a very good proxy for identity, in absence of more obvious cues.
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.