Interestingly, we both feel *bored* by speculations that seem ungrounded, like “that’s a dead end, it can’t yield fruit, can we talk about something else now?”
-
Show this thread
-
One big difference is that I consistently expect bigger gaps between “far-mode” stuff I learned in books and “near-mode” stuff I can observe firsthand than Andrew does.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
On an S1 level I just *don’t expect* the sorts of things books & schools tell you to do, like take vitamins or wash your hands, to make a difference big enough to notice in your own life.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Eg I was *surprised* to find out firsthand that modular code really is easier to debug, that aspirin really can relieve pain, and that “the greenhouse effect” actually does make sunny indoor rooms hot.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
I think I have a default assumption that the stuff authority figures tell you is pretty likely to be false. I wasn’t “an atheist” till I was an adult but I totally did “belief in belief” as long as I could remember; I believed because I thought that was what good people did.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Andrew, on the other hand, doesn’t do that effortless thing of “yeah Officially X but I don’t really expect to personally rely on X.” If he believes something, he believes it “in real life”; otherwise it’s phony.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
This means
@oscredwin has higher intellectual integrity than me; you *shouldn’t* have separate magisteria, in principle. Everything should be consistent with everything else, in the end.1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
OTOH I think my intuition and “vibes” are *accurately pointing to stuff he can’t perceive* about how often people are bullshitting and how trustworthy authorities are. There’s probably false things that he *actually believes* that I wouldn’t outright deny but I wouldn’t bet on.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
This is a pretty canonical gender difference: men (speaking roughly) are more principled and women are more sensitive to signals of incongruence/insincerity, but we don’t really know how to articulate what we perceive in ways that don’t sound super “woo” or “crazy.”
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
This is an interesting framing, because I have always perceived men as more likely to be anti-authoritarian, but maybe they were just more comfortable being open about it?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
@oscredwin and I are both quite anti-authoritarian relative to most people. How much you are *in favor* of authority figures, or how compliant you are, is a different question to how much you literally believe their statements.
-
-
Picture a little kid, like in Peanuts, listening to grownups going “wah-Wah, wah-Wah” about a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. The teacher’s pets don’t necessarily buy it any more than the class clowns, they’re just more willing to humor the grownups and think that’s fine.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
My impression is that people who are *more* authoritarian than me are *less* literal-minded and *less* likely to think authority figures are literally saying true things, they just think that doesn’t matter much relative to social harmony and going along to get along.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
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.