Conversation

Replying to
It is empirically accurate, modulo a sort of optical illusion that doesn’t matter, and a bit of projection, which is 10x better than most people ever understand anyone. You’d be able to predict my actions pretty well with that model. Probably only need a small shell script 😆
1
1
Replying to
Oh, no! That was not an understanding of how you operate, only a characterization of the observation, which results from projecting your actions on my own surface. I don't yet see WHY you seem to stop and deviate, for which I possibly need a meta-perspective.
2
Replying to
I’m flattered and amused that anyone cares to deconstruct my thinking at all. That kind of attention is generally reserved for the Trumps, Petersons and Einsteins. Now if I could get a dozen more people trying to figure out my 8d chess, things could get very interesting đŸ€”
1
1
Replying to
The reason for the lack of interest of the crowds in your mortal toil is that you don't do very interesting things. In your attempts at relevance you seem to limit yourself to what's permissible. Trump and Peterson operate outside of what's permitted (which makes success harder).
3
Replying to
So the actual mystery here is why you’re trying to figure me out at all. There’s really not much to figure out, so my theory is it bothers you to see unexplained divergence. It doesn’t bother me because I think divergence is the default and convergence is what needs explaining
1
1
Replying to
Ah, ok. I did not realize that this is not obvious. I am interested in understanding specific divergence because I need to account for my own divergence. (I don't think you are not correct in assuming that convergence is not the default. Convergence is heavily selected for.)
1
1
Replying to and
Btw, this thread had two distinct moments where I felt you were stopping two steps of inference short of the actual insight. What puzzles me is not that you don't think deeply, but that you don't seem to be attracted to that particular dimension of depth. Why dive then at all?
1
Replying to
1. My description of your behavior did not contain its explanation and thus no understanding, even if it would have predictive value, and 2. divergence and convergence are not just there and need to be approved or not but are dynamics that exist for reasons we have to understand.
2
Replying to
Yes, my confidence in assessing your motivations is low. For instance, I don't get your sense of humor at all. It looks like a simulacrum of humor to me, and I don't yet understand why you'd want to produce such a performance.
1
Replying to
The text holds interesting insights for me. For instance, that you‘d think that one would need to google “existential horror”, and in their old age, instead of experiencing that as the default.
2
Show replies