I-it vs I-you is the most basic dichotomy I’ve found in my years of dichotomy hunting to fuel 2x2s. HT @mtraven for introducing me to it.pic.twitter.com/e5eVehbSvJ
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Significance is meaningful detail. Example: “sell the sizzle, not the steak” creates significance out of a material detail (sizzle as I-it) and social meaning (sizzle as socially constructed meaningfulness of food culture eg barbecue)
A tell of an inexperienced liar is putting in too much or too little material detail relative to the meaning of what is being said. A significance glitch.
Magic tricks often work because we badly *want* to believe that objects have intentions minds and mysterious agency (meaningful I-you characteristics we want in humans to relate to) but the trick often exploits basic banal I-it physics/geometry that’s a letdown when revealed
I think “magicians never tell” because they are far more afraid of loss of faith in meaningfulness than in their tricks getting shared. I’ve never once not been disappointed at learning how a trick works.
Experimental science is the opposite of magic. Bizarre I-it details with no social narrative attached. Like a mentos and soda experiment. Bizarre and fun but not like a magic trick because there are no significant expectations being subverted.
Our null hypothesis for I-it things is ”nothing much” Our null hypothesis for I-you things is “change caused by living striving” Objects doing something rather than nothing is surprising in a science way People doing nothing rather than something is surprising in a magic way
Example of latter: a mark picking the card the conjurer wants, due to highly effective suggestion modes... that’s humans acting deterministically like objects
Try this dumb “magic” trick. Spell out a number of words ending in o-p while a friend pronounces them: c o p cop t o p top m o p mop After 6-7 such prompts, suddenly ask them: “what do you do at a green traffic light?” ~100% of people will say “stop”
Conditioning structure here is transparent but most tricks with more hidden mechanics seem to rely on similar object-like predictability of human attention trajectory. You work it like an I-it to get an I-thou payoff yourself (people being impressed at a cheap trick)
If we are to grok experimental science in-part by grokking its opposite, can I kick the tires on this assumption? Material.../Social... reality - is this really so? The way you equate detail and reality to feeling present and alive raises my straw man alert a notch or two. Help?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.