Conversation

Interesting how many thought-stopper words (including positive self-descriptors) are also individual labels. You tend to stop thinking where you judge a person incapable of changing. Often (always?) this is true *in juxtaposition* with a way the judger is incapable of changing
5
44
Basically all ideological slurs work this way. Political change occurs in pairs, where 2 people remove a pair of labels, which allows them to get entangled as humans. Not going to list examples, but think of quartets of related words on a 2x2: yin vs Yang, positive vs negative
1
20
Which is another way of saying they become capable of seeking a truth together. Which requires indefinitely extended mutual thought. Which is “growing together” (in-truth?). Truths generally require an infinite pursuit. Only falsehoods can be disposed off in finite time/steps.
2
19
This is un-bozobitting. Bozobitting can be unilateral, but unbozobitting requires 2 people to adopt such mutualism. The one who adopts it first has to inspire a complementary move on other side. Often against a hostile dehumanization field plastered with thought-stopper labels.
2
15
A fun thing about tweeting in abstractions is that everybody is eager to see their own case as a positive instance and some adversary as a perfect negative instance 🤣 If you like this template, cast yourself as the bad guy in it for a minute
1
23
Identity politics is thought-stopping politics. The effect is so strong many people have stopped thinking about politics altogether. There is a thought-stopper every way you turn on every issue. Ie people who “don’t talk politics because it’s all identitarian” win irony crown.
1
28
Ie people who studiously ignore politics are 100% trapped by the very identity politics they think prevents discussion of “issues.” Often when 2 people successfully un-bozobit on some front, the supposed “issue” they thought they were at odds over turns out to be trivial
1
18
To abuse Alan Watts terminology a bit, every identity dimension is simultaneously a prickle and a blob of goo. We present the prickle and hide the blob side. The prickle side is what we imagine is the "completed" part of an important truth that we think cannot be re-opened.
Replying to
We can share our blob-of-goo adventures (the remaining truth we are indefinitely pursuing) with people who share our prickle (have completed the same presumed-done part of the truth-quest on that dimension.
1
12
The "completed" part is also the "prickly" part because it is a sunk-cost part we think we've already earned and don't want to lose. We defend it against ideological threat of second-guessing.
1
10
This is why we mostly present in public with a bunch of "finished" positive labels (credentials, supposedly unquestionably good qualities or life-roles). Every twitter profile is a finished package of prickles defending unfinished blobs of goo.
2
10
This is the psyche equivalent of an "ossified protocol" -- all evolution happens beyond the prickle boundary and in the goo. Re-opening the prickly part is too dangerous. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
1
10
Bozobitting (1-way or 2-way) is a kind of protocol incompatibility. You present very legible sunk-cost threats to each other, with very little hint of upside for putting that at risk.
1
7
Where you truly trust someone (or the whole world), you are often willing to present the unfinished side externally, and hide the finished part as unimportant/irrelevant. A lot of shitposting, "working in public", being willing to look like a fool etc. is that.
2
13
At least on Twitter, I tend to lead with my unfinished psyche business. The finished stuff is... boring. I mostly do the disagree-but-commit or agree-to-disagree there, but rarely actually bozobit. I treat it as *practically* expensive convergence, not conceptually impossible
1
9