(2) that might be annoying to them? Like in a "if you care whether our claims are literal, you've missed the point" kinda way
Conversation
Replying to
I don't find it annoying. There's just no there there for me to engage with. I just write what's interesting to write.
2
Replying to
But are your posts trying to sketch out accurate models of how the world works? (in addition to trying to be interesting)?
1
Replying to
that question does not compute for me at all. Feels like a category error.
2
1
Replying to
I bet many readers misunderstand that (e.g. in the FB thread, some argued your statements were meant to have truth value)
1
3
Replying to
I'm not saying they don't or that I set out lie or confuse or troll. Truth just isn't a special concern above others.
2
2
Replying to
Right, but I think many readers would've predicted your answer to my truth value question would be "yes" not "category error"
4
4
Replying to
I'm fine with that. Religious people tend to project so that can't be helped.
1
Replying to
Well, one way it can be helped (if you want) is to simply tell people what you told me in this thread
1
Replying to
I honestly don't think it makes a difference. If concern for truth is a strong attractor in cognition of a person...
1
...then refactoring will work poorly on them no matter what I say or what they understand of my motives.
Replying to
OK well, I'd say "I get it," but maybe in your model that means I don't get it and also that "models" are category errors :)
1
1
Replying to
let's just say that in my exp, strong rationalists get little out of my writing at least. Other rf'ers may do better
1
Show replies

