I very much agree that when you’re not getting feeling X it can be very difficult to distinguish territory disagreements from feeling disagreements, especially when you’re SNS activated. Having a term to cover all cases seems extremely useful. It also seems useful to have specific terms for the subsets, to help tease issues apart.
“Reality” to me seems much better suited towards the narrow, territory-focused aspect of feeling X, and I see a lot of costs in diluting it. Both because I wish I could say “reality” instead of clunkier things like “narrow, territory-focused”, and because having a term where it’s ambiguous whether you mean feeling X or objective facts is just begging for explosive arguments. I’m particularly worried about person A’s (inside view) refusal to change their view of facts without new data feeling to person B like a refusal to care about feeling X.
Ideas for feeling X:
“Shared subjective reality” isn’t great because it’s kind of long and the whole point of reality is it’s not subjective, but does substantially address my concerns, in a way “reality*” doesn’t.
“being ingroup” or “on your side-ness”. These aren’t synonymous with feeling X but are a lot of what I want out of it.
“shared frame” also is not synonymous but captures an important aspect.
man I really wanted a longer, better list but it’s pretty hard.
Also thanks for starting this conversation, I’m finding it really valuable even if that’s manifesting mostly as critique.
I have a hunch that in practice the use of the term ‘shared reality’ doesn’t actually ruin one’s ability to refer to territory-reality. In the instances when I’ve used the term in conversation I haven’t noticed this (and I like to refer to the territory a lot). But maybe with more widespread usage and misinterpretation it could start to be a problem?
I think to get a better sense of your concern it might be useful to dive into specific conversations/dynamics where this might go wrong.
...
I can imagine a world where I want to be able to point out that someone is doing the psychological mistake of confusing their desire to connect with their map-making. And I want the term I use to do that work, so I can just say “you want to share your subjective experience with me, but I’m disagreeing with you about reality, not subjective experience.”
Yeah I definitely don’t think calling it “shared reality” will ruin anything. It would be another few snowflakes in the avalanche of territory-map ambiguation, similar to when people use “true” to mean “good” rather than “factually accurate”.
I’ve made a couple of attempts at a longer response and just keep bouncing off, so I think I’m out of concepts for now. Would love to pick this up in person if we run into each other.
I very much agree that when you’re not getting feeling X it can be very difficult to distinguish territory disagreements from feeling disagreements, especially when you’re SNS activated. Having a term to cover all cases seems extremely useful. It also seems useful to have specific terms for the subsets, to help tease issues apart.
“Reality” to me seems much better suited towards the narrow, territory-focused aspect of feeling X, and I see a lot of costs in diluting it. Both because I wish I could say “reality” instead of clunkier things like “narrow, territory-focused”, and because having a term where it’s ambiguous whether you mean feeling X or objective facts is just begging for explosive arguments. I’m particularly worried about person A’s (inside view) refusal to change their view of facts without new data feeling to person B like a refusal to care about feeling X.
Ideas for feeling X:
“Shared subjective reality” isn’t great because it’s kind of long and the whole point of reality is it’s not subjective, but does substantially address my concerns, in a way “reality*” doesn’t.
“being ingroup” or “on your side-ness”. These aren’t synonymous with feeling X but are a lot of what I want out of it.
“shared frame” also is not synonymous but captures an important aspect.
man I really wanted a longer, better list but it’s pretty hard.
Also thanks for starting this conversation, I’m finding it really valuable even if that’s manifesting mostly as critique.
Sure! I love talking about this concept-cluster.
I have a hunch that in practice the use of the term ‘shared reality’ doesn’t actually ruin one’s ability to refer to territory-reality. In the instances when I’ve used the term in conversation I haven’t noticed this (and I like to refer to the territory a lot). But maybe with more widespread usage and misinterpretation it could start to be a problem?
I think to get a better sense of your concern it might be useful to dive into specific conversations/dynamics where this might go wrong.
...
I can imagine a world where I want to be able to point out that someone is doing the psychological mistake of confusing their desire to connect with their map-making. And I want the term I use to do that work, so I can just say “you want to share your subjective experience with me, but I’m disagreeing with you about reality, not subjective experience.”
Does that kind of resonate with your concern?
Yeah I definitely don’t think calling it “shared reality” will ruin anything. It would be another few snowflakes in the avalanche of territory-map ambiguation, similar to when people use “true” to mean “good” rather than “factually accurate”.
I’ve made a couple of attempts at a longer response and just keep bouncing off, so I think I’m out of concepts for now. Would love to pick this up in person if we run into each other.
Yeah let’s do in-person sometime, I also tried drafting long responses and they were terrible