1.4) Alex reflects on feeling judged, doesn’t like it, and concludes that Bailey is “a downer”.
Unrolling of referents: Alex felt it was bad that Alex felt that Bailey felt that Alex leaving out the milk was bad.
There seems to be some ambiguity here, which I found very confusing on a first read-through, and which I’m still not sure I’m interpreting in a way that makes any sense.
Do you mean:
“Alex felt bad, due to the fact that Alex felt that Bailey felt …”
Or:
“Alex felt it was bad that Alex felt that Bailey felt …”
In other words, is it that Alex dislikes being made to feel judged? Or, is it that Alex views his own response (feeling judged) to be somehow un-virtuous?
Edit: Also, how/why does Alex conclude that Bailey is “a downer”? How does this follow from the rest of it? I don’t get this part.
Edit2: I also don’t get this part:
2.5) Charlie observes Alex treating Bailey like “a downer”, thinks this is baseless, and feels Alex is “a snob”.
A snob? What? I don’t understand how anything like the usual meanings of the concept of “being a snob” can make this reaction make sense.
Something strange is going on with your word/concept usage here, and I’m more and more perplexed about what it might be.
In other words, is it that Alex dislikes being made to feel judged? Or, is it that Alex views his own response (feeling judged) to be somehow un-virtuous?
Pretty sure it’s just that Alex dislikes feeling judged, rather than an evaluation of whether his own response was virtuous.
1.4) Alex reflects on feeling judged, doesn’t like it, and concludes that Bailey is “a downer”.
Unrolling of referents: Alex felt it was bad that Alex felt that Bailey felt that Alex leaving out the milk was bad.
2.4) Multiple similar Scale 1 events happen Alex does something X, and ends up feeling that Bailey was “a downer” about it.
Complete unrolling of referents: Alex felt it was bad that Alex felt that Bailey felt that Alex doing X was bad, for multiple values of X.
In the first example, there’s [Alex feels that Baily [feels that leaving out the milk is bad]]
Then Alex feels that that^ is bad, which probably isn’t ‘I feel bad about having this understanding of the situation’ but more like ‘I disapprove of this thing that I understand’. So Alex is grumpy or angry or frustrated or disappointed when looking at [their belief that Bailey thinks their actiosn are bad]
I’m guessing the second example follows the same pattern. There’s [Alex has a general feel that Baily [has a general feel that Alex is doing bad stuff] where the word felt that Critch wrote is like a belief but isn’t necessarily explicit or justified.
So then you get Alex felt bad about the fact that, from Alex’s perspective, Bailey keeps ETC.
I think that’s different from both of the options you had in your top comment, but it’s closer to your due to the fact option. There’s a thing happening, and Alex doesn’t like it (is sad, irritated, mad, whatever, which Critch tagged as just ‘bad’)
For your first edit, the downer thing reads to me as being more like ‘Baily is a bummer or a party pooper or likely to have emotional reactions to things that I Alex think are too small or too trivial to deserve such a reaction.’
For your second edit, the snob thing reads to me as ‘Charlie sees Alex judging Bailey as a person over Baily’s judgements of Alex, and furthermore this pattern-matches for Charlie to a kind of snobbishness, E.G. Alex is judging Baily for not living up to Alex’s standards of what should or should not trigger emotion or what one should or should not do in response to emotion, and maybe Alex is being hypocritical too since they’re being emotional in response to that.’
Alex felt bad about the fact that, from Alex’s perspective, Baily keeps having bad feels about actions that Alex is taking (things analagous to leaving out the milk)
I don’t think I have ever met any people who think or behave like what you describe, though. Is all of this really supposed to be a description of actual people? Or what?
Is all of this really supposed to be a description of actual people? Or what?
FYI this reads as incredulity-as-attack, when you might have instead written ‘I’m surprised, because as far as I know, none of the people I’ve ever met think or behave like that’ which would have contained the same critique but come across as 3x less dick
edit: it seems in the spirit of the thread to unroll a little more. Your first comment seemed to say something like ‘I’m confused by the words you used,’ which when I read it I felt good about that. But then when it was explained enough so that ‘I’m confused’ was no longer a concern, you immediately switched tacks to be complaining about something else, without acknowledging that your first concern had been addressed or that your second concern was a brand-new complaint.
That made me think that you just didn’t like this, and were going to find reasons to keep not liking it. I had a model that neither of your explicit complaints thus far was your true complaint, and that made me feel like you were being uncooperative and so I also felt less-inclined-to-cooperate. Then I checked your words again to see whether they were more compatible with “trying to understand” or with “trying to socially dominate” and if I had to bet I would bet on the latter, and that’s where my comment came from.
I guess it’s possible I’m missing or misinterpreting stuff. But now you have something to work with if you want it.
Somehow this comment was really inspiring! I’m glad this exchange happened, so maybe I should upvote grandparent too? :P
BTW,
incredulity-as-attack
[not] acknowledging that your first concern had been addressed
We have terms for these! They are, respectively, stonewalling and logical rudeness.
I’m still split on how I feel about jargon, and of course it’s good that you didn’t use any here, but it does give the concepts you describe some legitimacy (for better or worse). Legitimacy helps especially in cases where such expressions are dismissed as over-reactions unique to you, and are thus assumed to be your responsibility to fix, by some implicit jargon-efficiency argument (“if this were a thing to be concerned about, we’d have a name for it!”).
There seems to be some ambiguity here, which I found very confusing on a first read-through, and which I’m still not sure I’m interpreting in a way that makes any sense.
Do you mean:
“Alex felt bad, due to the fact that Alex felt that Bailey felt …”
Or:
“Alex felt it was bad that Alex felt that Bailey felt …”
In other words, is it that Alex dislikes being made to feel judged? Or, is it that Alex views his own response (feeling judged) to be somehow un-virtuous?
Edit: Also, how/why does Alex conclude that Bailey is “a downer”? How does this follow from the rest of it? I don’t get this part.
Edit2: I also don’t get this part:
A snob? What? I don’t understand how anything like the usual meanings of the concept of “being a snob” can make this reaction make sense.
Something strange is going on with your word/concept usage here, and I’m more and more perplexed about what it might be.
Pretty sure it’s just that Alex dislikes feeling judged, rather than an evaluation of whether his own response was virtuous.
In that case, the unrolling makes no sense whatever.
In the first example, there’s [Alex feels that Baily [feels that leaving out the milk is bad]]
Then Alex feels that that^ is bad, which probably isn’t ‘I feel bad about having this understanding of the situation’ but more like ‘I disapprove of this thing that I understand’. So Alex is grumpy or angry or frustrated or disappointed when looking at [their belief that Bailey thinks their actiosn are bad]
I’m guessing the second example follows the same pattern. There’s [Alex has a general feel that Baily [has a general feel that Alex is doing bad stuff] where the word felt that Critch wrote is like a belief but isn’t necessarily explicit or justified.
So then you get Alex felt bad about the fact that, from Alex’s perspective, Bailey keeps ETC.
I think that’s different from both of the options you had in your top comment, but it’s closer to your due to the fact option. There’s a thing happening, and Alex doesn’t like it (is sad, irritated, mad, whatever, which Critch tagged as just ‘bad’)
For your first edit, the downer thing reads to me as being more like ‘Baily is a bummer or a party pooper or likely to have emotional reactions to things that I Alex think are too small or too trivial to deserve such a reaction.’
For your second edit, the snob thing reads to me as ‘Charlie sees Alex judging Bailey as a person over Baily’s judgements of Alex, and furthermore this pattern-matches for Charlie to a kind of snobbishness, E.G. Alex is judging Baily for not living up to Alex’s standards of what should or should not trigger emotion or what one should or should not do in response to emotion, and maybe Alex is being hypocritical too since they’re being emotional in response to that.’
What does ETC mean here? I thought maybe you meant “etc.” but I can’t get the sentence to make sense in my head when I read it that way.
I meant etcetera.
Alex felt bad about the fact that, from Alex’s perspective, Baily keeps having bad feels about actions that Alex is taking (things analagous to leaving out the milk)
I don’t think I have ever met any people who think or behave like what you describe, though. Is all of this really supposed to be a description of actual people? Or what?
FYI this reads as incredulity-as-attack, when you might have instead written ‘I’m surprised, because as far as I know, none of the people I’ve ever met think or behave like that’ which would have contained the same critique but come across as 3x less dick
edit: it seems in the spirit of the thread to unroll a little more. Your first comment seemed to say something like ‘I’m confused by the words you used,’ which when I read it I felt good about that. But then when it was explained enough so that ‘I’m confused’ was no longer a concern, you immediately switched tacks to be complaining about something else, without acknowledging that your first concern had been addressed or that your second concern was a brand-new complaint.
That made me think that you just didn’t like this, and were going to find reasons to keep not liking it. I had a model that neither of your explicit complaints thus far was your true complaint, and that made me feel like you were being uncooperative and so I also felt less-inclined-to-cooperate. Then I checked your words again to see whether they were more compatible with “trying to understand” or with “trying to socially dominate” and if I had to bet I would bet on the latter, and that’s where my comment came from.
I guess it’s possible I’m missing or misinterpreting stuff. But now you have something to work with if you want it.
Somehow this comment was really inspiring! I’m glad this exchange happened, so maybe I should upvote grandparent too? :P
BTW,
We have terms for these! They are, respectively, stonewalling and logical rudeness.
I’m still split on how I feel about jargon, and of course it’s good that you didn’t use any here, but it does give the concepts you describe some legitimacy (for better or worse). Legitimacy helps especially in cases where such expressions are dismissed as over-reactions unique to you, and are thus assumed to be your responsibility to fix, by some implicit jargon-efficiency argument (“if this were a thing to be concerned about, we’d have a name for it!”).