If you are operating under an assumption that nobody agrees with, you are wasting anyone’s time (assumption: map is about the map, territory be damned), as the argument never goes anywhere. As a compromise, compose your best argument as a top-level post (but only if you expect to convince at least someone).
That’s why I don’t understand you—I dropped this particular subthread for that very reason, but Cyan asked a second time for a reply. Otherwise, I’d have not said anything else in this particular subthread.
You could still write a meta-reply, taking that problem into account. The root of the disagreement can be stated in one line, and a succinct statement of at the moment unresolvable disagreement is resolution of an argument.
You could still write a meta-reply, taking that problem into account. The root of the disagreement can be stated in one line, and a succinct statement of at the moment unresolvable disagreement is resolution of an argument.
To be honest, I have not perceived anyone I’m speaking with to be treating this as an unresolvable conflict, besides you. Most of the other people have been saying things I perceive to mean, “I agree with such-and-such, but I am confused why you think that about this other case”, or “Ah, we are talking about different things in this area—how would you apply it to the thing I mean?”
You are the only one who appears to be simply stating dogma back at me, without seeking to understand where our maps do or do not overlap. (I’m not very quick on the OB URL citations, but ISTM that everything I’m saying about maps is consistent with EY’s models of reductionism, and with observable facts about how brains operate.)
You appear to have a pattern of responding to my descriptions of things (as I perceive them in my map, of course) as if they were attacks on your preferred prescriptions for how reality should be (in your map). It’s natural that this would lead to an impasse, since I am not actually disputing your opinions, and you are not actually objecting to my facts. Hence, we talk past each other.
(Btw, when I say “facts”, I mean “statements intended to be about actual conditions”, not “truths”. All models are false, but some are more useful than others.)
I’m just trying to be decisive in identifying the potential flaming patterns in the discussion. I could debate the specifics, but given my prior experience in debating stuff with you, and given the topics that could be debated in these last instances, I predict that the discussion won’t lead anywhere, and so I skip the debate and simply state my position, to avoid unnecessary text.
One way of stopping recurring thematic or person-driven flame wars (that kill Internet communities) is to require the sides to implement decent write-ups of their positions: even without reaching agreement, at some point there remains nothing to be said, and so the endless cycle of active mutual misunderstanding gets successfully broken.
I’m just trying to be decisive in identifying the potential flaming patterns in the discussion. I could debate the specifics, but given my prior experience in debating stuff with you, and given the topics that could be debated in these last instances, I predict that the discussion won’t lead anywhere, and so I skip the debate and simply state my position, to avoid unnecessary text.
I don’t understand how that’s supposed to work. If you don’t expect it to lead anywhere, why bother saying anything at all?
I’m registering the disagreement, and inviting you to sort the issue out for yourself, through reconsidering your position in response to apparent disagreement, or through engaging into a more constructive form of discussion.
I’m registering the disagreement, and inviting you to sort the issue out for yourself, through reconsidering your position in response to apparent disagreement, or through engaging into a more constructive form of discussion.
This appears to be a one-way street. If applied consistently, it would seem that your first step would be to reconsider your position in response to apparent disagreement… or that I should reply by registering my disagreement—which implicitly I’d have already done.
Or, better yet, you would begin (as other people usually do) by starting the “more constructive form of discussion”, i.e., raising specific objections or asking specific questions to determine where the differences in our maps lie.
Write up your argument, make a top post, refer to it if it’s convincing. But guerilla arguing is evil: many words and low signal-to-noise.
I don’t understand you.
If you are operating under an assumption that nobody agrees with, you are wasting anyone’s time (assumption: map is about the map, territory be damned), as the argument never goes anywhere. As a compromise, compose your best argument as a top-level post (but only if you expect to convince at least someone).
That’s why I don’t understand you—I dropped this particular subthread for that very reason, but Cyan asked a second time for a reply. Otherwise, I’d have not said anything else in this particular subthread.
You could still write a meta-reply, taking that problem into account. The root of the disagreement can be stated in one line, and a succinct statement of at the moment unresolvable disagreement is resolution of an argument.
To be honest, I have not perceived anyone I’m speaking with to be treating this as an unresolvable conflict, besides you. Most of the other people have been saying things I perceive to mean, “I agree with such-and-such, but I am confused why you think that about this other case”, or “Ah, we are talking about different things in this area—how would you apply it to the thing I mean?”
You are the only one who appears to be simply stating dogma back at me, without seeking to understand where our maps do or do not overlap. (I’m not very quick on the OB URL citations, but ISTM that everything I’m saying about maps is consistent with EY’s models of reductionism, and with observable facts about how brains operate.)
You appear to have a pattern of responding to my descriptions of things (as I perceive them in my map, of course) as if they were attacks on your preferred prescriptions for how reality should be (in your map). It’s natural that this would lead to an impasse, since I am not actually disputing your opinions, and you are not actually objecting to my facts. Hence, we talk past each other.
(Btw, when I say “facts”, I mean “statements intended to be about actual conditions”, not “truths”. All models are false, but some are more useful than others.)
I’m just trying to be decisive in identifying the potential flaming patterns in the discussion. I could debate the specifics, but given my prior experience in debating stuff with you, and given the topics that could be debated in these last instances, I predict that the discussion won’t lead anywhere, and so I skip the debate and simply state my position, to avoid unnecessary text.
One way of stopping recurring thematic or person-driven flame wars (that kill Internet communities) is to require the sides to implement decent write-ups of their positions: even without reaching agreement, at some point there remains nothing to be said, and so the endless cycle of active mutual misunderstanding gets successfully broken.
I don’t understand how that’s supposed to work. If you don’t expect it to lead anywhere, why bother saying anything at all?
I’m registering the disagreement, and inviting you to sort the issue out for yourself, through reconsidering your position in response to apparent disagreement, or through engaging into a more constructive form of discussion.
This appears to be a one-way street. If applied consistently, it would seem that your first step would be to reconsider your position in response to apparent disagreement… or that I should reply by registering my disagreement—which implicitly I’d have already done.
Or, better yet, you would begin (as other people usually do) by starting the “more constructive form of discussion”, i.e., raising specific objections or asking specific questions to determine where the differences in our maps lie.