You appreciate my essay (and feel seen), but neverthess you believe I was being deliberately deceitful and misleading?
I just finished saying that your honest and good-faith participation was not to be punished; I mean it. You can be misleading out of innocent beginner-level familiarity; there is no need for deliberation. I was only upset that you were misleading about the general LessWrong philosophy’s stance on emotion; it is a common misrepresentation people make. I am not commenting on the misleadingness of anything else.
My (personal, individual) only conditions for your emotional expression:
Keep in mind to craft the conversation so that both of us walk away feeling more benefitted that it happened than malefitted, and keep in mind that I want the same.
Keep in mind that making relevant considerations not made before, and becoming more familiar of each other’s considerations, are my fundamental units of progress.
I accept everything abiding by those considerations, even insults. I am capable of terrible things; to reject all insults under all circumstances reflects overconfidence in one’s own sensitivity to relevance.
I was only upset that you were misleading about the general LessWrong philosophy’s stance on emotion
I stand by my point. To to put it in hyperbole: LW posts mostly feel like they have been written by “objectivity zombies”. The way to relate to one’s own emotions, in them, is how an “objectivity zombie” would relate to their own emotions. I didn’t say LWers didn’t have emotions, I said they didn’t talk about them. This is… I concede that this point was factually incorrect and merely a “conceptual signpost” to the idea I was trying to express. I appreciate you expressing your disagreement and helping me “zoom in” on the details of this.
I don’t relate to my emotions the way LWers do (or act like they do, based on the contents of their words; which I still find a hard time believing represent their true internal experiences, though I concede they might). If I wrote a post representing my true emotional experience the way it wants to be represented, I would get banned. About 2 to 5% of it would be in ALLCAPS. Most of it would not use capitalization (that is a “seriousness” indicator, which my raw thoughts mostly lack). (also some of the contents of the thoughts themselves would come across as incoherent and insane, probably).
Perhaps I would say: LW feels like playing at rationality rather than trying to be rational, because rationality is “supposed” to feel “serious”, it’s “supposed” to feel “objective”, etc etc. Those seem to be social indicators to distinguish LW from other communities, rather than anything that actually serves rationality.
My only conditions for your emotional expression:
Keep in mind to craft the conversation so that both of us walk away feeling more benefitted that it happened than malefitted, and keep in mind that I want the same.
Keep in mind that making relevant considerations not made before, and becoming more familiar of each other’s considerations, are my fundamental units of progress.
I accept everything abiding by those considerations, even insults. I am capable of terrible things; to reject all insults under all circumstances reflects overconfidence in one’s own sensitivity to relevance.
I mostly have no objection to the conditions you expressed. Thank you for letting me know.
Strictly speaking, I cannot be responsible for your experience of this conversation, but I communicate in a way I consider reasonable based on my model of you.
I see no reason to insult you, but thanks for letting me know it is an option :)
I just finished saying that your honest and good-faith participation was not to be punished; I mean it. You can be misleading out of innocent beginner-level familiarity; there is no need for deliberation. I was only upset that you were misleading about the general LessWrong philosophy’s stance on emotion; it is a common misrepresentation people make. I am not commenting on the misleadingness of anything else.
My (personal, individual) only conditions for your emotional expression:
Keep in mind to craft the conversation so that both of us walk away feeling more benefitted that it happened than malefitted, and keep in mind that I want the same.
Keep in mind that making relevant considerations not made before, and becoming more familiar of each other’s considerations, are my fundamental units of progress.
I accept everything abiding by those considerations, even insults. I am capable of terrible things; to reject all insults under all circumstances reflects overconfidence in one’s own sensitivity to relevance.
I stand by my point. To to put it in hyperbole: LW posts mostly feel like they have been written by “objectivity zombies”. The way to relate to one’s own emotions, in them, is how an “objectivity zombie” would relate to their own emotions. I didn’t say LWers didn’t have emotions, I said they didn’t talk about them. This is… I concede that this point was factually incorrect and merely a “conceptual signpost” to the idea I was trying to express. I appreciate you expressing your disagreement and helping me “zoom in” on the details of this.
I don’t relate to my emotions the way LWers do (or act like they do, based on the contents of their words; which I still find a hard time believing represent their true internal experiences, though I concede they might). If I wrote a post representing my true emotional experience the way it wants to be represented, I would get banned. About 2 to 5% of it would be in ALLCAPS. Most of it would not use capitalization (that is a “seriousness” indicator, which my raw thoughts mostly lack). (also some of the contents of the thoughts themselves would come across as incoherent and insane, probably).
Perhaps I would say: LW feels like playing at rationality rather than trying to be rational, because rationality is “supposed” to feel “serious”, it’s “supposed” to feel “objective”, etc etc. Those seem to be social indicators to distinguish LW from other communities, rather than anything that actually serves rationality.
I mostly have no objection to the conditions you expressed. Thank you for letting me know.
Strictly speaking, I cannot be responsible for your experience of this conversation, but I communicate in a way I consider reasonable based on my model of you.
I see no reason to insult you, but thanks for letting me know it is an option :)
How could one confirm or refute such a claim?
Current technology and science does not seem capable of assessing true internal states. So with what means?