There is a pattern here, and part of it looks like this. You contemplate an idea X and it bothers you. You circulate your concerns among a number of people who are good at thinking and interested in ideas like X. None of them is bothered by it; none of them seems to see it the same way as you do. And, in every case, you conclude that all those people have failed to understand your idea.
Now, I think there are two kinds of explanation for this. First, we have (to put it crudely) the ones in which you are right and everyone else is wrong.
These ideas are so horrifying that almost everyone flinches away from them mentally before they can really engage with them. The other people you talk to about X might be able to understand it, but they won’t.
You are super-abnormally good at understanding these things, and the other people you talk to about X simply don’t have the cognitive horsepower to understand it.
X is really hard to express (in general, or for you in particular) and on these occasions you have not been successful. So, while the other people could have understood X, they haven’t yet had it explained clearly enough.
And then we have (to put it crudely, again) the ones in which you are wrong and everyone else is right. They all begin “You have, for whatever reason, become unduly upset about X”, and continue:
… Others don’t feel the same, and so they don’t pay as much attention to X as you think they should.
… Now if anyone offers their own analysis of X and it somehow conflicts with (or merely doesn’t include) that feeling of upset-ness, it will seem wrong to you.
… Other people see that you’re upset, and what they say about X is aimed at some version of X they’ve thought of that would justify the upset-ness. But your upset-ness actually has other causes, so they’re inventing versions of X that don’t match yours.
For obvious reasons you will be more inclined to endorse the first kind of explanation. But an “outside view” suggests that the second kind is more likely.
Possibly relevant: Existential Angst Factory. Your situation is clearly not exactly the same as the one described there, but you should consider the possibility that your unusually dramatic reaction to these ideas is at least partly the result of something other than being the only person who truly understands them.
Now, considering the only one of those discussions that I’ve been in recently: I think you are simply incorrect to say that no one who disagreed with you in the Dust Theory thread actually understands Dust Theory. What might be true, though, is that you have (so to speak) your own private version of Dust Theory, and no one understands it because you haven’t explained it and have just kept saying “Dust Theory”.
Just wanted to say that this is well thought out and well written—it is what I would have tried to say (albeit perhaps less eloquently) if it hadn’t been said already. I wish I had more than one up-vote to give.
@Eitan_Zohar:
I would urge you to give the ideas here more thought. Part of the point here is that from you are going to be strongly biased for thinking your explanations are of the first sort and not the second. By virtue of being human, you are almost certainly biased in certain predictable ways, this being one of them. Do you disagree?
Let me ask you this: what would it take to make you change your mind; i.e. that the explanation for this pattern is one of the latter three reasons and not the former three reasons?
X is really hard to express (in general, or for you in particular) and on these occasions you have not been successful. So, while the other people could have understood X, they haven’t yet had it explained clearly enough.
This is pretty much it, although I’m frustrated at the sheer lack of engagement.
I think you are simply incorrect to say that no one who disagreed with you in the Dust Theory thread actually understands Dust Theory.
I didn’t say that, I said that no one understood my specific argument and that a few just didn’t understand Dust Theory.
I’m pretty sure I understand your specific argument regarding dust theory. I’m also pretty sure that the reason I’m not upset is because I require observables to actually care about things like that. You’re worried about an idea/argument that has no backing evidence, makes no observable predictions, and is unfalsifiable—no matter how horrible it sounds, it isn’t sane to fret over that sort of thing.
Also, I would encourage you to spend some time on the concept of identity for yourself. Even if your idea/argument did have backing evidence, it wouldn’t be horrible to me because I allow distributed identity.
From an outside view, I wouldn’t take the time to offer my advice on this thread—I would feel that my advice would simply be shot down with the first objection that pops into your head.
When I make a thread like this asking for help, the first thing I do is set a time to try out the best piece of advice I get, even if I think that all the advice is awful. Not only does it encourage people to help me in the future, but just maybe I’ll find out through experimentation that my untested assumptions were wrong.
There is a pattern here, and part of it looks like this. You contemplate an idea X and it bothers you. You circulate your concerns among a number of people who are good at thinking and interested in ideas like X. None of them is bothered by it; none of them seems to see it the same way as you do. And, in every case, you conclude that all those people have failed to understand your idea.
Now, I think there are two kinds of explanation for this. First, we have (to put it crudely) the ones in which you are right and everyone else is wrong.
These ideas are so horrifying that almost everyone flinches away from them mentally before they can really engage with them. The other people you talk to about X might be able to understand it, but they won’t.
You are super-abnormally good at understanding these things, and the other people you talk to about X simply don’t have the cognitive horsepower to understand it.
X is really hard to express (in general, or for you in particular) and on these occasions you have not been successful. So, while the other people could have understood X, they haven’t yet had it explained clearly enough.
And then we have (to put it crudely, again) the ones in which you are wrong and everyone else is right. They all begin “You have, for whatever reason, become unduly upset about X”, and continue:
… Others don’t feel the same, and so they don’t pay as much attention to X as you think they should.
… Now if anyone offers their own analysis of X and it somehow conflicts with (or merely doesn’t include) that feeling of upset-ness, it will seem wrong to you.
… Other people see that you’re upset, and what they say about X is aimed at some version of X they’ve thought of that would justify the upset-ness. But your upset-ness actually has other causes, so they’re inventing versions of X that don’t match yours.
For obvious reasons you will be more inclined to endorse the first kind of explanation. But an “outside view” suggests that the second kind is more likely.
Possibly relevant: Existential Angst Factory. Your situation is clearly not exactly the same as the one described there, but you should consider the possibility that your unusually dramatic reaction to these ideas is at least partly the result of something other than being the only person who truly understands them.
Now, considering the only one of those discussions that I’ve been in recently: I think you are simply incorrect to say that no one who disagreed with you in the Dust Theory thread actually understands Dust Theory. What might be true, though, is that you have (so to speak) your own private version of Dust Theory, and no one understands it because you haven’t explained it and have just kept saying “Dust Theory”.
@gjm:
Just wanted to say that this is well thought out and well written—it is what I would have tried to say (albeit perhaps less eloquently) if it hadn’t been said already. I wish I had more than one up-vote to give.
@Eitan_Zohar:
I would urge you to give the ideas here more thought. Part of the point here is that from you are going to be strongly biased for thinking your explanations are of the first sort and not the second. By virtue of being human, you are almost certainly biased in certain predictable ways, this being one of them. Do you disagree?
Let me ask you this: what would it take to make you change your mind; i.e. that the explanation for this pattern is one of the latter three reasons and not the former three reasons?
Thanks! One upvote per reader is plenty enough for me :-).
This is pretty much it, although I’m frustrated at the sheer lack of engagement.
I didn’t say that, I said that no one understood my specific argument and that a few just didn’t understand Dust Theory.
I’m pretty sure I understand your specific argument regarding dust theory. I’m also pretty sure that the reason I’m not upset is because I require observables to actually care about things like that. You’re worried about an idea/argument that has no backing evidence, makes no observable predictions, and is unfalsifiable—no matter how horrible it sounds, it isn’t sane to fret over that sort of thing.
Also, I would encourage you to spend some time on the concept of identity for yourself. Even if your idea/argument did have backing evidence, it wouldn’t be horrible to me because I allow distributed identity.
I haven’t seen you change your mind once in this entire thread.
I’m sorry, I’ve tried to be as open as possible to different forms of help.
From an outside view, I wouldn’t take the time to offer my advice on this thread—I would feel that my advice would simply be shot down with the first objection that pops into your head.
When I make a thread like this asking for help, the first thing I do is set a time to try out the best piece of advice I get, even if I think that all the advice is awful. Not only does it encourage people to help me in the future, but just maybe I’ll find out through experimentation that my untested assumptions were wrong.