Saying that something is a community values affirmation is not saying much at all. That doesn’t give you enough information to make a judgment. How and why you are affirming shared values, and the shape of the event in which you do it, can range from “bland expression of allegiance to the Unitarian Applause Lights” to a coercive public session of a personality cult. The details, not the broad goal, are the important thing.
How are the details important? In what way do they affect whether community values affirmation is a group-based system 1 technique for bypassing analytical filters to work directly on alief?
You can do a values affirmation entirely with system 2. As much as possible, if you want to avoid being epistemically toxic, you should. The Unitarian hypothetical probably does; the personality cult certainly does not.
I think you’re using “system 1” and “system 2″ to mean things very different from Kahneman’s usage. In particular, I think you’re using “system 2” to mean something in the direction of Sattva. Unfortunately, it seems like nearly everyone around here equivocates in this way.
Can you try again to tell me what a ritual is, tabooing “system 1”?
Uh, replace ‘system 1’ with ‘instinct-harnessing’? It’s pretty integral.
Also, you keep using words in really weird ways, which has made this discussion extremely frustrating. I still don’t know what you have meant by most of your statements. So I’m disengaging now.
Also, you keep using words in really weird ways, which has made this discussion extremely frustrating. I still don’t know what you have meant by most of your statements. So I’m disengaging now.
I am curious what could have been different about this conversation (primarily on your end, since that’s easier for you to control) that would have made this conversation less frustrating for you.
EDITED TO SAY: I feel frustrated that you’re only mentioning that there were specific word usages that were unclear to you now, concurrent with expresing intent to disengage, that you didn’t bother to ask clarifying questions earlier, and that you still aren’t bothering to tell me what usage specifically was unclear to you.
It’s an honest expression of frustration. I’ve put in a substantial amount of work to try and bridge a communication gap, but ultimately that’s not going to be possible without some amount of help from you. So it’s really frustrating to me when you don’t ask about any specifics, and only mention the mere fact that I’m using some words in ways you consider weird concurrent with intent to disengage.
Sorry for the tone, though, it seems unhelpful in hindsight. I’ve edited the comment to be more forthright and less emotionally loaded.
“Substitute a short synonym” is really, really not what tabooing a word is:
When you find yourself in philosophical difficulties, the first line of defense is not to define your problematic terms, but to see whether you can think without using those terms at all. Or any of their short synonyms. And be careful not to let yourself invent a new word to use instead. Describe outward observables and interior mechanisms; don’t use a single handle, whatever that handle may be.
Saying that something is a community values affirmation is not saying much at all. That doesn’t give you enough information to make a judgment. How and why you are affirming shared values, and the shape of the event in which you do it, can range from “bland expression of allegiance to the Unitarian Applause Lights” to a coercive public session of a personality cult. The details, not the broad goal, are the important thing.
How are the details important? In what way do they affect whether community values affirmation is a group-based system 1 technique for bypassing analytical filters to work directly on alief?
You can do a values affirmation entirely with system 2. As much as possible, if you want to avoid being epistemically toxic, you should. The Unitarian hypothetical probably does; the personality cult certainly does not.
I think you’re using “system 1” and “system 2″ to mean things very different from Kahneman’s usage. In particular, I think you’re using “system 2” to mean something in the direction of Sattva. Unfortunately, it seems like nearly everyone around here equivocates in this way.
Can you try again to tell me what a ritual is, tabooing “system 1”?
Uh, replace ‘system 1’ with ‘instinct-harnessing’? It’s pretty integral.
Also, you keep using words in really weird ways, which has made this discussion extremely frustrating. I still don’t know what you have meant by most of your statements. So I’m disengaging now.
I am curious what could have been different about this conversation (primarily on your end, since that’s easier for you to control) that would have made this conversation less frustrating for you.
EDITED TO SAY: I feel frustrated that you’re only mentioning that there were specific word usages that were unclear to you now, concurrent with expresing intent to disengage, that you didn’t bother to ask clarifying questions earlier, and that you still aren’t bothering to tell me what usage specifically was unclear to you.
[DELETED]
It’s an honest expression of frustration. I’ve put in a substantial amount of work to try and bridge a communication gap, but ultimately that’s not going to be possible without some amount of help from you. So it’s really frustrating to me when you don’t ask about any specifics, and only mention the mere fact that I’m using some words in ways you consider weird concurrent with intent to disengage.
Sorry for the tone, though, it seems unhelpful in hindsight. I’ve edited the comment to be more forthright and less emotionally loaded.
Pretty much all of it.
“Substitute a short synonym” is really, really not what tabooing a word is:
You basically asked me to define “good” while tabooing morality.
That’s basically the sort of thing the concept of tabooing was invented for, though.
To prove when two words are closely connected enough that it’s impossible to define one without the other? I don’t agree.
The point is to stop talking about words, and start talking about reality.