If you walk away using a properly watered-down version of this over-the-top description with its “obvious exceptions and caveats,” then it will have exactly achieved its purpose.
I hope you won’t be equally rude (but memorable) if you discuss this with people who are liable to interpret it only as a status move, and not as an attempt to describe pieces of reality. If you are discussing it with people who instinctively form conscious models of the world and interpret propositions as propositions and not as social maneuvers, then you might find that an over-the-top description will make the central idea clearer and more memorable.
You’ll risk people not properly watering down the idea, of course, but if you trust your audience to water it down, you can enjoy the benefits of exaggeration. Nerdy or not, they are humans, after all, and exaggeration has its uses.
people who are liable to interpret it only as a status move … people who instinctively form conscious models of the world and interpret propositions as propositions and not as social maneuvers
The thing is, most people do both depending on the topic and the context. Exactly the same person who will be unthinkingly tribal with respect to, say, politics, will show amazing abilities to model and reason about the world when the subject switches to his hobby (say, sailing or gardening or BBQ).
The distinction you’re pointing at is not a distinction between people, it’s mostly a distinction between subjects (see e.g. “politics is the mind-killer”).
If you walk away using a properly watered-down version of this over-the-top description with its “obvious exceptions and caveats,” then it will have exactly achieved its purpose.
I hope you won’t be equally rude (but memorable) if you discuss this with people who are liable to interpret it only as a status move, and not as an attempt to describe pieces of reality. If you are discussing it with people who instinctively form conscious models of the world and interpret propositions as propositions and not as social maneuvers, then you might find that an over-the-top description will make the central idea clearer and more memorable.
You’ll risk people not properly watering down the idea, of course, but if you trust your audience to water it down, you can enjoy the benefits of exaggeration. Nerdy or not, they are humans, after all, and exaggeration has its uses.
The thing is, most people do both depending on the topic and the context. Exactly the same person who will be unthinkingly tribal with respect to, say, politics, will show amazing abilities to model and reason about the world when the subject switches to his hobby (say, sailing or gardening or BBQ).
The distinction you’re pointing at is not a distinction between people, it’s mostly a distinction between subjects (see e.g. “politics is the mind-killer”).