Said refuses to try and see the world via the glasses presented in the OP
In other words, Said refuses to inhabit Aella’s frame
Ah yes, the classic rhetorical form: “if you disagree with me, that’s because you refuse even to try to see things my way!”
Yeah, could be. Or, it could be that your interlocutor considered your ideas, and found them wanting. It could be that they actually, upon consideration, disagree with you.
In this case, given that I’ve extensively argued against the claims and ideas presented in the OP, I think that the former hypothesis hardly seems likely.
Said denies the existence of the natural concept frame and denies any usefulness of it even if it were a mere fake concept
I’m not a fan of “fake frameworks” in general. I’m in favor of believing true things, and not false things.
It seems to me that Said is really confident about their frame and is signaling against inhabiting other people’s frames
Given that I don’t think “frames” are a useful concept (in the way that [I think] you mean them), my only answer to this one can be mu.
Most people usually aren’t onto anything good, so this, again, ought to be the default assumption.
It seems to me that Said actually believes there is no value in inhabiting other people’s frames
Most people are idiots, and most people’s ideas are dumb.
That’s not some sort of declaration of all-encompassing misanthropy; it’s a banal statement of a plain (and fairly obvious) fact. (Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is crap.)
So the default assumption, when you meet someone new and they tell you their amazing ideas, is that this person at best has some boring, ordinary beliefs (that may or may not be true, but are by no means novel to you); and at worst, that they have stumbled into some new form of stupidity.
Now, that’s the default; of course there are exceptions, and plenty of them. (Are exceptions to this rule more or less likely among “rationalists”, and at “rationalist” gatherings? That’s hard to say, and probably there is significant, and non-random, variation based on subcultural context. But that is a matter for another discussion.) One should always be open to the possibility of encountering genuinely novel, interesting, useful ideas. (Else what is the point of talking to other people?)
But the default is what it is. We can bemoan it, but we cannot change it (at least, not yet).
(Reply to second part of parent comment in a sibling comment, for convenience of discussion.)
Ah yes, the classic rhetorical form: “if you disagree with me, that’s because you refuse even to try to see things my way!”
Yeah, could be. Or, it could be that your interlocutor considered your ideas, and found them wanting. It could be that they actually, upon consideration, disagree with you.
In this case, given that I’ve extensively argued against the claims and ideas presented in the OP, I think that the former hypothesis hardly seems likely.
I’m not a fan of “fake frameworks” in general. I’m in favor of believing true things, and not false things.
Given that I don’t think “frames” are a useful concept (in the way that [I think] you mean them), my only answer to this one can be mu.
Most people are idiots, and most people’s ideas are dumb.
That’s not some sort of declaration of all-encompassing misanthropy; it’s a banal statement of a plain (and fairly obvious) fact. (Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is crap.)
So the default assumption, when you meet someone new and they tell you their amazing ideas, is that this person at best has some boring, ordinary beliefs (that may or may not be true, but are by no means novel to you); and at worst, that they have stumbled into some new form of stupidity.
Now, that’s the default; of course there are exceptions, and plenty of them. (Are exceptions to this rule more or less likely among “rationalists”, and at “rationalist” gatherings? That’s hard to say, and probably there is significant, and non-random, variation based on subcultural context. But that is a matter for another discussion.) One should always be open to the possibility of encountering genuinely novel, interesting, useful ideas. (Else what is the point of talking to other people?)
But the default is what it is. We can bemoan it, but we cannot change it (at least, not yet).
(Reply to second part of parent comment in a sibling comment, for convenience of discussion.)