So, I have a question. What’s an introduction do? What is it supposed to do? How would I be able to tell that I’ve introduced myself if I somehow accidentally willed myself to forget?
Sounds like a good goal to me. However, then I have to guess what features of mine are useful to share, which I’ve proven to be less than 50% effective at in the past. (For example, that was a feature. Does anyone care?) It also relies on me having a more accurate self-impression than I’ve noticed anyone else having.
I guess, taken together, I just learned that I don’t think introductions are in fact epistemically worthwhile. So I’ll update my question: are introductions repairable, and if so, how?
An additional issue is that I’m skilled at being deliberately inflammatory or conciliatory. Good enough that I sometimes do it by accident. I can easily overcome my resistance to introduction by doing either, but I’d rather not. It’s likely this makes doing an introduction cost-ineffective for me in particular. So my question here is, have I forgotten a reason to do an introduction, which would show it’s still worthwhile? Either, despite being inflammatory, or despite having to work hard to prevent it being inflammatory?
My $0.02: the most valuable piece of information I get from open-ended introductions is typically what people choose to talk about, which I interpret as a reflection of what they consider important. For example, I interpret the way you describe yourself here as reflecting a substantial interest in how other people judge you.
An additional issue is that I’m skilled at being deliberately inflammatory or conciliatory. Good enough that I sometimes do it by accident.
Deliberately… by accident? Accidentally inflammatory, or conciliatory makes sense, yes, but anyone can be that.
My language parsing module is returning a reasonable probability that I’m misunderstanding something in those sentances.
I guess, taken together, I just learned that I don’t think introductions are in fact epistemically worthwhile. So I’ll update my question: are introductions repairable, and if so, how?
To provide a starting point—a ‘this is what I choose to say about myself’ - which gives other people some information about your beliefs, personality, and other elements of identity. Often, parts of the introduction will be true and parts false (often due to exaggeration). It will certainly be incomplete, due to limitations of language. But, in the case of error, it would be repairable by demonstrating a correct identity; if (for example) someone erroneously concludes from your introduction that you can’t stand the taste of peas, then that error is repairable by your happily eating a large plate of peas.
Without the starting point, people are forced to start out with a blank, generic depiction of you, and then add observed features of identity one by one.
Deliberately by accident: When I do it on purpose, it works. Sometimes, I have the impulse to, decide I shouldn’t, and then I do it anyway.
For example, I think this conversation should be about introductions, not me, at least until I settle on how I think the introduction should go. I could easily make it about me, though—I almost did so, accidentally. Specifically, about how I hijack threads without meaning to.
you can’t stand the taste of peas
I in fact can’t stand the taste of peas. Except fresh ones, as in, I just picked them, which are great.
To provide a starting point—a ‘this is what I choose to say about myself’ - which gives other people some information about your beliefs, personality, and other elements of identity.
My problem is that I find introductions are mainly error. That said you’ve made me think of some things that I can do that should at least be worthwhile, even if not really introduction-y.
Edit: also revealed that one of my heuristics is being inconsistently applied.
Deliberately by accident: When I do it on purpose, it works. Sometimes, I have the impulse to, decide I shouldn’t, and then I do it anyway.
Ah—so it’s deliberately, including when you feel you shouldn’t but want to in any case. Your definition of ‘by accident’ differs from mine (I define ‘by accident’ as undeliberate and almost always unexpected).
I have to guess what features of mine are useful to share, which I’ve proven to be less than 50% effective at in the past.
Let’s see, what features have I seen come in handy …
The philosophical positions you hold would be good; helps stop people assuming you hold opinions you don’t.
Some people might like to know roughly where you are, both in case they need to talk about something that differs between nations or you live near them and they can rope you into attending meetups.
If you have any areas of expertise/qualifications, people who seek knowledge on those topics (for whatever purpose) would know they can ask you and get the mainstream position on things. For example, people with any training in physics will be treated as evidence in debates over the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. This could be a double-edged sword, though, in theory.
An additional issue is that I’m skilled at being deliberately inflammatory or conciliatory. Good enough that I sometimes do it by accident.
Hmm. Does this conciliatory ability extend to sacrificing your interests? Because if not, it sounds like a handy minor superpower.
Apparently I have just registered.
So, I have a question. What’s an introduction do? What is it supposed to do? How would I be able to tell that I’ve introduced myself if I somehow accidentally willed myself to forget?
Well, I didn’t introduce myself, but I guess it lets people know stuff about you without having to piece it together from your comments?
Sounds like a good goal to me. However, then I have to guess what features of mine are useful to share, which I’ve proven to be less than 50% effective at in the past. (For example, that was a feature. Does anyone care?) It also relies on me having a more accurate self-impression than I’ve noticed anyone else having.
I guess, taken together, I just learned that I don’t think introductions are in fact epistemically worthwhile. So I’ll update my question: are introductions repairable, and if so, how?
An additional issue is that I’m skilled at being deliberately inflammatory or conciliatory. Good enough that I sometimes do it by accident. I can easily overcome my resistance to introduction by doing either, but I’d rather not. It’s likely this makes doing an introduction cost-ineffective for me in particular. So my question here is, have I forgotten a reason to do an introduction, which would show it’s still worthwhile? Either, despite being inflammatory, or despite having to work hard to prevent it being inflammatory?
My $0.02: the most valuable piece of information I get from open-ended introductions is typically what people choose to talk about, which I interpret as a reflection of what they consider important. For example, I interpret the way you describe yourself here as reflecting a substantial interest in how other people judge you.
Found helpful. Your conclusion is true, but not something I’d think to mention.
Now I can construct an introduction template: “I’m Alrenous, and I find X important.” It won’t be complete, but at least it also won’t be inaccurate.
Deliberately… by accident? Accidentally inflammatory, or conciliatory makes sense, yes, but anyone can be that.
My language parsing module is returning a reasonable probability that I’m misunderstanding something in those sentances.
To provide a starting point—a ‘this is what I choose to say about myself’ - which gives other people some information about your beliefs, personality, and other elements of identity. Often, parts of the introduction will be true and parts false (often due to exaggeration). It will certainly be incomplete, due to limitations of language. But, in the case of error, it would be repairable by demonstrating a correct identity; if (for example) someone erroneously concludes from your introduction that you can’t stand the taste of peas, then that error is repairable by your happily eating a large plate of peas.
Without the starting point, people are forced to start out with a blank, generic depiction of you, and then add observed features of identity one by one.
That’s what I think, at least.
Deliberately by accident: When I do it on purpose, it works. Sometimes, I have the impulse to, decide I shouldn’t, and then I do it anyway.
For example, I think this conversation should be about introductions, not me, at least until I settle on how I think the introduction should go. I could easily make it about me, though—I almost did so, accidentally. Specifically, about how I hijack threads without meaning to.
I in fact can’t stand the taste of peas. Except fresh ones, as in, I just picked them, which are great.
My problem is that I find introductions are mainly error. That said you’ve made me think of some things that I can do that should at least be worthwhile, even if not really introduction-y.
Edit: also revealed that one of my heuristics is being inconsistently applied.
Ah—so it’s deliberately, including when you feel you shouldn’t but want to in any case. Your definition of ‘by accident’ differs from mine (I define ‘by accident’ as undeliberate and almost always unexpected).
Let’s see, what features have I seen come in handy …
The philosophical positions you hold would be good; helps stop people assuming you hold opinions you don’t.
Some people might like to know roughly where you are, both in case they need to talk about something that differs between nations or you live near them and they can rope you into attending meetups.
If you have any areas of expertise/qualifications, people who seek knowledge on those topics (for whatever purpose) would know they can ask you and get the mainstream position on things. For example, people with any training in physics will be treated as evidence in debates over the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. This could be a double-edged sword, though, in theory.
Hmm. Does this conciliatory ability extend to sacrificing your interests? Because if not, it sounds like a handy minor superpower.