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).
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).