This is an interesting formulation. Grading memes along a spectrum of energy intensity (?). Can you elaborate on some of these “protections against high-energy memes”?
Authoritarian empiricism—if you discuss sensitive topics then people may escalate evidence requirements to hard data that’s rarely available.
The engineer and the diplomat—people try to derail conversations when they become relevant to a person’s long-term interests.
Can crimes be discussed literally? - words that describe problems become coopted as calls to action, and so people do not evaluate descriptions of problems based on whether they are true, but instead based on whether the criticized entity is considered good or not.
This is an interesting formulation. Grading memes along a spectrum of energy intensity (?). Can you elaborate on some of these “protections against high-energy memes”?
Authoritarian empiricism—if you discuss sensitive topics then people may escalate evidence requirements to hard data that’s rarely available.
The engineer and the diplomat—people try to derail conversations when they become relevant to a person’s long-term interests.
Can crimes be discussed literally? - words that describe problems become coopted as calls to action, and so people do not evaluate descriptions of problems based on whether they are true, but instead based on whether the criticized entity is considered good or not.
Thanks for the examples.
I have seen such ‘protections’ in operation in group settings where the speakers are competing to address a mixed audience.