Nostr Web Client

Very interesting, thank you for sharing! I feel closer to understanding your perspective, and understanding is to me very similar to love.

When you say the things that are important for your decisions should be the same as the things that are important for others' decisions, are you suggesting we're all coming from the same place, making the same decisions for the same reasons?

To me, the phrase "respect for others' thinking" means valuing and considering other people's ideas, perspectives, and reasoning even when they differ from your own. It involves listening openly, withholding judgment, and acknowledging that others' thoughts are shaped by different experiences, knowledge, and values. It’s a key aspect of constructive dialogue, empathy, and intellectual humility. I'm really proud of you for doing the work to be so open minded 🫂

Scoundrel 8mo ago

No, I am not suggesting that. Some people come in after making egregious oversights in their reasoning, some people make very wrong decisions, and even people who make the same decisions as me often make them for completely wrong reasons.

What I'm suggesting is that all people are subject to the same objective truths. I am saying that poor reasoning or decisions are poor for everyone, and good reasoning or decisions are good for everyone.

I care a lot about considering other people's ideas, perspectives, and reasoning, especially when they differ from my own. However I do not hold differing beliefs in high regard. One of my top two goals in a dialogue with someone who disagrees with me is to figure out the thoughts and values that resulted in their beliefs being so wrong.

I have actual reasons for my beliefs, so it's not really rational for me to expect that I'm wrong or that another person's beliefs are any where as good as mine. You talk a lot about openmindedness, witholding judgement and intellectual humility. Is that because you generally can't think of good reasons for your beliefs? Are you talking about emathy and dialogue in a shallow and condescending sense? Like "your beliefs are 100% cute and valid. Personally I would never believe the same thing as you because of all the thought and experience I put into my beliefs, but I think it's great that you are pursuing your... unconventional beliefs." Like do you "empathize" with someone before you've gotten them to share their actual feelings? Do you "respect" someone's thoughts, experiences, background, and values before you've actually heard any of them? Do you know any of the fundamental traits of the people and perspectives you claim to love?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Kip Ashlynn 8mo ago

I think of truth more like the metaphor of the blind men and the elephant and how we all experience the truth but it can be very different. So when I say "I empathize" I mean that I maybe don't feel the truth is a rope, I think it's a wall. But I have felt a rope before so I can understand that and I can imagine your experience. It's unfortunate you feel condescended to, that was not my intention.

What I find interesting is how badly I misunderstood your use of the phrase "respect for others thinking". I wasn't sure of your meaning based on the context, so the definition I put in my last response was just what ChatGPT gave me. It's interesting that your meaning was so diametrically opposed to the AI output, but I guess these things hallucinate sometimes.

I'm trying to come to a point of understanding because I think most people are reasonable, and I think most of the outrage bait on legacy social media is trying to goad us into fights that we wouldn't naturally be doing without nefarious external intervention.

Scoundrel 8mo ago

I'm not surprised that ChatGPT responded poorly. Modern LLMs are fine-tuned to avoid conflict.

I believe that all people are reasonable, but I believe that fighting is the natural state of humans. I believe that luckily, if we get into fights with people who are very different from us earlier, the conflict will be more mild than if we try to avoid it. But we have to take our conflicts seriously in order for it to work. Since I'm right about everything, I put great effort into trying to understand the faulty thought process of all those who are wrong about something.

I think you should try to explain your position without using a metaphor or an analogy. I find that they aren't very good communication tools. Like, you didn't explicitly clarify: is the word "rope" a stand in for "something objective which we are all subject to?" And if that's a rope, then what does that make a "wall"? The metaphor itself? And what does it mean that you have "felt a rope before"?

Don't worry about upsetting me by acting condescending. I want to be able to properly engage with anyone, no matter how condescending they act. Worry more about putting your money where your mouth is. If you can truly understand and imagine my experience, then can you tell me why I believe that anger and vitriol are appropriate responses to disagreement when so many other people (like you) do not?