Bounded Discussion
7 views
Skip to first unread message
anonymous FI
Apr 28, 2019, 5:08:07 PM4/28/19
to FIYG, FIGG
Dennis (D) is a typical story.
D is used to conversations with people/actions/ideas in a particular
range. Something like:
In dimension 1, he's used to people/actions/ideas in the range 34.7374
to 89893.78343
In dimension 2, he's used to people/actions/ideas in the range 874.34 to
11193.7
In dimension 3, he's used to people/actions/ideas in the range 434535 to
2378973985723
In dimension 4, he's used to people/actions/ideas in the range -7834 to
-33.34
And so on, for thousands of dimensions.
The dimensions can be anything. Length of average sentence in
characters. Rudeness according to a particular measure. Number of
seconds between replies. Level of skill at a particular thing as
measured by some metric.
Then D comes to FI and finds *diversity*. D finds unconventional ideas.
He finds people, actions and ideas which are outside his
ranges/experience/boundaries/limits. And what is D's reaction? It's a
classic:
Burn the heretic!
How much heresy/diversity is it? It's going out of bounds for a small
portion of the dimensions. Call it 1%. In the other dimensions, people
are within D's bounds. But D is used to approximately 0% heresy. It's
never really zero, but there are ways people hide and gloss over
disagreements to avoid conflict. FI has the audacity to be heretics on
purpose and then claim their heresy is important instead of walking it
back.
D thinks anything outside those ranges is bad. Those ranges are the
limits of reasonable discussion. Anything else is *obviously* or
*clearly* bad. It's rude or off topic or a meta-trap. It *goes without
saying* that it shows the speaker is stupid, or has bad intentions, or
is trying to ruin the discussion, or doesn't understand the correct way
of having discussions (which D will not explain to them, and which has
never been written down so D cannot provide a reference to it, he just
expects people to know it already and for their knowledge to agree with
him).
No other person has the same ranges as D, but most people have fairly
similar ranges because D's learned his views from mainstream sources
(not the *most* mainstream sources, but stuff within the mainstream
rather than heretical stuff). And people are conservative to avoid
problems. They mostly stay away from the top and bottom 25% of every
range, just to be safe. If my range is 1-100 and yours is 15-120 and we
both stay in the middle 50% of our range, neither of us will see the
other as a heretic. People have a few more risky ideas where they might
get as close as 10% away from a range boundary, but they know those are
ideas to be cautious about and only say in appropriate circumstances
(like talking to an ally, or in a debate). People try not to risk having
ideas which would strain the limits of their own tolerance and break the
limits of some mainstream people's tolerance.
D does not react to unbounded diversity with *curiosity*. His curiosity
has limits, has bounds.
Does D try to learn about FI customs and people's reasons for being
different? No. He tries to bring his largely-conventional/mainstream
views to FI and expects FI to follow his lead and conform to his
expectations.
Why is he here? He has never seriously engaged with a single FI essay.
He has never written substantial comments on a single book recommended
by FI. Nor on a book not recommended by FI. Nor on an article. He has
stopped responding to every discussion within a few interactions. He
doesn't resolve conflict or disagreements, not reach clear statements of
why the conversation is ending here.
To an approximation, anything within D's ranges is "agree to disagree,
we're both reasonable" territory and anything outside the ranges is "you
are unreasonable, you're like a Nazi (or flat Earther or creationist or
astrology fan)" territory. He's never finished a substantial
conversation. He's never seriously post-mortemed an error he made. He's
never made a series of rational arguments and persuaded anyone else of
anything substantial. He's taught nothing and learned little. He doesn't
bring much skill, knowledge, or any other type of resource that I'm
aware of. And he thinks he's very skilled and wise, he doesn't see
himself as a beginner, he isn't focused on learning. He isn't offering
value, nor is he asking for help.
D's here because of dissatisfaction with some other people, ideas,
communities, etc. He wanted something which is a bounded amount better
in some specific dimensions. He found something which is a larger amount
better about those dimensions *and* other dimensions he didn't count on
and doesn't want to think about (isn't curious about). It looks like he
may soon leave because FI is too unbounded for him.
- John Galt
D is used to conversations with people/actions/ideas in a particular
range. Something like:
In dimension 1, he's used to people/actions/ideas in the range 34.7374
to 89893.78343
In dimension 2, he's used to people/actions/ideas in the range 874.34 to
11193.7
In dimension 3, he's used to people/actions/ideas in the range 434535 to
2378973985723
In dimension 4, he's used to people/actions/ideas in the range -7834 to
-33.34
And so on, for thousands of dimensions.
The dimensions can be anything. Length of average sentence in
characters. Rudeness according to a particular measure. Number of
seconds between replies. Level of skill at a particular thing as
measured by some metric.
Then D comes to FI and finds *diversity*. D finds unconventional ideas.
He finds people, actions and ideas which are outside his
ranges/experience/boundaries/limits. And what is D's reaction? It's a
classic:
Burn the heretic!
How much heresy/diversity is it? It's going out of bounds for a small
portion of the dimensions. Call it 1%. In the other dimensions, people
are within D's bounds. But D is used to approximately 0% heresy. It's
never really zero, but there are ways people hide and gloss over
disagreements to avoid conflict. FI has the audacity to be heretics on
purpose and then claim their heresy is important instead of walking it
back.
D thinks anything outside those ranges is bad. Those ranges are the
limits of reasonable discussion. Anything else is *obviously* or
*clearly* bad. It's rude or off topic or a meta-trap. It *goes without
saying* that it shows the speaker is stupid, or has bad intentions, or
is trying to ruin the discussion, or doesn't understand the correct way
of having discussions (which D will not explain to them, and which has
never been written down so D cannot provide a reference to it, he just
expects people to know it already and for their knowledge to agree with
him).
No other person has the same ranges as D, but most people have fairly
similar ranges because D's learned his views from mainstream sources
(not the *most* mainstream sources, but stuff within the mainstream
rather than heretical stuff). And people are conservative to avoid
problems. They mostly stay away from the top and bottom 25% of every
range, just to be safe. If my range is 1-100 and yours is 15-120 and we
both stay in the middle 50% of our range, neither of us will see the
other as a heretic. People have a few more risky ideas where they might
get as close as 10% away from a range boundary, but they know those are
ideas to be cautious about and only say in appropriate circumstances
(like talking to an ally, or in a debate). People try not to risk having
ideas which would strain the limits of their own tolerance and break the
limits of some mainstream people's tolerance.
D does not react to unbounded diversity with *curiosity*. His curiosity
has limits, has bounds.
Does D try to learn about FI customs and people's reasons for being
different? No. He tries to bring his largely-conventional/mainstream
views to FI and expects FI to follow his lead and conform to his
expectations.
Why is he here? He has never seriously engaged with a single FI essay.
He has never written substantial comments on a single book recommended
by FI. Nor on a book not recommended by FI. Nor on an article. He has
stopped responding to every discussion within a few interactions. He
doesn't resolve conflict or disagreements, not reach clear statements of
why the conversation is ending here.
To an approximation, anything within D's ranges is "agree to disagree,
we're both reasonable" territory and anything outside the ranges is "you
are unreasonable, you're like a Nazi (or flat Earther or creationist or
astrology fan)" territory. He's never finished a substantial
conversation. He's never seriously post-mortemed an error he made. He's
never made a series of rational arguments and persuaded anyone else of
anything substantial. He's taught nothing and learned little. He doesn't
bring much skill, knowledge, or any other type of resource that I'm
aware of. And he thinks he's very skilled and wise, he doesn't see
himself as a beginner, he isn't focused on learning. He isn't offering
value, nor is he asking for help.
D's here because of dissatisfaction with some other people, ideas,
communities, etc. He wanted something which is a bounded amount better
in some specific dimensions. He found something which is a larger amount
better about those dimensions *and* other dimensions he didn't count on
and doesn't want to think about (isn't curious about). It looks like he
may soon leave because FI is too unbounded for him.
- John Galt
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages