GabrielDuquette comments on Rationality and Relationships September 2011 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (101)
That sounds a really honest answer and it's more or less the one I expected. Would you call it an ugh field, or something less significant?
ETA: Sorry, you edited your post while I was writing this one, so now mine doesn't make much sense.
ETA 2: Not really sure if you're making fun of me with those suggested questions.
Now me directing you to the edit doesn't make sense.
Those questions are not to you or particularly a response to you at all. They are the brainstorming that I had done and considered posting before I replied to you. What does interest me is that someone actually say something about the relationships in this thread. Because so far it has all been talking about talking about relationships. Which is lame.
The part of the 'Conversation Starter' role that is most valuable is that of leading the conversation as it begins so that it has a chance to get primed!
Agreed. This been a rather hilarious thread.
And fortunately not an intolerably irrational one just yet!
Both less significant in the sense that it isn't a strong feeling and in that ugh fields represent a different kind of thing. They inhibit thinking about a topic rather than just being representations of a preference. In this case the feeling represents the thought "Why is someone starting a topic without having something to say about it? That's pointless."
(You may have missed the completed version of the the grandparent. I insta-edited after posting.)
I agree. Thus. But I see your point. Next time, I'll do what you've suggested.