= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Don't know if I did, but I think this caching notion is a bad way to look at it.
Could you elaborate a bit more on why you think so?
To insert myself into your conversation:
One feels that the idea of caching component parts of conversations for use and re-use somewhat misses the point of a conversation in the first place. A conversation is a two-way interaction between real people. It's not a mechanical process, nor a debate, nor is it simply transfer of information. Human interaction isn't just about sharing ideas, it's about making a connection on a personal level.
If human conversation was as it is presented here, autistic people would not have so much trouble understanding normal human interaction. They could simply "follow the script", as it were.
Having a conversation with someone following this method would, I suspect, feel rather unnatural and stilted - almost like a charade.
In response to
37 Ways That Words Can Be Wrong
This is a good post - there are a good number of philosophers who would benefit from reading this.
I'd like to add a 38, if I may, though it isn't mine. It's what Daniel Dennett calls a "deepity".
A deepity is a statement with two possible interpretations, such as "love is a word".
One of the interpretations is trivially true and trivially unspectacular. In this case, "love" - the word - is a word. The second interpretation is either false or suspect, but if it were true it would be profound. In this case, the non-existence of love as anything other than a verbal construct.
The "deepity" is therefore able to achieve undeserved profundity via a conflation of these two interpretations. People see the trivial but true interpretation and then think that there must be some kind of truth to the false but profound one.
In response to
Where Philosophy Meets Science
For a nice example of a philosopher who isn't afraid to conduct their own experiments, see the work of Sarah Jane Leslie of Princeton. Really interesting stuff on the truth conditions (or lack thereof) of generics (e.g. "ducks lay eggs", "mosquitoes carry the West Nile Virus").
That's what it's supposed to be in reality, but as a subject at Hogwart's, that's far from clear.
ETA: Maybe my use of the phrase "this universe" was ambiguous? I meant the fic universe, not the universe I'm currently existing in.
In an interview, JKR confirmed that arithmancy at Hogwarts is as it is in real life. Only I would imagine that it actually works - otherwise there would be no basis to Hermione's claim that it's more robust and trustworthy than divination.
View more: Prev
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Not to me, they aren't.
I already do that, but don't become better automatically by doing so. (Plus, they're engineers who, like me, are generally not neurotypical.)
Seriously, have you ever actually been bad at conversation and tried out your own advice? You're speaking exactly like someone who's never had a problem with this and so doesn't know what barrier such a person has to cross.
Until you can specify an actual procedure you can reasonably expect to work, you're just telling me to eat cake when I'm low on bread. If I could follow your advice, I wouldn't need it.
I think that one of your main problems may be that you're thinking of conversation as something it isn't. There is no procedure for success. Genuine conversation is procedure-less (or at least practically so. I guess with sufficient processing power and knowledge of all the hundreds of variables you could replicate it, but I think such a feat would be beyond the abilities of the conscious mind).
I used to be extremely introverted. I found talking to people I didn't know very awkward. Even moderate acquaintances were tricky. Then I went to university and made some new friends. Went out. And then just decided to talk to people. Alcohol helped. A lot. Now I am what many would call extroverted, though I still feel, in many ways, like an introvert pretending to be an extrovert.
I don't think there is really such a thing as introverted and extroverted people at all. People are encouraged to think of these things as part of their "essential character" (TM) - or even their biology. And in some medical cases, this is obviously true (such as in autism).
But for most people, it's not a lack of ability, it's a lack of will. People think about worst case scenarios. They think about (as you mention somewhere else in these comments) weirding out a load of people. And maybe you would. But the key, I think, is then to disregard your fear and just talk anyway.
The idea of an extroverted social animal who feels no fear is a false ideal, I think. Everyone will have jokes that fail, everyone has conversations that, the moment they start, you know that this person is really not for you at all. What the "extrovert" does that is different is simply to keep talking anyway.
I obviously don't know about your life, so cannot say anything truly accurate about it. However, from what I see in your posts, I would say than your problem is not ineloquence, but fear of failure.
To be pithy: "If at first you don't succeed, try and try again."
And like I say above, try not to think of it as a procedure or algorithm. Perhaps try what I did: don't try to be an extrovert, but rather think of it as pretending to be one.