All of AdrianSmith's Comments + Replies

For me the time-sensitivity part was a big deal that I ran into early in my childhood. Basically, that when something makes you feel bad you think "what will I think about this in a day/week/year". Usually the answer is something along the lines of not even remembering, or looking back on it as a funny or interesting story. It did much to improve my wellbeing and give me a sense of perspective about my problems.

My biggest problem with this way of thinking, more generally the "outthink your negative emotions" is that you can end up put... (read more)

I find this to be true, but only to a point. Those blind spots in our beliefs are usually subconscious, and so in non-combative discussion they just never come up at all. In combative discussion you find yourself defending them even without consciously realizing why you're so worried about that part of your belief (something something Belief in Belief).

I almost always find that when I've engaged in a combative discussion I'll update around an hour later, when I notice ways I defended my position that are silly in hindsight.

2ChristianKl
Understanding the blind spots of the person you are talking with and bringing them to their awareness is a skill. It might very well be that you are not used to talking to people who have that skill set. If you follow a procedure like double crux and the person you are talking with have a decent skill-level there's a good chance that they will point out blind spots to you. "silly" is a pretty big requirement. It would be better if people don't need to believe that there old positions are silly to update to be able to do so. Professional philosophers as a class who's culture is combative have a bad track record of changing their opinion when confronted with opposing views. Most largely still hold those position that were important to them a decade ago.

This is an excellent point, and I too have had this experience.

Very relevant to this are Arthur Schopenhauer’s comments in the introduction to his excellent Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten (usually translated as The Art of Controversy). Schopenhauer comments on people’s vanity, irrationality, stubbornness, and tendency toward rationalization:

If human nature were not base, but thoroughly honourable, we should in every debate have no other aim than the discovery of truth; we should not in the least care whether the truth proved to be in favour of the opinion

... (read more)
2Ruby
I second that experience.

I think this is why we make the debate/conversation distinction. It's not a perfect line, and your culture informs where it lies in any situation, but there's an idea that you switch from "we're just talking about whatever or exploring some idea" vs "we're trying to dig deep into the truth of something".

Knowing when one or the other mode is appropriate is something that's often lacking in online discussions.

Please let me know if you are coming. I don't know if there are even any readers in Sonoma County, so unless I hear from a few people I don't plan on reserving the space for exclusive use.

Hello! I'm the organizer for this. I posted my contact details in the SSC thread but it looks like they got lost.

You can contact me via:

adrian@smithdev.io

5307395401

or via Discord at VivaLaPanda#6386

5AdrianSmith
Please let me know if you are coming. I don't know if there are even any readers in Sonoma County, so unless I hear from a few people I don't plan on reserving the space for exclusive use.