Additional ideas I had Over the day…

So in social media here’s the problem. The business is a free speech enterprise that is autonomous to control itself how it sees fit. The mechanisms by which they seek to maximize profit is an inclusionary model. This skirts the whole paradox of tolerance ideas that Popper posited. So in this public sector platform we have to ban or reprimand those who make the area toxic and un inviting /unwelcoming. Much like in tribes we outcasted the disruptor as can be seen still throughout the animal kingdom. That extends further as some consider certain speech violence now, which in itself has validity when acted upon and politically legislated. So these company’s then unfairly ban people or unjustly leave on others who incite bannable offenses that would dislodge people from the platforms still there.

As well as the need to contend with the Mayhem bots, discord sowers; infecting reality with ill tempered machinations and transient contrivance. Cus fear and “anger gets shit done.” Or it scares one into a shell they Sheldon come out of; blocking the further off from community and basic needed human interaction.

So the only thing I see to do is mandate a fair enforcement strategy that’s transparent instead of secretive and unknown. Many people don’t even know for sure why they were got banned so how do you even modulate on the right direction? Bow your head and succumb or then become the guy that resort to 4chan instead where you’ll find much worse even criminal intentions spreading and metastasizing?

We can also remember that the traditional “debating” isn’t usually the best way to change minds. Blood sport seldom is greeted fondly. And most importantly, You’ve just gamified the process of discussion by doing so. If you do good and the audience see it maybe you can do exactly what I said and just ease someone’s perspective off a bad position. Then even if that 10% might start thinking hey, I don’t like your world view but you seem like an honest person and I’ll listen to your future material to see the best honest hearted version of these perspectives. Then those people moderate down often. Just as we see Obama to Bernie to Trump sort of voters. We see the Shapiro Jordan Peterson rabbit holes that then get you threw algorithm connection down to the worse version with more made up fear belief. So if you are good debater online you can get amplitudes more of return in scale even if it is 1%. Since our sample size increases drastically. And I really think there are more people than ever interest in these things but you can for straight to flat earth and fast if the right foundations aren’t set. Those people aren’t bad people they just don’t have basic understanding of these things and they are curious minds we could turn to more good than bad if we tried.

Changing the algorithmic connectors is another problem that I haven’t thought of how to solve enough to give any idea on yet.

The burden of proof is hard to establish in debate unless you have side researchers fact checked on both teams. And that’s just it actually, many have no clue what the burden of proof is in the first place. Ask a Christian why they believe in their god And it’s unfalsifiable feelings and circular unreasoning. This is where the tea up around mars example plays really well. You can’t force me to prove there is no tea cup orbiting mars, that’s a claim too hard to examine. You must establish the material fact of the matter. And of course god as an a example is the agnostic equalizer since there’s no proof to back the claim. Then the smarter guys line JP and Shapiro like to reverse engineer ways why their socialistic and biological (essentualizing typically) that their predispose or station to resting on laurels and fear of changes is valid to compete this faith belief cycle. Of course we could get into an number of argument there after since we’re now getting back to philosophical frame works all of which as I’ve said have plus and minuses, some far more than others.

As a caveat; you may have noticed I make biological claims as well as speak against them. Often many of them are unwaveringly followed or more so unexplaining uses by people. But they do have their place. Agian epistemologically we need to observe are character La and pre existing condition to better it. I could go down this route more but the main point is that it’s dangerous to go full Cioran on it in my view. The battle between the organic man and the abstract man is real. But we must seek a balance and a rational one that can coexists with social trial level abstractions that made it possible for us to be here in such advanced civilization in the first place. If we return to the animal state, we know how that goes. But if we fully abstract away from ourselves… then what the fuck are we? But displaced abstractions away from our condition and thought? So I use these description as what they are descriptive statements and I don’t urge people to derive an empirical claim of an ought from an is.

My frame work is sort of how Sam Harris or David’s Duestch’s (the begging of infinity) might see it a little (though I’d don’t agree on everything with any one perosn) … we apply all these models and ideas and use them to better the material conditions while using layers something like bicameral governments or 3 separate branches of government that responds and is informed by people, new conditions, science, history and wisdom (hopefully). While we also have massive specialization all around us that we must trust at times these industry’s and fields expertise. I want healthy versions of all these ideas under the sun not in the shadows so that we can moderate forward by being adaptive and evolving to a better updated version of ourselves individually, within groupings and up to the meta global levels. Currently a lot of the discourse is driving us to fight the shadows of our own worst thoughts of people. Back to the straw men in a field that I want to remove instead of see attacked with fiery rage, disgust and vengeance.

Here’s a big one… by dissolving yourselves of strong identity we can do a lot. Maybe being a person with no ethic identity being largely a mutt with 18 plus odd ethnic derivations just on my dads side that did a DNA ancestry test. It has given me the special footing to think of people as citizens of the world rather than person A from country Z who believes in T and backs M politically. Extinguishing our small tribal nature. These strong relationships groupings are the perch at which we throw rocks at. So if I don’t belong to any single group the target isn’t available. Through a rock at me and I hope to be like water where I absorb it. Sure there could he splash but that’s just the negative energy which i chose to diffuse rather than return with the full maelstrom and rage of a tidal wave. Knowing you have the potential and ability to do this, and constraining it is very powerful indeed. It’s something JP would would describe often. (Not to get too fixate on anyone character. He’s just a good example of a lot of this good and bad out in this social tribulation, that many know <most not so well from both his fan and haters side> of in this space between actual thinkers and pop culture).

I don’t want a mono culture. I want my democratic liberal free world to be the over arching structure that facilitates variety. So even though I’m a mutt I’m not telling others they need to be unconnected to there culture. It’s these cultures I love and would never seek to mute.

Diversity is an ideal worth appreciating. Not for its sake alone. And many are hyper ignorant to why it’s important. Though unfortunately, if you move too fast you’ll lose a lot of people that would other wise be on board. Part of it is peoples attitudes and orientation to greeting change is most the problem. We know young people are most apt… while older Creatures of habit are disturbed and cranky all too easily. But the long standing truth is the more of these ideas clash and combine, that fission and fission recombinant to better more vibrant potentials. Nothing is objectively in its perfect form or golden era as the world is constantly in flux. So regression is a recipe for disaster at its core to me. Stating the past had it figured out is the most dubious claims of all. We have to take off our fragmented memory’s rose tinted glasses and not allow for the retelling of history in the wrong ways where we control it (ex: 1984). While there can be elements of going back that we can reimagine and rebuild and reintegrate. Maybe we did leave out something that killing god did but nihilism doesn’t have to be the Last mans end state… calling all Uber mensch’s to come out and play

And let me be abundantly clear.. I’m not perfect nor am I claiming to be. Nor am I saying anyone else’s methods or lack of care is wrong or right. I’m not putting down value claims there. Part of the human experiment is that many will not be thought leaders or inspirational and we need to realize this and appeal to them on proactive grounds rather than making everything political or zero sum. There are always far more followers anyway than ground breaking innovators. So we can’t pose these question in a such a narrow way. Often you can share ideas on social media and people say “oh, so you think you’ve got it all figured out!” And I’m like no, just trying to be a positive interlocutor that establishes hopefully my opinions well and refined wisdom (if we can call it that) that’s part of this bigger project of moving forward and bettering ourselves. I’m my biologically model 1000.0 (or whatever). And if I don’t take it upon myself with all these opportunities to better my self then it’s my fault if Im stuck on my base level operating system (me 1.0 - software).

Now one of your last comments actual set me down the idea path that I do occasionally. I like to run the experiment on myself if I give in and believe the other side is right and my whole world view is wrong. Oh man… it’s taxing. Emotionally. Mentally. It comes full circle and feels physical in a short time. So it makes you realize the corner you can put others in. And they won’t often act nice, as cornered animal don’t. It important to ease off and console and find another path out for them. Acceptance is what humans communal condition is always looking for in way of validation. On the personal side we must also orient ourselves to take this softly.

The scale issue persists. Its not easy for even the most mentally aware to deal with for reasons I’ve state before. But the more we shed the ideas off on others the more we can build. The great disruption of tech is getting too far ahead of our ability to adapt to it socially and physiologically. They use basic human psychology to prod at you neurons to fire the result they want for engagement time. Until that part is alleviated then we won’t see much braid stroke overall gains. And just as well the political climate that is arousing violence is a new norm that’s somehow accepted. I believe we’re in for more hurt / harm coming soon. And this could very well be the reduction or complete destruction of the possible positive I’ve outlined hear. If simple facts are up for debate, we’ll then fuck… I’m not sure we can talk our way out of that. Education reform takes decades to see precedes. So we’re too far behind for an effective change today to make the difference. The tech world is a mirage in many ways. I heard some one say this week (haven’t looked into it) that at one point recently the top 19 of 20 Christian social media pages / maybe fax books (can’t remember - but it’s not pertinent just an example)

We haven’t ever got to the bottom of our metaphysics or pneumonialogical understand of what I consider the dimension of consciousness. While now we’ve created an dimensional overlay of a techno-physical world over the top of our others. Now we can’t agree on epistemic even more because the suspension of belief is meet with a new world where anything can be true if you want it to be. It’s no wonder, if we were paying attention that, the Larpers are mythologizing and by doing so manifesting their fantasy into the real world. The nurture of nature is a strange thing to consider. But I worry that too many toxic self fulfilling prophesy will follow suite as people programmed to find their own hero’s journey condemn the world to disaster upon shallow and hallow belief jus as religions were capable of once and still causing the most harm to humanity at the same time of connecting many on the interpersonal immunity scale.

But anyways… as you can tell the spirals of concerns are nebulously branching. And there are far too many variables for my little brain to include in any one way of viewing it. At least knowing these limitation can help. Tech may be able to save us yet, but it also have just as much draw backs we have to work out for it to be healthy. Who do we tech lose levels out of a problems created by tech? Maybe… But humans must guide the horse with more than invisible reins most often. You won’t let the horse drive the carriage by itself. So the animal spirit must have some higher level cognition guiding the machine, for the animal not to be overwhelmed by it’s own creation. And it’s wager allowing market forces to decide blindly like the horse chase a carrot or tuning scare isn’t likely the best approach either… though all must be considered.

More clearly… words can feel anodyne when written but they can play out to the opposite. Yet we don’t realize all the triggers or perception that trigger with the way they are laid out. Reddit is a great place to obverse this. It’s why I’m even on here. It practice my dictum and learn how people act in this space. So I’m not too far outside of it to not be able to understand people. Then to interact with others ideas against mine. Otherwise I don’t need to be here.

I totally get your point. Some are better at writing articulation other in conversation. Personally if your not trying do gotcha moments you can work though both either way. It always good to do the reestablishing what the other person says maneuver. “So let me review what you said to make sure I understand this right. Stop me and correct me if anywhere I do he code I go on…._______…” so few people are good at articulation it makes me think most haven’t thought threw the ideas anyway. The “yea what this guy in the video means” doesn’t fly with me. If you need someone else to define what you believe then you truly don’t believe anything other than the teams prefers perspective. Because you can’t challenge something you don’t understand. So I force people back into using their own words. This is where Reddit can prove to rank the convo. People sending links of others arguments. I could attack that stance but then they can’t even know why it’s wrong or right in their own view if the comprehension isn’t there in the first place.

It’s sort of depressing. Cus you realize most people haven’t been challenged in that way. They are almost afraid to challenge their world views. Reddit is the best of this but only in the most differential thinking groups / communities. The majority is still like most other social media where no one is looking anything but ingroup validation.

What do you mean by realtime awareness? I think it’s down to if I don’t know something I need to be humble and learn from the person next to me. If I care enough to fight it out… I’ll go research the topic next time so that I can hold my own. People get real surprised when you do that. Then your often back to knowing more than them. But often (most all of the time) don’t do it themselves. And it does all come down to the type of person and convo your having. I’m the guy that’s notorious for talking off to the side about something real and thought provoke at a gathering rather than the normal shit shooting. I like to get that out of the way the first 15 minutes then as the buzz fades in get deeper.

Typo on “they get by on this superior knowledge” - change to “superior intelligence” capacity. I know a lot of smart adults that never live up to their potential because of being gifted as a child. I’ve actually had a lot of these people tell me it was the worst thing that happened to them. They got by one smarts alone and didn’t have to do the work. So it would makes sense when you can push back that they aren’t used to a person not as smart as them like me

Scaling any of this is difficult. Scientist struggle with keeping the best frame work up and continuing to run it constantly. Because we do often revert like you caught right here. Those straw men do come back up and a lot of it doesn’t stick. So is the momentary propensity of the humans condition. We remember patterns quick and are often stubborn to break them. Maybe everyone needs the Tim Ferris yearly reset. A small duffel bag full of psilocybin mushrooms periodically performs this reset for us manually when there is no automatic version other than mindfulness and constant attention to the structures of our own epistemological considerations.

But it’s hard because we need to tune down the noise and keep attention on being casual monsters that can gossip (which is very important much needed social calibration) and relaxation from our busy work. I can tell you most won’t become stoic philosophers or existential mystics if they have extra free time but being captivated by work and other responsibilities makes most need a relax defrag conditional state when you do get to chill out. Then I understand why they get upset more in this sort of paradigm of pattern. They’ve learned not to be challenged, so any semblance of push back to their often revered persona, default position for them, and they’re whole self is under attack, which they lack the effort or energy ti address. Me just trying to have convo with people like that, had to learn to read this element. And like I said you have to ease your self in like the other end (anti-intellectual side) and respect there views and listen. If you can disarm all the nonsense that impedes positive discourse first, then people become more open. When people are more open they be able to empathize more and take your consideration more earnestly. Coming back around to having more self confident and trust them can allow us to duke it out in the future with the gloves on or even off, then reconcile, dust off and have diner or a drink afterwards (or during). The drinks or puffs can be important because it release inhibitions but not everyone has a healthy or cognitively aware experience of substance.

The hardest part for me is the song and dance. I’d like to jump ahead if we know the arguments and I can usually mitigate the time with a quick recap of taking points. But again that’s where validating each persons perosn Al experience and sentience is important. But yes it is tedious. This is where patience and listening is important as my mind wants to go to the next level rather than legislate the basics. It’s what I call the axiomatic grounding we must do to not talk over under and around each other. We need to define terms because more than ever where in the ingroup outgroup semantic blender. Even simple terms now are loaded by each groups affiliation. One things “liberal” is a bad word like Nazi to call someone, while the other thinks “racism” only applies within imbalanced power structures. Just ask someone what “freedom” means to them. You’ll likely not get a single result unless everyone just does the dictionary default because they aren’t even comfortable defining the term in a simple context.

Our understanding of stats, probability and as you’ve pointed to causality is terrible yes. Personally I wish I did more math when I was young because of it importance but even then if you don’t constantly use it you forget and lose the power to use it. More than anything I’ve grown to seen it as just another mind opener level that can give me different ideas on how to address or look at things. Advancing dynamic structures and complicated analogs that can teach you your own contradictions among many other potentials.

I don’t set my sight too high because in this regard because I want to be realistic. Realism is important in this lens. If you go into talking with people thinking you can change there mind and they do the same, neither will often ever happen. So approaching it yourself different with the intent to learn and listen, it give the whole process more likelihood of fulfilling your desired result. If at the end of the day no or changes at all but the modern respectable “tolerance” comes from it. Then we’re contributing to the position liberal rights view of the world. Then I’m at least glad I can be a part of tying the blend together into a much more beautiful tapestry of potential. If I get leagues more of gain then it’s all gravy on too, if not it doesn’t deter the process or joist at my resolve.

Whether this “is the only way.” … for the most part what good is idea if it can’t endure scrutiny. The ideas are one thing and the action another’s the idea of the action is another all together. (Thanks Zarathustra. Haha). So when it all comes to a head way.. many of the ideas will have actionable results (back to causality) that we can compare and analyze. The human mind may have much more terrain that is currently unfalsifiable in ways that would take much time to establish. While there are many systems at work in the world currently.. we also have to look and say there’s a peaks and valleys of this landscape (borrowing the perspective from Sam Harris’s moral landscape - haven’t hand the chance to read it yet though). Every system has good and bad parts. The world is so complex in these emergents human social and culture interactions that we can’t essentialize it. It quick form for reasons of time constraints and moving forward in discussion yes. Then there’s ideas that we can set to the side because they don’t deserve a seat at the table. Communism or Nazi would be a quick start if we’re talking politics but then if you get deep enough each had element beyond the terrible results we see that a reasonable person should pay attention to. If not just for the reasons that they governance methods prop up anyway.