How's that working out for you?

[IlliniDave]

Things are working out well for me. I'm light on theory, I just pay attention to my inner self and drift towards where I feel contentedness. Things flow from that, including a reasonably frugal lifestyle, good health, desire to get out of bed in the morning, and chances to be helpful to a few people in my orbit.

[ffj]

Great point. I read permaculture books much more frequently than I watch videos, but here are 10 years later videos from 3 urban permaculturalists I find inspirational.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7en75xeiXFk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9ZukMyejLk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEVKH6IyMEA

Thanks, I will check them out for sure.

[AxelHeyst]

"How's that working out for you?", is a question we might all benefit from asking ourselves before posting. My hope is that if I am tempted to post a wall of words answering a particular topic, and I have a track-record of failure in that area, then asking myself, "How's that working out for you?", will prompt me to think about it a little harder before hitting submit.

But then again, maybe I should have asked myself, "How's that working out for you?", before posting this topic.

I like it. It’s a good self check. Related to WAIT (why am I talking?) and bikeshedding, other good checks to run on ourselves.

Every time something like this comes up I can’t help but wonder if I’m being called out passive aggressively. Oh crap, did I give advice on something I’m crap at recently? I don’t think so, although I for sure have in the past. Maybe a little? What’ve I posted recently?

I like critical feedback but it’s frustrating to wonder if I’m being given feedback or not, because I know I have blind spots. We all do. For this reason I prefer to be explicitly called out, publicly or privately makes no difference to me (actual slight preference for public so others can learn from my example). Otherwise it’s an effort to stop from overthinking my recent behavior (I know, I know, that’s *my* shit, but still.)

Speaking for myself, I’m quite sure I’ve contributed to misunderstanding by incorrectly assuming an argument [/vaguely directed quasi-criticism] was being made at me, and responding to it, with the result that no one was on the same page because they assumed I was white knighting someone else’s position… ugh. Talk about muddy waters. (ETA: I’m sure I’ve also blithely assumed some general statement didn’t apply to me and Was Wrong. Learning opportunity missed! )

Good place for a plug for Mathiverses NVC chat.

[7Wannabe5]

Speaking for myself, I’m quite sure I’ve contributed to misunderstanding by incorrectly assuming an argument was being made at me, and responding to it, with the result that no one was on the same page because they assumed I was white knighting someone else’s position… ugh. Talk about muddy waters. (ETA: I’m sure I’ve also blithely assumed some general statement didn’t apply to me and Was Wrong. Learning opportunity missed! )

Very good points. I am now wondering how many humans would be interested in reading a blog entitled "Caveat Lector: Theories About Stuff I Suck At"?

Of course, "Heros Oritur: Facts About Stuff I Am Great At" might also prove popular. Hmmm.

[jennypenny]

"How's that working out for you?", is a question we might all benefit from asking ourselves before posting. My hope is that if I am tempted to post a wall of words answering a particular topic, and I have a track-record of failure in that area, then asking myself, "How's that working out for you?", will prompt me to think about it a little harder before hitting submit.

LOL I totally missed the point of your question. That's what I get from trying to catch up on a month's worth of posts and replying on the fly. Apologies. Back to duct-taping my community together ...

[7Wannabe5]

This article on the topic of The Definition of Hell For Each MBTI Type might prove helpful.
https://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe ... lity-type/

ENTP – Freedom of speech is revoked from the constitution. Voicing your opinion in any way is now illegal.

ENTJ – Somebody is wrong, and they’re directing a large group of people! You can’t do anything about it and will have to obey whatever inefficient policies they decide to implement.

INTJ – Every time you open your mouth to say something intelligent, something entirely idiotic comes out instead.

“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know.

- Benjamin Franklin- ENTP

[7Wannabe5]

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
― John Stuart Mill (ENTP) , On Liberty

[jacob]

A few things:

1) Extrapoling @candide's map, I think we have four:

• Individuals who want to change the world or at least add something to it. Typically idealists working on some great idea or solution. (ERE1)
• Individuals who want the world to stay just the way it is. Typically people who worry that if FIRE becomes too popular, politicians are going to raise the capital gains tax. Often somewhat opposed to (1) worrying that letting out the secret will kill the deal.
• People who want to come together to change the world. Because strength and complexity in numbers. Only so much one person can do. (ERE2)
• People who want to come together without changing the world. Also referred to as the "party circuit".

2) There's an Overton window in terms of how much theory and how much practice anyone enjoys. An example of a simple scale would be buying-bodging-engineering-science-mathematics. This scale goes from the simple and concrete to the very complicated and abstract. Outside one's Overton window, it's hard to appreciate the relevance of what someone else might enjoy. Note for example, that there are very few posts on this forum along the lines of "I just found the perfect deal to buy XYZ". Very few would care about this. These kinds of posts are quite common on adjacent forums though.

3) The importance of quickly realizing whether one is a teacher, a student, or a debater. There's almost a kind of transaction analysis kind of dynamics going on. In that regard, it's important to know what one doesn't know. In particular, to "fold" quickly if someone more knowledgeable starts disagreeing or explaining. This relates a lot to the Mt Stupid concept.

[jennypenny]

[*]People who want to come together to change the world. Because strength and complexity in numbers. Only so much one person can do. (ERE2)

I didn't grok that changing the world is explicitly part of ERE2. I always thought of it as a positive byproduct from adhering to principles like 'first do no harm.' I would describe myself as "People who want to come together because the world is changing. Because strength and complexity in numbers. Only so much one person can do. (ERE???)" I guess I really have gone in another direction.

Anyway, sorry again @Ego for screwing up your thread.

[daylen]

Is that really a different direction though? We are part of the world. As we change the world changes and as the world changes we change. There may exist pockets of agency where some humans need not change or adapt much to a changing environment but typically human influence is diffuse and thus hard to pin down. Presuming we are all sufficiently connected, we all influence each other to influence the whole. Neo-neocortex

[7Wannabe5]

The importance of quickly realizing whether one is a teacher, a student, or a debater. There's almost a kind of transaction analysis kind of dynamics going on. In that regard, it's important to know what one doesn't know. In particular, to "fold" quickly if someone more knowledgeable starts disagreeing or explaining. This relates a lot to the Mt Stupid concept.

I think this is valid, but (in my core role of debator) there can also be some overlap. For instance, I find myself constantly debating the curriculum as I am teaching math to my students. I also find myself constantly debating the curriculum as I study for my grad courses. NeTi is always searching for that which is inconsistent, arbitrary, or obvious but denied/suppressed (the emperor has no clothes!)

Also, as you implied with your buying to math continuum, what is perceived as "more knowledgeable" will vary based on perspective. For instance, I tend to very quickly fold when discussing math with daylen , but I don't accept personal success as evidence of deep knowledge on any complex matter. You can live your entire life without being hit by a tornado, while gaining zero-knowledge of the underlying atmospheric science, and my doubt that your success is based on deep knowledge will be lessened further if I learn that you ascribe some portion of your success to the horseshoe you hung over your mantel. And one of my personal pet peeves is when I observe the possibility of bad math being applied in a manner that might limit the freedom of others. For instance, I truly have no business hanging out on the VO2 max thread, but the mathematically invalid claims for longevity often associated with exhortation of the benefits of extreme fitness irk me, because some other fat-butt female may waste time jog-walking she would be happier spending reading Amish Prepper Romance novels.

[jacob]

because the world is changing.

That's effectively the same thing.

Add: Better terminology would be "making a difference" vs "taking the world as a given".

[Henry]

If you see me doing this, please post a link to this thread as a gentle encouragement to remove my head from my theoretical ass and take a look around at the real world as it is.

The real world as it is doesn't give a ratatoowey about how you don't understand the real world as it is.

[Scott 2]

Every time something like this comes up I can’t help but wonder if I’m being called out passive aggressively.

I think you're a strong example of someone taking action. Yes, you theorize - but 10x more time is spent testing ideas. Watching your path lead to a reassessment of my own.


While there's also a danger of mental complacency, this board has a strong selection bias against it. Someone who's going to repeat year 1 twenty times, isn't sticking around.

[daylen]

Presume society searches a large space of possible strategies. More practical agents tend to stick to tried-and-true paths because they have proven themselves to work. More theoretical agents tend to deviate further from the tried-and-true pathways to do something different. Together, good strategies are preserved, and new strategies are discovered. What each orientation can ultimately agree upon is a single underlying reality in which a strategy can be tested. Without a wide range of agents across this spectrum, we would not be in the same society we are in today.

I certainly wouldn't want everyone to be as theoretical as me, that would be so boring as where would I get the bulk of my evidence from to generate possible futures or models? Without humans as theoretical as me, math and by extension science and technology would be much slower to progress. Possibly getting stuck in a local minimum that is not globally optimal.

[Henry]

What each orientation can ultimately agree upon is a single underlying reality in which a strategy can be tested.

Ultimately you are going to end up holding some view that ends up as a religious committment to test all these theories you got. I would love to have seen a Mother Theresa vs JLF cheap-off. Well, at least to the point where it stopped short of finding out who's going commando. But if your underlying reality allows you to dust to dust this life you don't even have an SWR to worry about.

[daylen]

Not sure to what extent I "have" theories but rather they are continuously being selected for further attention by some process that isn't within my control. So, in that sense, I am just along for the ride aka committed to some kind of religious structure that is tightly bound to math but a little less strict and loosely bound to actual occasions of experience.

[Henry]

Wherever they come from, everyone has to decide what ultimate system they are when they test their theories. We can agree on theories, but belong to different systems. We can belong to the same system and have different theories. Someone can say to me that they are rich and I can say well there are no UHAUL's hitched to hearses so how far is that going to get them. Someone can say they are poor but are going to inherit the Kingdom of God and I can say, well aren't you the lucky bastard. So if someone asks me how's it working it out for me, I can't provide an ultimate answer in this lifetime. If someone asks me how it's working out for me on earth, I'd say well obviously it's sucks huge porous donkey balls because I can't find fulfillment or rest or peace and I have to answer stupid fucking questions like how is it working out for me but I'm hopeful that something better is waiting for me after this place runs me into the fucking ground as it does for everyone who skews theoretical or otherwise.

[daylen]

Right, so whenever a theory arises in attention [or is constructed] to be tested it is predicated on the split between the observer and the observed. The implications of the theory will appear a certain way to a particular observer. The ongoing process of drawing this split between what is internal and what is external to the observer can become erratic if the self-model is continuously being re-constructed to better fit with an updating world-model and to some degree the inverse. It sorta feels like the self is writing the world into existence while simultaneously the world is writing the self into existence. The self [or the controlling observer] may be considered fairly powerless relative to what can be observed or simulated.

[guitarplayer]

No worries @Ego I will try to remember to point you to this thread when needed.

"People who want to come together because the world is changing. Because strength and complexity in numbers. Only so much one person can do. (ERE???)"

Yeah it is the same for me.

Changing the world is a very modernist notion, I am not sure I have ever been modern.