Tangent from Meditation

It was a confusing message. I mixed an actual question with signalling and with postmortem. I’m myself confused now. Untangling all three parts is hard for me.

I cancel this reply. Full of errors.

No, it is not.

(Also, there are two different "were"s in my message, and I don’t even know which one you mean. Neither one would be grammatically correct or make sense if I just added a “why” before them.)

This is Elliot’s forum. He should be able to make requests to people without having to reason with them every single time. Asking him to use reason instead of requests is actually asking him to do more work. Instead of him just asking people to respect his forum rules & preferences, you want him to have to persuade people that he is right using reason.

If you want more criticism and reason, you should be starting threads in Unbounded. That doesn’t guarantee that you will get full criticism and reason: Elliot is not obligated to have discussions using reasons and persuasion with every post in Unbounded.

But there is an actual area of the forum that is meant for Unbounded discussions and criticism of any aspect of the discussion. So if that is what you want, you should be starting threads there.


This question is complex for me. I made a tree to understand the situation and asked you a question in it. See the tree and answer the question to clear a confusion that (I think) is happening here.

If you want someone to answer a direct question, it is easier if you put it in quotable text.

My answer to your question is that I don’t want to change my original question. You still haven’t answered my questions, even though you replied to the message five times. Your replies have been confusing and I’m still not sure what is going on, so I am trying to clarify right now.

In the tree, you say you were doing a postmortem in this message:

But you never clearly mark what parts were postmortem. You said everything in present tense, and you didn’t mark anything as being a mistake.

And then in later messages, you continued to say things about wanting Elliot to treat you like Spock, e.g.:

So I still don’t know if you mean that is what you actually want, or if you are trying to talk about things that you believe to be mistakes in your thinking.

If you are going to postmortem, you have to clearly label things as postmortem and say which things you think are mistakes.

You are still talking about the issues (wanting Elliot to be robotic with you, wanting to be treated like Spock, etc) as if you currently believe them and want them, and you aren’t clearly marking any of it as mistakes or even things you think you might be wrong about.

It’s really hard to figure out how to reply helpfully because it isn’t clear what you think is right or wrong in your own messages.

1 Like

I’m don’t have any goal right now. I don’t know what I’m trying to do with this conversation. I can think of one sensible goal here which is clarify what I actually meant by my this

message which is what you asked me to do.

Clarifying what I said is the most sensible goal for this conversation. I think what I am actually doing is I am trying to seem impressive by doing a postmortem of everything I am saying. That is opening a lot more tangent than I have the skill to handle. As you mentioned I have replied 5 times to your message times. I think all of them are all tangents. I’m not opening these tangents just to seem impressive but also in the hopes that you will give me some input on my postmortems which will result in me learning something. I think I’m trying to have an unbounded conversation. I don’t have skills to have an unbounded conversation.

Also I am so confused right now. I’ve made so many errors and I have no idea how this conversation tree is organized. No idea which node fits where?

I propose starting again with the goal of clarifying.

I get it. It makes sense to me that you don’t understand because I see now that I wrote a confusing message. I think my message can be broken into three parts to get a bit more clarity. I will break it into three parts below.

Part 1: Direct question

Part 2: Social signalling

Part 3: Postmortem

The postmortem part is itself a confusing message so I will rewrite it into the hopes of making it better so that it can convey what I actually meant.

Rewrite: There’s two things here. One is: I actually want to know why Elliot decided to make a request. Second is: I think that requests doesn’t make sense. I think that making requests is begging. If one thinks something doesn’t make sense then one should explain why it shouldn’t be done instead of begging someone to not do it. I think that making requests is a non robotic thing to do. A robotic person is someone who works only on reason and nothing else like reason. Mostly whenever requests are being made there are two people involved. One who is making request (Requester) and the one to whom the request is being made (Requestee). I think non robotic people use things other than reason. I think a requester is a non robotic person because they decided to use request instead of reason. The requester is also assuming that that the requestee is a non robotic person because the requester decided to use request instead of reason.

I tried to do a postmortem of why I socially signaled. I think I signaled two things.

  1. Elliot made a mistake when he decided to make a request because he treated me like a non robotic person. He assumed that I am a non robotic person who works on things other than reason like requests.
  2. Elliot made a mistake when he decided to make a request because he behaved like a non robotic person.

I made these social signals because I think these social signals imply that I am robotic person like who doesn’t require requests, only reason. I think people consider robotic people like Spock cool. I think that’s why I socially signaled.

I don’t have enough skills (these are grammatical skills I guess) to understand your points here with high confidence. I would be able to post replies which take care of these problems you mentioned but it will take a lot of effort from me. I think the new postmortem I posted where I started fresh takes enough care so that the problems you mentioned don’t occur. That’s because I started fresh not because I developed the skills and understood your points here.

You aren’t talking in the Unbounded category. It’s important at this forum to be aware of what category you’re in and follow the rules for that category.

Regardless, my comment on the whole discussion is that you should try to learn some CF ideas. It’d be better to talk about my articles and try to understand them instead of bringing up other stuff. And you need to practice ideas (like trees or post mortems) before trying to use them.

I suggest:

I’m still confused by what parts you currently believe & agree with, and what parts you are saying are mistakes that you are trying to postmortem.

For example you said this in your postmortem re-write:

Is this a thing you agree with and believe, or is this something you think you are wrong about and are trying to postmortem?

1 Like

I don’t see any inconsistency between requests and reason, and I’m not sure why you seem to.

If I make a request of someone, it is often the case that I am making a request because I think they are amenable to reason. Consider the situations when you might make a request of someone versus when you might call the police to deal with them.

If a neighbor seems pretty decent but is being kind of noisy late at night playing music really loudly, I might request that they lower the volume so that I can sleep. I might not state anything more sophisticated than “Can you please lower the music, I’m trying to sleep.” But in making that request, I’m making them aware of a fact (my perception that they are being disruptive) and implicitly trying to appeal to some values I hope they share (like caring about not being disruptive to neighbors).

OTOH if the neighbor making noise is running an apparent drug den and the noise involves them firing off one of their guns for fun, most people are going to be much less likely to treat them as open to reason and amenable to polite requests, and will instead probably just call the cops right away. In that situation, you can’t reasonably expect the neighbor to be someone who will be open to polite requests and who might care about the disruption they are causing. So you wind up using government force as an alternative to requests in order to deal with the situation.

1 Like

FWIW I’m a big grammar fan and have spent a bunch of time on grammar stuff in the past couple of years. That is despite not being in a demographic that most people would think of as benefitting from extensive grammar study. I think that learning grammar to a reasonably high standard is worthwhile.

1 Like

Got it. I still want to try to finish the goal oriented part of my conversation with ingracke. Should I move it to unbounded or friendly? (I don’t know how to move conversation)

I feel proud right now. That is because I think I’ve accomplished some things. By that I mean learning something. It will take me some time to get some perspective and only then will I be able to identify what I’ve learnt. High quality criticisms played a major role in stimulating that learning. I don’t think having unbounded conversation with high quality people is the best way to learn things but for me in this case high quality conversation did help me in identifying problems. Saying that it helped me in identifying problem is an understatement. It actually made the problems starkly apparent. Earlier, the problems were somewhere in the back of my mind, now they are staring me right in the face. Some of the realizations I had are:

  1. Importance of grammatical skills. The big effect grammatical skills can have in one’s ability to express their thoughts. This is important so that you can write down thoughts to get criticism from others but also so you can better organize thoughts in your own mind.
  2. Importance of tree. Unless one has practiced this skill they will generally be very bad at organizing their ideas. When a new tangent will occur they will have no clue as to where that node belongs.
  3. Importance of goal. Not knowing goal in conversation will result in many tangents creating chaos.

This reply is emotionally helpful to me. The fact that you decided to take time to read my discussion and give feedback makes me think that you care about my learning progress. This makes me feel good.

My ‘I feel proud’ message explains that I’m feeling some positive emotions now. I feel motivated to learn things now so there’s a high likelihood that I will do this learning activity. I did some programming today after 18 months. I didn’t do any considerable learning activities for past 18 months. I’m crediting this conversation for too many things. Hopefully I’m correctly assigning credit.