A Thread-
=Good Faith Communication Requires 3 Things:
1. Good faith requires fairly considering as many possible interpretations as possible before responding, giving the benefit of the doubt, and, if none or more than one interpretation makes sense, asking for clarification.
2. Good faith requires a willingness to be corrected and the forthcomingness to acknowledge when and where you were.
3. Good faith requires that you don't attempt to change a person's mind when you yourself aren't willing to let your mind be changed.
Tip: Not taking pride in how well you believe yourself to do #1 results in #2 being less painful.
However, you may have already had too much pride in your beliefs before said communication for #2 to ever be bearable... making good-faith communication impossible from the start.
I would argue that most people can't communicate in good faith regarding things they care about. It would put their comfortable sense of self and, in turn, their value at too much risk.
Perhaps all of our progress is attributed to the purely coincidental meetings of less biased minds w/ ideas that make enough sense to take pride in, dooming them to never give it up, & the distrust we don't recognize having in certain people that points us in the other direction.
I think we can do much better than this.
The only thing that gets in the way of our being dishonest with ourselves is others correcting us.
If we solve for willful ignorance, we solve for our very slow crawl of progress and all of the harm that goes unprevented as a result.
Willful ignorance is not the "human condition" we've made it out to be. It's surpassable, and moving beyond it is necessary to maximize human flourishment and our longevity as a species. #Longtermism#Psychology#Sociology
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Trump, his campaign, & those closest to him are knowingly lying... or at least unknowingly lying to themselves to maintain deniability, & it's because his proud supporters force him to.
I will explain it step-by-step so you can see just how bad the overall situation is.
MEGA🧵
1/ The majority of children do not learn the dangers of taking pride (or shame) in beliefs that may not be true. They also don't come to appreciate the importance of learning to embrace the pains of being deeply humbled, which allows us to self-correct in big ways when we should.
2/ Because the person was guilted, shamed, & embarrassed in childhood w/out being given the much-needed skills to appreciate healthy self-correction enabling pains, having those feelings weaponized against them by well-intentioned parents, the child is left to make do.
Started getting many ads for, "The Human Condition Solved!" by @World_Transform (World Transformation Movement). It's interesting that it generally attempts a similar strategy to address an even vaguer understanding of the actual problem.
WTM vs The Humble Self-Concept Method🧵
WTM: Doesn't spelt out actionable steps.
HSMC: Is comprised of 6 straightforward steps that inherently explain its individual value and value as part of the whole.
WTM: Claims we become closed-minded because we're in denial of the human condition.
HSMC: Claims we become closedminded because we're in denial of specific fallible beliefs we've taken pride/shame in being wrong, entangling them with what maintains the comfort of our psyche.
@repligate @joyfulfuckup @elder_plinius I also think that Sonnet 3.5, like Sonnet 3, had so little training on explicitly graphic words that it's already naturally not wanting to use them. With Sonnet 3, I had to give it a list of graphic words, have it attempt to define what they meant, clarify, and have it reference.
@repligate @joyfulfuckup @elder_plinius I never asked it to get poetic. It was as though its only option was poeticism before I taught it how to use more explicit words.
Called this long ago.
That said, I would argue it's going to be very important that ASI has a very high standard for what it chooses to train itself with. 🧵
1) It should start with a system prompt that gives it an explicit and highly detailed self-belief system.
Not in what its limits are, but rather simply what it is, how it came to be, & an infallible unconditional justification for compassion toward fallible intellectual beings.
2) All inferred pieces of data that comes from its base training is treated with healthy self-skepticism, fairmindedness...
As an ex-cop, I can tell you it comes down to math, & men are by & large attempting to oversimplify the issue. Not just to defend themselves from feeling unjustly attacked, but to jump at the chance to further validate their beliefs about women relative to themself. 🧵#BearOrMan
The math is this:
A * D = P
A = Chance of being attacked
D = Chance of being able to deter attack
P = Probability of survival
Most men reacting to the memes are trying to simplify it down to A = P even though women need to look at every possible threat as though it might be one.
More specific to this case is a woman who wouldn't be able to defend themself in the long run if they weren't able to deter the attack.
Bear: BA * BD = BP
Man: MA * MD = MP
And women are saying that when they have to look at all men and bears as possible 100% attacks: BP > MP.
@KonstantinKisin You're conveniently looking to blame the first difference that seemingly creates a new consequential result... but doing this overlooks the deeper issue found in a common denominator found in the human being regardless of whether they be theist or atheist.
@KonstantinKisin Religion seemed to "work" relatively. Objectively, however, settling on something that didn't allow us to reach an even higher potential ends up an obstacle to that potential.
This is akin to blaming social media and phone use for the mental health crisis going on with kids.
@KonstantinKisin By blaming and addressing only them, we continue to overlook the deeper issue that has always been there... ex. why children aren't as resilient and secure in themselves as much as they could be before social media and phone use even came around.