people wanting to get back to the "main" topic they're interested in is a really common mistake i've noticed.
people are interested in X. X leads to Y which leads to Z. people are much less interested in Z than X, even though pursuing Z is the way to pursue X.
this is really broken. it gets in the way of making progress. it gets in the way of truth-seeking wherever it leads. it gets in the way of interdisciplinary learning. it means people want to learn only as long as the learning stays within certain boundaries.
here's one of my explanations of what's going on:
people want to work in particular fields rather than solve particular problems.
if your focus is purely on solving a problem (X), you'd be interested in whatever helps accomplish that goal.
but suppose instead your focus is on "i like woodworking. i want to work with wood". then you won't be interested in philosophy related to learning which could help with woodworking. cuz you want to do woodworking, not philosophy.
if your focus was on solving a really hard woodworking problem, then it'd lead you to philosophy and you'd be interested in philosophy because it helps with your problem.
i think a lot of people care more about what kind of activity they are doing – e.g. woodworking not philosophy – than they care about problem solving.
people have interests in topics (e.g. woodworking, dance, psychology, literature, architecture, programming, chemistry, politics) rather than having problem-directed interests.
another reason people lose interest is:
the more steps there are, and the more complicated the project gets, and the more tangents it follows ... then the more it's a big, longterm project. and they don't expect to successfully complete big, longterm projects. so what's the point?
Messages (30 of 220) (Show All Comments)
leonor if you ever try to out an anonymous again at any of my forums you are permabanned for life from all of them.
> Elliot should create a chat thread for idiots to argue off-topic shit.
He already did. Idiots can't find it, I guess.
lol
> leonor if you ever try to out an anonymous again at any of my forums you are permabanned for life from all of them.
you mean you won't allow me to identify myself? why?
how would you know if i'm posting, if i post anonymously?
you rather not know if i'm posting? why?
you outed sarah as the creator of that awful TIH website. you're not against outing people.
you can identify yourself. not other people. if others want to be identified they can identify themselves, rather than you do it. this is twice you have tried to out people who didn't want it. you have bad judgement and get angry. it's absolutely not for you to do it here. never again.
> t's absolutely not ***OK*** for you to do it here. never again.
missing word
>> so i stop bothering those who prefer i wouldn't exist?
>
> yes. carrying on bothering them is stalking. stalking is a criminal offence *and* immoral.
you didn't understand what i said by bothering and ignored the part "who prefer i wouldn't exist".
i'm not stalking anyone. this is a public forum. i'm expressing my opinion.
Elliot says he is pro free speech and pro anonymity, but he made anonymity in his list exclusive to his friends. it's a game FI ppl play to deceive themselves. it's not true anonymity. i don't get the purpose of this game. i have criticism of it that FI ppl ignore.
Elliot says he wants free speech here, but doesn't want certain people, like me, to say what I think! that's not supporting free speech.
he is also contradicting himself in his own values. if he bans me for life from all his forums, he doesn't believe he can or should change his mind.
he is treating others as he was treated. all this banning, censoring, was what sarah did to him. he is acting the same static meme and rationalizing it.
> you outed sarah as the creator of that awful TIH website. you're not against outing people.
and i remember you said if a person wants to be anonymous they should hide who they are well. not these words. if i can find the post i'll link.
> you can identify yourself. not other people.
elliot identified sarah. he identified me when i posted anon on his list. he is not against identifying ppl.
if people are bad at anonimity, it might help them be identified. it's a criticism. you know, the kind of thing that helps.
i don't understand the desire to be anonymous. to not be a person. to not be. to not take responsibility for anything you do or say. to deceive people. to appease second handed memes.
it's like politeness.
i have people who act a certain way by name but then anon they show their real selves. and they want me not to call them out?
what do they want from me if they are one way in their own name and another as anon?
> if others want to be identified they can identify themselves, rather than you do it. this is twice you have tried to out people who didn't want it. you have bad judgement and get angry. it's absolutely not for you to do it here. never again.
never again? wow. how infallible.
that was me at http://curi.us/comments/show/5630
forgot to type my name.
this forum is biased pro anon and makes it hard for people to identify themselves except Elliot who has a script for it.
> it's absolutely not ***OK*** for you to do it here. never again.
it sounded better without the "OK"
"it's not for you"
this is weird, why would people take me on my authority? even i have evidence that person X is person X and i don't? if i don't have evidence it's a fool saying nonsense, what does it matter.
you're telling people to lie to themselves and others that they know who is talking.
what for?
>i have people who act a certain way by name but then anon they show their real selves. and they want me not to call them out?
Who?
> Who?
stop baiting her to get banned.
>> Who?
>
> stop baiting her to get banned.
i was speaking generally, not anyone specific.
regardless if i get banned or not, by stating i will get a permanent ban for life (pleonasm?) elliot already revealed he doesn't believe in fallibility (that he can be wrong) and that people can change.
i don't like that ppl can easily impersonate me here if they wanted. not that they would want to, so i guess my protection.
elliot doesn't like impersonation either or he wouldn't have created an official sig for himself. why doesn't he allow others to have the same?
Yes.. MEEEEEE TOOOO I too want a signature on curi
> Yes.. MEEEEEE TOOOO I too want a signature on curi
you are posting anon.
>you are posting anon.
I am not anonymous now.
>> Remember the dialog between Parent,kid and the kid's friend where Rami was allowing only consensual swearing when it is used at someone.
>
> Rami isn't an authority on anything
nobody is.
>> Don't you need special consent to use swear words "at" someone?
>
> no. welcome to free speech, bitch.
would you call Lulu a bitch?
>would you call Lulu a bitch?
no
> > would you call Lulu a bitch?
> no
this question was meant for me, and you answered it in a way that looks like i replied. by doing that you're impersonating me. that's NOT OK.
If it was for you answer it..
>> would you call Lulu a bitch?
>
> no
why not?
> Elliot also seems to stand for the boys who chase pretty girls. He has pro-PUA articles on his blog (search for "PUA site:curi.us"). He supports men who go after pretty girls for sex. He supports pretty girls to please such men existing. I find his position confusing and contradictory. He comes across as an hypocritical dad.
Is this slander and lies? Would discussing it bring out personal information?
>why not?
He did not answer it.
I did.
Elliot answer the damn question.
>> why not?
>
> He did not answer it.
>
> I did.
>
> Elliot answer the damn question.
I don't care who answers. I care for a good answer. I asked everyone, not just Elliot. I asked the people who have the idea that anon posted.
> would you call Lulu a bitch?
if lulu was being a bitch, sure.
> Remember the dialog between Parent,kid and the kid's friend where Rami was allowing only consensual swearing when it is used at someone.
if the context is that somebody is visiting a store and the owner of the store don't want any cussing happening, then visitors should not cuss. if the visitor does cuss, then the store owner will want the visitor to leave.
if the context is curi's blog, the owner is ok with cussing. so visitors can cuss.
don't treat me (or anyone) as an authority.
what you did was take an idea you got from me and apply it to contexts that weren't intended for the idea. that means you didn't understand it.
that'd be like taking the rules you learned for addition and applying those rules to multiplication. that doesn't work.
>> Rami isn't an authority on anything
> He is as good as Elliot.
uh, why do you think that?
i'm confused by this. like if you've been reading FI then you'd see all my flaws that people are pointing out. elliot doesn't have those flaws. so how can this person think i'm as good as elliot?
am i doing something that's misleading people?
> He will the best next best philosopher.
i think i'm far away from that. also there's way better philosophers than me on FI (besides elliot).
> elliot doesn't have those flaws.
how can you know what flaws elliot has or doesn't have if he is flawed?
elliot doesn't like his flaws pointed out. he tells people to stop.