This is an example of how bad at thinking people are regarding facts, logic and details. I think that's because they think socially instead.
Are you better? Join some discussions and test your belief and create documented evidence of your higher quality discussions.
The key point is that I disagreeed with him about some philosophy stuff and asked if he was interested in discussing. His replies included "Hahaha what" and "I’ll be willing to have a discussion to demonstrate that you’re talking utter nonsense in an unnecessarily hostile manner". Those replies indicated that he wasn't intellectually interested in the matter. I took that, combined with no answer to my question (re interest), as a "no", and told him so. He later followed up on that initial conversation in the chat below.
After this chat, Dave came back the next day to ask if I was "actually retarded" before leaving the server.
This is from the public Fallible Ideas Discord.
DavetheDastard:
Freeze Today at 02:45
maybe this relates to the point you had that Dave might be wasting his career
curi Today at 02:48
it's related sure, but it isn't really what i was talking about. i think the specialization he works in is building complicated ideas on top of many layers of false premises, and that it doesn't have paths forward or engage seriously with other schools of thought which criticize it
Freeze Today at 02:49
ah
curi Today at 02:49
his response was typical: he wasn't interested and also, despite the sort of work he allegedly does, he misread what i said and didn't respond meaningfully to my question.
the sort of work he allegedly does requires being great at accurate, detail reading of words, to the point that's easy and automatic
Curi, could you be more specific with the following:
In your initial message, you never explained in detail how my area of study rests on false premises - could you please identify which premises my area of study rests upon, and then demonstrate them to be "false"?
In what way(s) does my field of study fail to interact with other areas of study? Could you name a few, but then clarify how and why those areas of study would be relevant; i.e., my field of study does not relate with the study of Hospitality, but we wouldn't say that that is a problem. Also, whilst we're at it, could you acknowledge the fields of study which my area does interact with?
Your second message says that I wasn't interested [in your message informing me that my career is a waste due to the area of which it focuses is based on false premises] , and that despite the work I allegedly do, I misread what you said. Further, you say that I didn't respond meaningfully to your question.
You only asked one question, and that was whether I would be willing to discuss the matter with you.
I said that I would discuss the matter with you, and I then invited you to a VC to discuss the matter directly. I had hoped that to be a meaningful answer.
curi:
In your initial message, you never explained in detail how my area of study rests on false premises - could you please identify which premises my area of study rests upon, and then demonstrate them to be "false"?
this is not responsive to what i already said to you and how our conversation went.
curi:
You only asked one question, and that was whether I would be willing to discuss the matter with you.
that is not the question i asked. you should read.
DavetheDastard:
https://discordapp.com/channels/304082867384745994/482766203983626255/658871776708919316 in my considered and professional opinion, i think your specialization is based on incorrect premises and so it's a waste of a career. is that something you're interested in discussing? @DavetheDastard
DavetheDastard:
you said that
DavetheDastard:
that is your initial message, is it not?
And is it not true that in it you have stated that my area of study rests on false (incorrect) premises?
Also, is it not the case that you asked a single question, which is what I reported?
curi:
read it.
DavetheDastard:
I have
curi:
have you read it today?
DavetheDastard:
I have just copied and pasted it to you
curi:
where?
DavetheDastard:
in what way is me asking you to identify the incorrect premises which you have asserted to exist, not responsive to what you have said?
DavetheDastard:
I have pasted it here from #slow
curi:
oic, you didn't quote it and it started wtih a link
curi:
very confusing
DavetheDastard:
the link is what you posted in your initial message.
curi:
ok well, factually, does it ask if you're willing to discuss?
DavetheDastard:
if I have failed to quote directly, then so had you
DavetheDastard:
"is that something you're interested in discussing?
curi:
when i said you didn't quote it, i meant you didn't do this:
quote
DavetheDastard:
right, would that make a notable difference to you? it would merely alter the layout
curi:
it would have prevented the confusion, but nvm
curi:
is interest in discussing something the same as willingness?
DavetheDastard:
I would have hoped you would recognise your message to me, the one which you have been referencing in other messages.
In the context which you asked it, it would be a fair reading to believe that you had asked me to interact with you, and not merely wonder if I am interested in discussing this area. One would have thought that I would be interested in discussing the field of study which I specialise in.
DavetheDastard:
Look, if you are going to be unbelievably difficult in communication, then I am not wasting my time with you.
If you do not want to actually engage and have a discussion, fine, but in that case, would you please refrain from making further comments about my field of study and specifically my engagement in it.
curi:
the belief that the other guy is difficult re communication is symmetric. you aren't offering a symmetry breaker. i am offering one: your way of communicating contradicts the dictionary.
DavetheDastard:
pardon?
curi:
which is the first word that you don't follow?
DavetheDastard:
it's just that you seem to be saying that I am contradicting the dictionary in my communication, and yet you are not capitalising your use of "I", in contrary to the dictionary.
curi:
in contrary to the dictionary.
DavetheDastard:
are you or are you not asking whether I would like to meaningfully discuss the topic of whether my area of study rests upon incorrect premises?
DavetheDastard:
sorry, is that a direct quote? Oughtn't we mark that with quotation marks?
curi:
i had in mind dictionary definitions, not minor typos or informalities like omitting trailing periods in one sentence messages
curi:
curi:
that is what a block quote indicator looks like on discord
DavetheDastard:
that isn't quotation marks
DavetheDastard:
a quotation marks appears as follows - "X is the case"
DavetheDastard:
usually accompanied with a time stamp for mutual reference
DavetheDastard:
are you not familiar with references?
curi:
do you want to try to actually resolve an issue?
DavetheDastard:
again, I am only having this discussion with you to see whether or not you want to meaningfully discuss the question of whether my area of study rests on incorrect premises. If you do not wish to have such a discussion, and perhaps it may be fair to reason that you would likely not to have this current one either, then merely tell me so, and I will leave this discussion here. In doing so, however, I ask that you refrain from asserting that I am wasting my career on a field of study due to faults of that study, until you directly inform me of those premises and the nature of their falsity.
curi:
do you want to try to actually resolve an issue?
DavetheDastard:
are you struggling to understand my previous message?
DavetheDastard:
the only issue I wish to resolve is the question of whether my field of study rests upon incorrect premises, hence me having earlier asked you to identify those premises and to explain to me how they are incorrect.
curi:
you brought up other issues which you now grant you don't wish to resolve. that was inappropriate.
DavetheDastard:
my lord.
DavetheDastard:
you have just acknowledged that I have brought up issues in order for them to be resolved, and that due to you not acknowledging or engaging them, it is I who has been inappropriate.
curi:
i refer you to https://discordapp.com/channels/304082867384745994/647276416857276426/659136940607799309
DavetheDastard:
right - to which bit in particular?
your not wanting to have a vc?
DavetheDastard:
this is a waste of time, I'm leaving; please ping me in the future if you wish to meaningfully engage on the question of whether my field of study rests upon incorrect premises.
curi:
i don't like talking with people who aren't interested and also aren't adequately literate or precise.
curi:
and who don't want to address that problem e.g. by reading my articles on how to discuss or the Inferential Distance articles
curi:
or making a serious effort to propose a way forward that works from my pov
curi:
i don't like when people say things like "my lord" instead of recognizing the large culture clash, being tolerant and curious, trying to deal with it rationally instead of assuming bad faith, etc.
Messages