More clearly… words can feel anodyne when written but they can play out to the opposite. Yet we don’t realize all the triggers or perception that trigger with the way they are laid out. Reddit is a great place to obverse this. It’s why I’m even on here. It practice my dictum and learn how people act in this space. So I’m not too far outside of it to not be able to understand people. Then to interact with others ideas against mine. Otherwise I don’t need to be here.

I totally get your point. Some are better at writing articulation other in conversation. Personally if your not trying do gotcha moments you can work though both either way. It always good to do the reestablishing what the other person says maneuver. “So let me review what you said to make sure I understand this right. Stop me and correct me if anywhere I do he code I go on…._______…” so few people are good at articulation it makes me think most haven’t thought threw the ideas anyway. The “yea what this guy in the video means” doesn’t fly with me. If you need someone else to define what you believe then you truly don’t believe anything other than the teams prefers perspective. Because you can’t challenge something you don’t understand. So I force people back into using their own words. This is where Reddit can prove to rank the convo. People sending links of others arguments. I could attack that stance but then they can’t even know why it’s wrong or right in their own view if the comprehension isn’t there in the first place.

It’s sort of depressing. Cus you realize most people haven’t been challenged in that way. They are almost afraid to challenge their world views. Reddit is the best of this but only in the most differential thinking groups / communities. The majority is still like most other social media where no one is looking anything but ingroup validation.

What do you mean by realtime awareness? I think it’s down to if I don’t know something I need to be humble and learn from the person next to me. If I care enough to fight it out… I’ll go research the topic next time so that I can hold my own. People get real surprised when you do that. Then your often back to knowing more than them. But often (most all of the time) don’t do it themselves. And it does all come down to the type of person and convo your having. I’m the guy that’s notorious for talking off to the side about something real and thought provoke at a gathering rather than the normal shit shooting. I like to get that out of the way the first 15 minutes then as the buzz fades in get deeper.

Typo on “they get by on this superior knowledge” - change to “superior intelligence” capacity. I know a lot of smart adults that never live up to their potential because of being gifted as a child. I’ve actually had a lot of these people tell me it was the worst thing that happened to them. They got by one smarts alone and didn’t have to do the work. So it would makes sense when you can push back that they aren’t used to a person not as smart as them like me

Scaling any of this is difficult. Scientist struggle with keeping the best frame work up and continuing to run it constantly. Because we do often revert like you caught right here. Those straw men do come back up and a lot of it doesn’t stick. So is the momentary propensity of the humans condition. We remember patterns quick and are often stubborn to break them. Maybe everyone needs the Tim Ferris yearly reset. A small duffel bag full of psilocybin mushrooms periodically performs this reset for us manually when there is no automatic version other than mindfulness and constant attention to the structures of our own epistemological considerations.

But it’s hard because we need to tune down the noise and keep attention on being casual monsters that can gossip (which is very important much needed social calibration) and relaxation from our busy work. I can tell you most won’t become stoic philosophers or existential mystics if they have extra free time but being captivated by work and other responsibilities makes most need a relax defrag conditional state when you do get to chill out. Then I understand why they get upset more in this sort of paradigm of pattern. They’ve learned not to be challenged, so any semblance of push back to their often revered persona, default position for them, and they’re whole self is under attack, which they lack the effort or energy ti address. Me just trying to have convo with people like that, had to learn to read this element. And like I said you have to ease your self in like the other end (anti-intellectual side) and respect there views and listen. If you can disarm all the nonsense that impedes positive discourse first, then people become more open. When people are more open they be able to empathize more and take your consideration more earnestly. Coming back around to having more self confident and trust them can allow us to duke it out in the future with the gloves on or even off, then reconcile, dust off and have diner or a drink afterwards (or during). The drinks or puffs can be important because it release inhibitions but not everyone has a healthy or cognitively aware experience of substance.

The hardest part for me is the song and dance. I’d like to jump ahead if we know the arguments and I can usually mitigate the time with a quick recap of taking points. But again that’s where validating each persons perosn Al experience and sentience is important. But yes it is tedious. This is where patience and listening is important as my mind wants to go to the next level rather than legislate the basics. It’s what I call the axiomatic grounding we must do to not talk over under and around each other. We need to define terms because more than ever where in the ingroup outgroup semantic blender. Even simple terms now are loaded by each groups affiliation. One things “liberal” is a bad word like Nazi to call someone, while the other thinks “racism” only applies within imbalanced power structures. Just ask someone what “freedom” means to them. You’ll likely not get a single result unless everyone just does the dictionary default because they aren’t even comfortable defining the term in a simple context.

Our understanding of stats, probability and as you’ve pointed to causality is terrible yes. Personally I wish I did more math when I was young because of it importance but even then if you don’t constantly use it you forget and lose the power to use it. More than anything I’ve grown to seen it as just another mind opener level that can give me different ideas on how to address or look at things. Advancing dynamic structures and complicated analogs that can teach you your own contradictions among many other potentials.

I don’t set my sight too high because in this regard because I want to be realistic. Realism is important in this lens. If you go into talking with people thinking you can change there mind and they do the same, neither will often ever happen. So approaching it yourself different with the intent to learn and listen, it give the whole process more likelihood of fulfilling your desired result. If at the end of the day no or changes at all but the modern respectable “tolerance” comes from it. Then we’re contributing to the position liberal rights view of the world. Then I’m at least glad I can be a part of tying the blend together into a much more beautiful tapestry of potential. If I get leagues more of gain then it’s all gravy on too, if not it doesn’t deter the process or joist at my resolve.

Whether this “is the only way.” … for the most part what good is idea if it can’t endure scrutiny. The ideas are one thing and the action another’s the idea of the action is another all together. (Thanks Zarathustra. Haha). So when it all comes to a head way.. many of the ideas will have actionable results (back to causality) that we can compare and analyze. The human mind may have much more terrain that is currently unfalsifiable in ways that would take much time to establish. While there are many systems at work in the world currently.. we also have to look and say there’s a peaks and valleys of this landscape (borrowing the perspective from Sam Harris’s moral landscape - haven’t hand the chance to read it yet though). Every system has good and bad parts. The world is so complex in these emergents human social and culture interactions that we can’t essentialize it. It quick form for reasons of time constraints and moving forward in discussion yes. Then there’s ideas that we can set to the side because they don’t deserve a seat at the table. Communism or Nazi would be a quick start if we’re talking politics but then if you get deep enough each had element beyond the terrible results we see that a reasonable person should pay attention to. If not just for the reasons that they governance methods prop up anyway.