Sociopath Community

Jada said: 

We're making progress, because now I know that you've been trying to tell me to take up other interests, just like you would be telling the bodybuilder to take up other interests. Earlier I was not sure.

Not directly, but that is in the right direction. 

While I would find it easier to take up interests from listening to people who are already into them, taking up the interest first can make it easier to find common ground with people who are already invested in it. 

I guess the order doesn't really matter. 

In reality, though, I guess it started with video games. Most people I chatted with when I was a kid were 20 years older than me because I played and modded Quake 3 and JKA. That's when I heard about all these philosophical theories, politics, physics, theology.

From Quake 3? 🤨

I think you're too worked up about intelligence to be honest.

You're the one that kept going on about how it holds you back. 

You could replace "intelligence" with a lot of other words and find the explanation from my end to be largely the same. 

Who said I didn't take anyone seriously? I've taken you seriously, haven't I? However, I do think that you're capable of deeper thought and drawing upon more from within inside of you than this linear mirroring thing, but then I haven't given you much to work with either have I, when I've been digging my heels into the ground asking you to accept my way of thinking. 

Why do you figure that they'd need to accept your way of thinking for the conversation to be able to move forward? 

Most conversations I've had with people have come from clashes in ideology, as in that clash is the room for new ideas. If both people agree then what's there to discuss really? 

Regarding the arrogance thing, most people who are arrogant wouldn't openly call themselves arrogant, but a large portion of arrogant people would realize that they're arrogant, and the portion that didn't, didn't because they fail to introspect.

Wouldn't arrogance typically show difficulties with the introspection step? 

Regarding clearing your mind, you're right. I already do that. I take meditative walks, among other things.

Does that work for you? 

What's your trick? Cats maybe?

My trick for clearing my mind? 

My answer's always been other people, and pets too yeah. If I'm bored with my own inner dialogue I can lean on theirs instead. 

Why do I assume people need to accept my way of thinking? They don''t and I don't. However, it depends on what you mean. Here I had wrongly assumed that you'd care about being objectively wrong. I said before that I've a philosophy with some elements of connectivism. But it's just a modern derivative of constructivism, so really you should say my philosophy has some elements of constructivism.

So what's constructivism? The fancy version is something like there is not only one objective reality but we all have our own subjective realities, because our experiences are different. But I don't take it as far as most people. I don't believe in a complete lack of ojective reality. We do base our reality on some things that are shared, like the objective truth that if we look at a chair, we both see a chair, and one of us doesn't see an elephant.

What is different between us instead is that our lived experiences are different and so our language and world views are shbjective. Like for example ultimately language is descriptive, and if our subjective experiences are different and we're constructing our own understanding of the language constantly based on what we experience, so there'll be differences in the language we use. Our conclusions about the same observation can be different because our lived dxperiences are different, so for example if I hear Jack the Hairdresser say they fought a crocodile in a swamp in Ohio the other day I might figure they're lying because I've never seen crocodiles in Ohio whereas you might think they're telling the truth because through some odd experience you've seen some weird shit happen in Ohio, including elephants wandering around the the central area in cleveland. So our honest assessment of what should be considered objective is a subjective sliding scale. But there are still some things where it's so far towards one end of the sliding scale that we can call it objective. We can also bring the sliding scales closer together negotiating a shared reality based on the common things we both believe in, like negotiating a shared epistemological standard.

However, there are some parts that most people share, and the basis for most conversations is that shared reality. In this particular case, you were objectively wrong, but you don't think it matters what the objective truth is or that you were wrong. What I had presumed is that you would care that you are objectively wrong and were simply blind to the fact that you were wrong. If I were to accept that we can talk fantasy about myself regarding something that is objectively untrue and explore it, I could've done so, but the digging my heels part here was the assumption that you were unaware that you were objectively wrong. I instead focussed on proving you were objectively wrong, but you didn't care from the get-go.

Hence when I entered what I had thought was your shared reality to explore your thoughts and pointed out the inconsistencies in it, I had falsely assumed that you believed in an objective truth and were willing to negotiate an objective epistemological standard or shared reality, or that you cared you were wrong, but you were not and did not. You had decided to want to talk about something that did not exist, and so in hindsight what I should've done is enter your shared reality and instead of using epistemology I should've encouraged your fantasy devoid of any objective reality and appealed to emotional arguments, cats, and tied the fantasy to a quest for some value that you care about, like diversity and equality. This way we could've lived entirely inside your head and neglected any consideration for facts. While I realize it doesn't satisfy my curiosity in the subject matter, the conversation would've probably moved to a more nonlinear regime like I would've wanted instead of living in this linear type back and forth with no depth, but I had not realized that you didn't care that you were objectively wrong, so I was operating under a false premise.

Regarding walks, yes and no. It helps to some degree, but I also need to take care to keep exploring to not fall into the usual cognitive biases. Cats help me relax too.

Jada said:

Why do I assume people need to accept my way of thinking? They don''t and I don't. However, it depends on what you mean. Here I had wrongly assumed that you'd care about being objectively wrong. I said before that I've a philosophy with some elements of connectivism. But it's just a modern derivative of constructivism, so really you should say my philosophy has some elements of constructivism.

Objectivity has it's time and place, but finding answers as a partially blind person from other partially blind people is bound to lend towards more subjective answers on the way towards seeking said objectivity. You have to go through the half-truths people have accepted as truth to seek out full ones when it comes to people through broader sociological comparisons, albeit while recognizing that you are just as capable of that same thing. 

Everyone and everything is connected through common lines, but a lot of those common lines are shrouded in derivative explanations. I mostly see conversations as the attempt to bridge the two realities through filtering through the clashes, if not an attempt to compromise views in the moment (rather than the bigger picture) to see where things go through seeing what persists naturally rather than what is forced through accepted social conventions that by design limit this (like politeness). 

If other people miss as much as I suspect they do, then I must be missing a similar amount of details while otherwise unaware from being a person as much as they are. In that respect I see other people as a chance for me to see more than I currently do similarly to reading something a person authored up (when I read things people wrote I tend to try to perspective-take the author through their work). 

So what's constructivism? The fancy version is something like there is not only one objective reality but we all have our own subjective realities, because our experiences are different. But I don't take it as far as most people. I don't believe in a complete lack of ojective reality. We do base our reality on some things that are shared, like the objective truth that if we look at a chair, we both see a chair, and one of us doesn't see an elephant.

Wouldn't keeping it to only what you already see be limiting? How are you supposed to find novel things like this, rather than continuously confirm that which you've already accepted? 

If I was stuck within that, I never would have given concepts like Astrology or Symbology a chance for example. I thought it was utterly ridiculous until I began to recognize examples of it in life through my own independent study of the subject, but said independent study would have never happened if I didn't have others around me pointing stuff out to get me started. 

What is different between us instead is that our lived experiences are different and so our language and world views are shbjective. Like for example ultimately language is descriptive, and if our subjective experiences are different and we're constructing our own understanding of the language constantly based on what we experience, so there'll be differences in the language we use.

Yet it is the common line of things like language that allow the non-common areas to be perceived through it as a filter. 

This is why people can enjoy media, like reading a novel or painting a picture, and find it can awaken thoughts they'd never had before over translating these foreign thoughts into a form they can grasp. The unfamiliar, through the familiar, can have thoughts awaken that were not there before. So too is true through using the subjective through the objective, like attempting to convey an emotional experience through language (or even poetry) before further rationalizing it through the accepted canons of the mind. 

Through what is in common, that which is not in common can be understood and potentially even acquired, like how two OCD people can acquire each others quirks similar to the Gangstalking phenomenon. 

Our conclusions about the same observation can be different because our lived dxperiences are different, so for example if I hear Jack the Hairdresser say they fought a crocodile in a swamp in Ohio the other day I might figure they're lying because I've never seen crocodiles in Ohio whereas you might think they're telling the truth because through some odd experience you've seen some weird shit happen in Ohio, including elephants wandering around the the central area in cleveland.

Couldn't a crocodile or alligator risk be possible anywhere that people collect exotic pets, or anywhere near a Zoo? 

As an anecdotal example, there was an albino one in a lake in California even though they aren't native to California. The answer came from a rich person deciding to move to another state dropping off his former pet in said lake, making for this improbability not otherwise being impossible. 

It'd make sense to be skeptical, but immediately denying it as a lie is rushing the answer just as much as immediately assuming it's the truth. 

We can also bring the sliding scales closer together negotiating a shared reality based on the common things we both believe in, like negotiating a shared epistemological standard.

As I said above, I believe it takes clashes to see those bubble up to the surface. 

It's effectively similar to testing a hypothesis, since pov is subjective on it's own. The claim has to be tested by being thrown into situations while also presenting contrasting theories. 

However, there are some parts that most people share, and the basis for most conversations is that shared reality. In this particular case, you were objectively wrong, but you don't think it matters what the objective truth is or that you were wrong.

This seems a bit closed minded, no?

You can't really prove objectivity in this case, merely your subjective perceptions of your apparent reality as you stated above. I tend to compare this to Red-Green Colorblindness in that people with it can often coast surprisingly far without ever noticing it's a problem, and over how if it's explained in a way not tailored to their needs that it might not sink in as a truth. Without the room to compare the views they have with testing and the perceptions of their peers, or if everyone was Red-Green Colorblind, this detail wouldn't stand out as much. 

It's like how someone with anger issues might rationalize that people are too sensitive. 

It's through comparisons that we can see more. It'd be another story if we were debating over... I dunno, sky color. Even if we both see it differently we have chosen the word "blue" to represent whatever we're seeing, and in that way can accept the canon between us even though there may be differences unaccounted for.

Language in general tends to work that way, noting things close enough to eachother's views as to accept the linguistics as a conceptual midground, but attempting to construct that out of less concrete things requires using strings of these to try to convey what is otherwise being perceived. It's like explaining what a "cat" is without the other person ever having heard of or seen one, you'd be stuck using shared words to try to paint a picture of something that otherwise does not exist in their world. 

What I had presumed is that you would care that you are objectively wrong and were simply blind to the fact that you were wrong. If I were to accept that we can talk fantasy about myself regarding something that is objectively untrue and explore it, I could've done so, but the digging my heels part here was the assumption that you were unaware that you were objectively wrong. I instead focussed on proving you were objectively wrong, but you didn't care from the get-go. 

To prove one objectively wrong, the other would have to be provably and objectively right. You have done no such thing and as such it's lent for the room to make comparisons with others who've made similar enough complaints structurally. 

While this can be done with subjects of a globally accepted canon, like Math and Science, people are closer in nature to The Arts when it comes to understanding them as individuals. Even within canonical explanations like disorders you're still stuck going through their filters to try to find it. 

Trying out for Mensa would at least have your point over your intelligence become more provable, but even there if you walked into a Mensa meeting and felt the same issues that would further support my views on what's likely going on rather than your own by demonstrating intelligence as an independent variable. 

Effectively, why couldn't Intelligence be an independent factor from your apparent struggles here? 

There's a lot to unpack here.

What you're basically saying is the same thing as I'm saying, that everyone processes things through a filter because we all have our own personal subjective realities and only partially experience the same things. A mental image would be something like 2 bubbles. Where there's overlap is where there's the shared reality, and vice versa. By building on the conversation both of those bubbles grow by some amount, particularly around where there's conflict,  because conflict is good for identifying what parts dont overlap. It's even been shown that taking 5 people's decisions and averaging it out tends to lead to better decision making, because the average contains information from a significantly larger "reality". It's a simplified view, but let's go with that for now.

I agree with you up until you say that if others miss as much as you do then it must mean you also miss the same amount.. and then you quote this black and white picture of some dude. That's just incorrect.

Insofar as you mean that you might miss some things, you are correct, but the amount that you miss may be drastically different.

Taking that toy analogy of bubbles, one bubble can be bigger than another bubble, and one person's reality may encompass large parts of the other person's reality (bubble). E.g. someone who travels the world and observes different cultures is more likely not to be biased be cultural norms in the same way as two people who've lived their entire lives in 1 town in Ohio and Japan each. Same goes for someone who spends a significant time thinking vs someone who does not, there's naturally less a person then misses in certain areas. So if you're going for some sort of absolute equality I strongly disagree. If you only meant to emphasize that we all miss some things, then sure.

 I even agree with you on rejecting unlikely possibilities outright. I think we need to recognize that our ability to calibrate probabilities has a finite chance of being wrong, so explorinf possibilities, no matter how unlikely, will sometimes, rarely, lead to novelty. It's not the only way to create novelty, but it's important to continhe to test our current understanding of reality constantly. And that's the second thing I disagree about with you.

You seem to have this notion that there is no objective truth at all. I bet you there is, and it's not just math. You've even laid out rhe methodology by which you can become more confident in your assessments, and it has nothing to do with math or the natural sciences. It has to do with your conflict thing, and you even said it yourself.

If you want to find out if you're arrogant, and you travel all around the world, asking people if you're arrogant, and they all say no, are you more or less confident that you're not arrogant before or after you've made your world tour?

If you want to test if you're right about Hillary Clinton lying, you travel the world, and not one person could give convincing alternatives that match Clinton's behavior, are you more or less certain that clinton was lying?

What you've discovered is the meaning of "scientific consensus" but translated to the Arts. Once something has stood the test of time, our confidence in that tentative explanation rises. That's why LiYang spamming his shitty research papers with no concern for the scientific consensus should not be listened to. I mean, beyond the fact that he doesn't understand the research. In most cases, if you're wrong, and you've tested it for long enough time, being open minded, then the likelihood that you're right is greater than when you started.

 How art nedia and movies play into the constructivist view....Thats an interesting question. I had not considered that. There's something "weird" that happens with media.

Even without being aware of what a song or some painting is about, it can evoke these deep feelings. I wonder if, in the bubble analog, it's like taking a part of someone's reality and relaying that the the other person, and we can somehow get a glimpse of another reality, without even understanding it.  Or maybe what's missing from the toy picture is that we all have some shared primal and subconscious experiences that go so deep in the human experience that they lay out the foundation of what we are as people and so instead of this blank slate type view of us we should really see ourselves as buildings constructed on identical foundations.

What a happy thought. Thank you.

Regarding the mensa thing being objective, the requirement for a Physics/Math PhD is very stringent, and the requirement for tenured positions is miles more stringent than that. You'd be shocked by the statistics and how poor the outlook for recent Phy/Math PhDs who want to stay in academia is, in terms of competition vs number of positions.

Jada said: 

Regarding the mensa thing being objective, the requirement for a Physics/Math PhD is very stringent, and the requirement for tenured positions is miles more stringent than that. You'd be shocked by the statistics and how poor the outlook for recent Phy/Math PhDs who want to stay in academia is, in terms of competition vs number of positions.

So it shouldn't be hard to join Mensa then? 

Jada said: 

 How art nedia and movies play into the constructivist view....Thats an interesting question. I had not considered that. There's something "weird" that happens with media.

Even without being aware of what a song or some painting is about, it can evoke these deep feelings. I wonder if, in the bubble analog, it's like taking a part of someone's reality and relaying that the the other person, and we can somehow get a glimpse of another reality, without even understanding it.  Or maybe what's missing from the toy picture is that we all have some shared primal and subconscious experiences that go so deep in the human experience that they lay out the foundation of what we are as people and so instead of this blank slate type view of us we should really see ourselves as buildings constructed on identical foundations.

What a happy thought. Thank you.

I've often used media as a shared reality bridge. It's like having the same life experience as numerous people, except streamlined into key phrases and words both people can call upon like a catchphrase. Sometimes I can't really find the right words to portray a situation, but can think of a shared media example that portrays my point from an episode of something random like the show Hey Arnold. It also contributes heavily towards Collectivism, as we see continuing to advance as media advances into faster forms. While media has not shown the same connectivity between peers as other examples of it like joining the military, it still allows for an ease of connectivity between people who'd otherwise be complete strangers at first glance, which I find super neat and convenient personally. 

Media is the closest to sharing a reality that we can encounter, but we'll still hit the "my blue is different from your blue" situation for variations of how it's taken in. People with traits in common with one another however can find it easier to bridge thoughts through the common ground, but even with that being the case you can still find two random people from completely separate cultures and still see them both potentially recognize something like this: 



People who practice shamanism or witchcraft often call the above logo an example of "Chaos Magic", while I see it more like Graphic Design's impacts on Sociology. At the very least it can serve as something similar to linguistics, providing common elements between two or more people that allow them to make comparisons where they might not have been able to bridge before. As weird as it sounds, recommending TV Shows or Movies to people can be a way to help them learn to socialize almost like an acceptable form of Brainwashing or Conditioning towards a desired outcome. 

If how to bridge with people is over common ground, and their's a mass produced version of common ground, then we already have society doing half the work for us through setting templates others can take advantage of through the shared educational medium. It's a bit like a hivemind but not quite, which while frightening on it's own works as a great translator towards the thoughts they have that are unlike your own through the room for these common comparisons, similar to the benefit of having a shared sky color.

It's through this sort of thing that I can meet someone with Anger Management issues, and find myself able to relate to their experiences in spite of me being a person who otherwise struggles to have access to my own anger. I don't get angry very often, it's a rare experience, but thanks to shared experiences witnessed I can look at others attempts at explaining it to help me and my peer bridge regardless of my personal inexperience with the emotion otherwise. 

Even simply wearing a T-Shirt with common societal symbols or expressions can be a great conversation starter, as has in the past been my crutch for starting conversations with strangers. This is also why I often find it disturbing to meet people with little to no exposure to media, it can become harder to find things to talk about when compared to walking up to someone to compliment their Hello Kitty shirt. 

I'll try to go into the first, bigger post when I'm done with my IRL Dailies. 

Jada said: 

What you're basically saying is the same thing as I'm saying, that everyone processes things through a filter because we all have our own personal subjective realities and only partially experience the same things.

It's moreso what we do about it that differs, and over how seriously you hold yourself as if an objective observer. 

A mental image would be something like 2 bubbles. Where there's overlap is where there's the shared reality, and vice versa. By building on the conversation both of those bubbles grow by some amount, particularly around where there's conflict,  because conflict is good for identifying what parts dont overlap.

I'd argue that it also can yield what parts do overlap. As long as the conversation continues overall the room to bridge has more chances to present itself through what is already shared. The clash doesn't just show what parts are diametrically opposed, but also what areas are the same between them through that medium. 

When communication is sterilized into a more neutral form, it uses the expectation of politeness to trade away the honesty for the convenience of smoother communication. In turn, people have become less equipt to handle the complications that follow more genuine conversation. 

Through what we already find in common with people, I've found expanding on that to have it become easier to translate how they see things we've yet to try. It's the whole "Everything is Connected" thing, a lot of things crosstrain into other areas through recombining elements of other things. 

I agree with you up until you say that if others miss as much as you do then it must mean you also miss the same amount.. and then you quote this black and white picture of some dude. That's just incorrect.

What's wrong with Chuck's quote? What is he missing from the bigger picture? 

Insofar as you mean that you might miss some things, you are correct, but the amount that you miss may be drastically different.

Everyone has their strengths they lean on when looking towards new things, and how much is missed could lend to a skewed enough perspective to raise questions others wouldn't ponder on. Someone who misses a lot may prove to be a specialist in a small enough area to see it in all aspects of life. A lot of people of higher functioning thought that I've seen are also the sort to struggle with basic things. 

The fact that there's variation between people over these aspects at all serves as a prompt towards building larger comparisons. 

Same goes for someone who spends a significant time thinking vs someone who does not, there's naturally less a person then misses in certain areas. So if you're going for some sort of absolute equality I strongly disagree. If you only meant to emphasize that we all miss some things, then sure.

You are what you do, and that time still was spent doing something that likely hardened into a repetition or habit. 

Someone who spent the same time you did learning to instead get a Masters in the Culinary Arts has still spent a lot of their life thinking, just not about the same things you've found yourself thinking about. 

Another person who spent the same time you did learning instead how to juice up into a brawny human-shaped monster has still spent a lot of their life acquiring some level of understanding over the functions of the body through their experiences. Later in life the person might even take it towards Physical Therapy, or becomes an Aerobics Instructor, become a fire fighter, learn Martial Arts, all sorts of bases of knowledge that are barred entry over having a physical requirement. 

Going back to your idea of: 

It's even been shown that taking 5 people's decisions and averaging it out tends to lead to better decision making, because the average contains information from a significantly larger "reality". It's a simplified view, but let's go with that for now.

It's through the variety of experiences meshing together that could end up making a more informed decision. If people are given a set of doors to cross through that represent your life's choices, then other people are a way to see how choosing other doors can go. 

I even agree with you on rejecting unlikely possibilities outright.

It's moreso looking towards the common lines and if it really is or isn't connected. 

My argument is that intelligence is an independent variable from the struggle present here, which if that's the case would lend to exploring what else could be going on.

My argument is that there are intelligent people who do not possess this problem, which has me ask what it is between you and them that differ. 

You seem to have this notion that there is no objective truth at all.

You're the one who keeps saying that not me. 

Just because people can't see the complete picture doesn't mean there isn't a bigger picture to see. If there's things I can't see about the picture, then I'm liable to lean on others to ask about what they're seeing, and not seeing, in the hopes of learning how to see beyond my own borders. 

In less words, I believe there is an Existentialist truth, over how everything is connected, one that takes the connectivity of multiple people to grasp. With practice in splitting their bias from the story it can become easier to split our own from it as well through the comparisons, and in the end find what bridges things together into one larger body of work. 

If you want to find out if you're arrogant, and you travel all around the world, asking people if you're arrogant, and they all say no, are you more or less confident that you're not arrogant before or after you've made your world tour?

No, I'd figure people would account for my vanity and try to be polite. 

Getting people to be honest takes some work. 

If you want to test if you're right about Hillary Clinton lying, you travel the world, and not one person could give convincing alternatives that match Clinton's behavior, are you more or less certain that clinton was lying?

What would be the canon of convincing versus not, my own pre-emptive bias? 

I would at the very least be cataloguing the variety of answers given to try to see what connects them, as I have done with dives into 4chan and 8kun in the past. It's not like their answers come from nowhere, there's a measurable bias with an origin point that can show where the ideas came from, as well as work as points in predicting a trajectory that other like-minded people may follow further down the timeline. 

 In most cases, if you're wrong, and you've tested it for long enough time, being open minded, then the likelihood that you're right is greater than when you started.

By what margin though? All this supports is the rigor of long term testing. 

If anything, increased time spent doing the same thing could show the consistency of the person being incorrect, serving more as a counter-example that others could reference to prove how wrong this person was. 

It's still useful experience to piggieback off of, it's not time wasted if others can reference it to better themselves, but that becomes moreover the interest of building upon truth rather than testing it repeatedly to "stop being wrong". 

A whitebord with some bubbles drawn on jt would be helpful. Do you have MS Paint?

I think we agree for the most part. The media thing I need to think about. Since I'm eating and won't have time to address everything.let me just assume we're on the same page about most of this and address the parts where clearly we're not, namely two parts.

The part I didnt get is the qualifier here:

"increased time spent doing THE SAME THING (....)"

Yes, this is a good point, you shouldnt do the same thing over and over to test your beliefs, you should continue to test your world view through different means. Would the test of time increase your confidence if you weren't just doing the same thing? Of course it would. It doesn't mean absolute certainty, but you'd in the vague sense be more confident than before that you were right.

And moreover the bit where you say traveling literally the whole world asking everyone if you're arrogant and every person on Earth says no, does not mean you can be MORE CONFIDENT (note: not certain just more certain)  than before that you're not arrogant, that I don't get. What if it were the other way around, you travelled the world and every person said you were arrogant as fuck, are you more or less confident that you are arrogant after your world journey than before it?. Really not getting the logic here.

Or is the problem here the sliding scale and where we can draw the line of certainty? If so, the examples were more to demonstrate that from individual facts you can tell if they support or not support your world view, so that's missing the point. You should combine allthe evidence to form your opinions, and no single fact is going to be sufficient to "be certain" in the absolute or even the relative sense.

I can however take this one step further and expand on that arrogance thing by saying you do 100 other different tests, colldct tests from other people, such that you're testing not just within your little reality bubble but the collective reality of everyone on the globe, and use those tests too, and let's for the sake of the argument say they all came back negative. Should you still believe you're arrogant? Or should you not believe it but still continue to test your beliefs?