Book 3 - Page 223

Show me a trick, Dad!

Book 3 - Page 223
Comic - Book 3 - Page 223
Recent posts... (See full thread)
keybounce wrote:
Synar wrote:
Umm, you know there is a difference between telling people you believe they are wrong and being an asshole about it ? Especially while discussing what amount to not only webcomic trivia, but freaking details of that trivia on a freaking webcomic forum ?


Actually? ... No, I don't.

Here's the question: Is the determination that you are/are not an asshole something determined by you, or by your reader?

If it's determined by the Author, then the other person is perfectly OK to say that they are not an *hole, no matter how mean they are, and you cannot tell them otherwise.

If it's determined by the reader, then no matter how much you try to be kind in what you are saying, the other person can call you an *hole.

It's simple enough to say that someone is wrong.
It's simple enough to try to use wording that you think will go over well.

But doing it in a way that no one will think you are an *? Sorry, that's a skill that very few people outside of politics, ambassadors, and psychologists develop.

Well at least you admited there are things you don't know, so you're not a narcicist.

It is determined by the aggregate agreement of all allistic participants, usually taking cues off the society they come from and tribal instincts. Allistic is defined as the opposite of autistic. Allistic people are frighteningly good at coming to the same conclusion simultaneously, especially if from similar backgrounds.

I have found the biggest things to understand when communicating with people, are:
1. you don't hurt their pride
1.1 you don't insult their intellegence
1.1.1 calling them wrong isn't an insult in and of itself, as long as you do it without derogitory terms or language, after all
1.1.1.1 except some narcicists combine the worst of both worlds.
1.1.1.1.1 everyone hates these guys try to appear to have as little in common with them as possible.
1.2 no one ever convinced someone of their point of view by condescending
1.2.1 that just marks you as an enemy, to be argued with.
2. Maintain a positive atmosphere.
2.1 So if you feel condenscending, take a few breaths, cool down, and say it while hiding the emotion of superiority.
2.2 Also, self depreciating jokes make almost everyone feel you are on their side.
2.2.1 Which makes allistic people more likely to agree with you.

I'll be honest, I made it an outline because I have no idea how to make all those points in paragraph format.

Also, EVEN AFTER READING 2.2 IT WORKS BWA HA HA! :twisted:
Ok, I tried to understand your outline.

And, I looked up that word at a dictionary site.

> Allistic means “not autistic”- which is a term we NEED when talking about certain things.

Well, that's a problem. I'm Asperger, which is now considered a form of high-function autism (which is odd, I look at description of autistic people, and I don't see myself in those descriptions).

(I'm also slightly dyslexic -- if it weren't for red underlines, I'd have lots of typos. At least I got rid of the red underlines.).

Ohh -- "Not autistic" is not quite the same as "opposite of autistic". There is a middle ground. "Excluded middle" as a logic concept is provable only in finite models/universes, and some classes of infinite models; in others, taking it as an assumption gives different conclusions than you get by permitting the middle.

If "autistic" represents 1-4 on a scale from 1-100, "not autistic" is 5-100, while "opposite of autistic" is 97-100. I may be in a 4% extreme (I'm actually in several), but my question has to be: Why look at one specific axis where I'm in an extreme considered "bad", and not one of the other axises where I'm considered "exceptional"?

===

Quote:
Allistic people are frighteningly good at coming to the same conclusion simultaneously, especially if from similar backgrounds.


So let me see if I understand this. You say that you can group people one way, such that this group will come to the same conclusion at the same time if from a similar background, and this makes that particular grouping "special"/"privileged". What makes you think that this is the only such grouping?

What if I could come up with a different grouping, where I am in the "deciding" group, that also comes to a common decision, for a sufficiently common/similar background -- but a *different* decision than the group you want to be a part of?

What makes your group that says "this is reality" any better than my group that says "no, this is reality"?

Quote:
It is determined by the aggregate agreement of all allistic participants, usually taking cues off the society they come from and tribal instincts.


"All allistic participants". So right away, you are actually defining "allistic" as "people who agree with me". That's actually very different than "not autistic". "Taking cues off the society they come from and tribal instincts" -- so even if someone does disagree, you just say "oh, they're from a different society/tribe, we can ignore them". You are artificially defining the "right" group as those who agree with you.

===

The best that you can say is "Those who are in power think the way I do, so this makes us right". If that's what you're saying, I agree.

I think that's the wrong way to make decisions.

===

Quote:
Here's the question: Is the determination that you are/are not an asshole something determined by you, or by your reader?


I think, if I'm understanding you, that you are saying this:

A sufficiently large number of people, with backgrounds and social upbringing close enough to people who have been in charge over a sufficiently large amount of published / taught history, agree on a common concept of "asshole", and this makes their view "correct".

"published / taught history" refers to a very interesting concept/behavior in human history. For the vast majority of human history, the truth of history was at most the lifespan of the eldest living relative, typically around 70 years. Whatever the person in charge of the tribe / group / religion / etc taught, that became the truth. Things could, and did, change over 20-40 years, and could be completely altered in 50-100 years.

Then came books. And very few numbers of people who could read. And books published in other languages, that people were supposed to learn from, that they could not read, and only a few privileged people could tell them what they were supposed to read.

As much as books, and writing, had the potential to make knowledge last longer, until printing presses, very little could actually be written, and most of what could be was the Bible written in a foreign language. China had printing presses early, but a complicated written language, and the presses did not make very many copies of a given book before wearing out.

It wasn't until a metalsmith used his knowledge of metals to make a metal plate version of China's printing presses that we had the ability to make very large numbers of copies of very large numbers of books -- so we've had widespread books for just a few hundred years.

And in the last 100 years or so, we've seen this again. Hollywood has presented "This is our idea/concept/version of reality", now in visual/audio form instead of reading, that turns out to be even better at spreading ideas -- and once again, the truth has been re-invented.

Ultimately? Modern society defines "correctness", as far as I can tell, by what a few rich european rulers did (which often was just "We need to do things differently than the common poor people"), then what rich americans did, then what hollywood choose to show as "Truth".

By that definition, I'm a "bottom 4% oddball that doesn't count", yet "the top 4% financially / powerfully / publishing connected / video show writers" are an equally small group that decides the truth.

Quote:
It is determined by the aggregate agreement of all allistic participants, usually taking cues off the society they come from and tribal instincts.


If you are going to say "This is the agreement of all of 5-100", 96% of the population, you might have a valid claim. But you aren't.

You are saying instead that a small group of people said "this is the truth", and lots and lots of people are basically being taught "Agree with us or be socially crucified and rejected". It's not that they have the same views, it's that they are taught "pretend to agree or else".

And I don't pretend to agree when the basic claim is not valid.

---

Here's the question: Who makes the determination that you are/are not an asshole?

1. You.
2. Your reader.
3. A privileged ruling council

If 3, what makes that ruling council so privileged?

You just assume that 3 is right, and that this ruling council is privileged to make such decisions.

===

Here's a really simple example to expose this hypocrisy. I'm assuming you've seen Disney's Tangled. This movie starts with one lady using a magic flower to stay alive.

What happens next? What's wrong with what happens next? Who are the good guys in this movie, and who are the bad guys in this movie? What standards do you use to determine good/bad?

I grew up with Ralph Bakshi. I watched Wizards, and learned that "Protagonist" does not mean "hero" / "good guy". I learned that the white wizard protagonist was not the hero/good guy. I look at Tangled, and see an even stronger view of this.
You are completely correct logically. In truth, if autistic is 1-4, then 97-100 is a social savant, maybe they try to become performers, or politicians.

I should have said neuro-typical, instead of allistic anyways. I suspected you had aspergers or autism from your logic style, though, and so I wanted to specify how people were different than you. Neuro-typical says right in its name that it is about what machinery the majority of people have in their brains.

Autistic people seem to me to be born with brains less organized, who have to do the work of organizing themselves, and can reach for better logic than typical humans. The thing is, this isn't all identical, there is a whole spectrum of machinery that can be different in a whole lot of ways. My own sister is the most verbal and least communicative person I know, reciting whole movies by rote if you don't stop her. I think grouping her with non-verbal people and with you and with Temple Grandin is a matter of scientists saying they don't understand it, don't have the tools to organize it more than grading how convenient it is to get people to get along.

And other groupings definitely exist. Probably you work in a really useful such grouping, since you haven't internalized the same rules as everyone else. The NT minded Hollywood consuming culture are just the majority. (Their behavior will bee called 'normal' from now on.) It seems like a huge majority, because everyone around them has to learn their rules. The 'normal' majority can impose their norms in ignorance, because the transparent mind fallacy protects them.

Examples:
-Smart and/or imaginative people are used to breaking their arguments down into smaller pieces in many communities.
-Depressed, neurotic, paranoid, and/or anxious people learn to censure their emotions in unsafe places.
-Manic people learn to force themselves to pause to let other people into the conversation.
-People with synesthesia or sensory processing disorder learn to either not mention certain things that are very obvious, or to preface them with an explanation every time.

Even people who act 'normal' most of the time, sometimes have moods that make them want to break the 'normal' set of rules of discourse. Some typical ways to return to normal are to calm down or to seek support. Because of the transparent mind fallacy, anyone who slips up acting 'normal' gets treated to a load of "Calm down," "What is wrong?" or "Are you on drugs or something?" This happens between neuro-divergent people too; depressed people know depression first hand and typical through interacting with others, but have no tools for understanding paranoia. More dangerously, sometimes people treat anyone outside the norm as a threat, which can unleash a load of abuse simultaneously from many angles.

This is what frightens me about allistic people. I am scared of becoming a pariah. Corporate might just fire everyone with depression in order to raise morale. :shock: So I study what is 'normal.'

In the last post I meant to explain some rules the majority seems to use. I don't think most people even understand them enough to verbalize them, they just absorb them by osmosis, graft them onto a similar instinct profile, and go use it. It's like how a 2 year old learns language, versus looking words up in a dictionary. I was trying to be helpful and by describing things as they are, if not how they should be.

Most communities are walled gardens of some sort. You are a scientist in a community for knowledge. I imagine you thought telling us you were a scientist would let us realize the social norms of the community you come from. The transparent mind fallacy exists in us all.

On this internet site, the wall is a bit shorter, and only meant to keep abuse out. That means you will do better to take down ideas while keeping bad opinions of the ideas' creators out of public view. I realize you are insulting people out of ineptness, but I was looking for signs of how you think in your posts. Some people insult in a calculated manner, which is a tool of very dangerous emotional abuse. If someone is angry that you've called them an idiot, then they can't tell the whether the crassness comes from social clumsiness or abuse.

It is helpful to learn the norms of the community you are interacting in. It is even more helpful to learn that not every community has the same norms. Learning the norms of multiple communities, and being able to verbalize them, gives one the power to mentor new members of the scientific community, and teach them not to take offense at being called wrong. In fact, with enough knowledge to defend yourself you can call them wrong right back, and if they take offense to that they will lose much more reputation, ideally. Related story.

I went overboard talking about jokes, because of my own bias. Humor is how I manage being a little depressed, so I can cheer people up instead of dragging them down like Charlie Brown. Also, so I can cheer myself up enough to put on a smile so people stop asking me 'what is wrong?' That question gets really boring and costly in energy to perform the mental gymnastics to see it as comfort. (Literally nothing is wrong and nothing is right either why are you asking this oh it's signalling care ayuuup that's the caring onomatopoeia) Humor probably didn't help me communicate to you much. But here's to red underlines making social norms in spelling easy, at least. 8-)
spriteless wrote:
The thing is, this isn't all identical, there is a whole spectrum of machinery that can be different in a whole lot of ways. My own sister is the most verbal and least communicative person I know, reciting whole movies by rote if you don't stop her.


I will admit that, in my youth, I would have conversations with others where both of us were just quoting movies/shows in our responses.

This lasted as long as our wide-range of shows permitted us sufficient responses, or until we grew up a bit :-).

Quote:
Probably you work in a really useful such grouping, since you haven't internalized the same rules as everyone else.


I used to be a computer programmer.

Well, scratch that. I used to be an employed computer programmer :=). I still program them, just no longer for money.

Quote:

-People with synesthesia or sensory processing disorder learn to either not mention certain things that are very obvious, or to preface them with an explanation every time.


I've learned to call them "sensory ghosts", and explain it like blips on radars that don't show up on the next pass.

I'm fortunate enough that my synesthesia isn't strong enough to be problematic, but I do get a lot of duplication along smell, and some along color.

Quote:
Corporate might just fire everyone with depression in order to raise morale.


That's even better than "The beatings will continue until morale improves". "We will fire the unhappy until morale improves!".

Should make people act happy.

Quote:
In the last post I meant to explain some rules the majority seems to use. I don't think most people even understand them enough to verbalize them, they just absorb them by osmosis, graft them onto a similar instinct profile, and go use it. It's like how a 2 year old learns language, versus looking words up in a dictionary. I was trying to be helpful and by describing things as they are, if not how they should be.


I did not realize/understand that. Thank you for the clarification; I'll go back and re-read that post again.

Quote:
I realize you are insulting people out of ineptness, but I was looking for signs of how you think in your posts. Some people insult in a calculated manner, which is a tool of very dangerous emotional abuse. If someone is angry that you've called them an idiot, then they can't tell the whether the crassness comes from social clumsiness or abuse.


...

For me, the idea of ignorance is normal. Everyone has some level of ignorance.

A lot of people like to think in terms of what they know, or what they don't know. That's not sufficient.

There's what you know you know -- stuff you've learned.
There's what you don't know that you know -- your intuition.
There's stuff you know you don't know -- stuff you know you are ignorant of.
And there's stuff you don't know that you don't know -- stuff you just don't deal with at all.

The problems:
1. Some people have "facts" in their "stuff they know that they know" that are wrong.
2. Intuition is often taught to be a bad thing. Worse, when asked "Why do you believe that", responding with "intuition" generally means others will ignore it.
3. Very few people want to admit their ignorance.
4. Often, when presented with a brand new area, with no knowledge or lack of knowledge, people try to intuit what to do.

Intuition is very strong and important. Trained intuition is vital to making good decisions. But case #4 makes case #2 look bad, so people want to avoid calling a decision "intuition", and pretend instead that it knowledge/training.

That's the first problem.

The second problem is case #1 and #3 -- both not wanting to say "I don't know", and not wanting to say "I learned something wrong".

Lots of people learn stuff before age 6. Lots of stuff. This is what's called "common sense".

Many people, but no longer lots, are able to relearn something once after age 6. They will then say "I know this, my parents taught me / my school taught me / etc.". This is the "normal" -- able to relearn something once. The whole system of "Teach X as if it were true, without teaching the limits of where it fails" approach of early grade school causes a lot of problems here. As a computer scientist, I like to think of this as "write once, read many" memory (aka WORM -- think CD's/DVD's)

Very few people are able to keep re-writing what they know as they learn more. I've been called a pain by others because I don't have a reliable, dependable set of beliefs -- I keep changing what I think as I learn more, and only a few years ago did I learn that not only is this not normal, but just how non-normal it is. I suspect that there are "write twice" people, that will learn something once as common sense, re-learn once in grade school, and re-learn once more in high school or early college, and then stop. I have no evidence either way, and have not studied/looked.

So what's this tangent for? Insults.

Ignorance is normal.
Being aware of your ignorance is common -- being willing to admit your ignorance is not common.
Being able to tell the difference between intuition in an area you have knowledge of (good) and intuition in an area you have no knowledge of (bad) is very uncommon.
Being able to accept that something you have as knowledge, but is still wrong, as wrong is exceptionally uncommon.

Being ignorant is fine.
Making statements as facts when they are not is almost being an idiot.
Refusing to accept your own lack of knowledge, your own ignorance, and your own errors, *and continuing to express this as truth*, is where I call someone an idiot.

Quote:
I realize you are insulting people out of ineptness, but I was looking for signs of how you think in your posts. Some people insult in a calculated manner, which is a tool of very dangerous emotional abuse. If someone is angry that you've called them an idiot, then they can't tell the whether the crassness comes from social clumsiness or abuse.


I have a very low level of tact. I have tried to learn it, and done very poorly. I cannot understand all of the "unwritten rules" that people are supposed to have picked up by age 6 that just are not explicitly taught anywhere I can find.

I know, recognize, and admit that I lack this skill.
Am I insulting people in a calculated manner? To some extent, yes.
Does this come from social clumsiness or from a deep case of emotional abuse? ... I don't know. I cannot deny that I had that growing up.

Congratulations. You have exposed me to something I did not know that I did not know; I am one of today's lucky 10,000.

Quote:
It is helpful to learn the norms of the community you are interacting in. It is even more helpful to learn that not every community has the same norms. Learning the norms of multiple communities, and being able to verbalize them, gives one the power to mentor new members of the scientific community, and teach them not to take offense at being called wrong. In fact, with enough knowledge to defend yourself you can call them wrong right back, and if they take offense to that they will lose much more reputation, ideally. Related story.


Hmm, information sharing vs emotional bonding.
Quote:
But as my perspective shifted from “ugh, randos” to “awesome, information,” virtually every signal I’d relied on to indicate an interaction was going to be unpleasant completely fell apart. Even many replies I’d pegged as obvious, blatant misogyny turned out to have been people eagerly offering me gifts of information bewildered that I rudely rejected them.

... This article explains a lot of why I have trouble talking to people, actually.
Quote:
The cruel irony is that many of us build these spaces precisely because they allow us to escape from those social games. We generally suck at their games, and we tend to lose when they’re imposed on us, which raises some interesting questions about why exactly they want us to play their games in the first place.

But that’s a whole other topic.[6]

ROFL. ... But accurate. So distressingly accurate.

Quote:
(And the bastards usually don’t even have the common courtesy to echo it back so we can see if we did it right.)

Do you have any idea how many times I get criticized for trying to echo back what I was told? When I'm just trying to make sure I understood someone?

Looks like I got another blog to follow now. Thank you.


Quote:
I went overboard talking about jokes, because of my own bias. Humor is how I manage being a little depressed, so I can cheer people up instead of dragging them down like Charlie Brown. Also, so I can cheer myself up enough to put on a smile so people stop asking me 'what is wrong?' That question gets really boring and costly in energy to perform the mental gymnastics to see it as comfort. (Literally nothing is wrong and nothing is right either why are you asking this oh it's signalling care ayuuup that's the caring onomatopoeia) Humor probably didn't help me communicate to you much. But here's to red underlines making social norms in spelling easy, at least. 8-)


Oh yes, the red underlines!.

So, getting back on topic: How do you think Charlie uses humor to improve his situation here? He was in condition brown early this book, he seems to be stuck in a gardening channel fix around now ...
With regards to the "automagical" contract enforcement versus the "Charlie has to make a claim" issue:

All of the transfers when only shmuckers were at stake happened immediately.

Once GK could not pay in shmuckers, Charlie had to say "I will accept this as the missing shmuckers".

Once Parson got that claim presented to him, he had to answer it right then and there -- he could not get information / ideas from Jack.

This is the automatic magical enforcement of the contract.

Now, please tell me that RedGirl is still OK, and not suffering from this. I'm happy if it's just random, unnamed, unknown catgirls, but if it's a named one that we've been introduced to that is suffering, I'll stop right away.
Holy hell!
keybounce wrote:
With regards to the "automagical" contract enforcement versus the "Charlie has to make a claim" issue:

All of the transfers when only shmuckers were at stake happened immediately.

Once GK could not pay in shmuckers, Charlie had to say "I will accept this as the missing shmuckers".

Once Parson got that claim presented to him, he had to answer it right then and there -- he could not get information / ideas from Jack.

This is the automatic magical enforcement of the contract.

Now, please tell me that RedGirl is still OK, and not suffering from this. I'm happy if it's just random, unnamed, unknown catgirls, but if it's a named one that we've been introduced to that is suffering, I'll stop right away.


I think that the way you've spelled that all out lines up nicely, well put.

I'll check on her and make sure she isn't suffering. :D
spriteless wrote:
keybounce wrote:
Synar wrote:
Umm, you know there is a difference between telling people you believe they are wrong and being an asshole about it ? Especially while discussing what amount to not only webcomic trivia, but freaking details of that trivia on a freaking webcomic forum ?


Actually? ... No, I don't.

Here's the question: Is the determination that you are/are not an asshole something determined by you, or by your reader?

If it's determined by the Author, then the other person is perfectly OK to say that they are not an *hole, no matter how mean they are, and you cannot tell them otherwise.

If it's determined by the reader, then no matter how much you try to be kind in what you are saying, the other person can call you an *hole.

It's simple enough to say that someone is wrong.
It's simple enough to try to use wording that you think will go over well.

But doing it in a way that no one will think you are an *? Sorry, that's a skill that very few people outside of politics, ambassadors, and psychologists develop.

Well at least you admited there are things you don't know, so you're not a narcicist.

It is determined by the aggregate agreement of all allistic participants, usually taking cues off the society they come from and tribal instincts. Allistic is defined as the opposite of autistic. Allistic people are frighteningly good at coming to the same conclusion simultaneously, especially if from similar backgrounds.

I have found the biggest things to understand when communicating with people, are:
1. you don't hurt their pride
1.1 you don't insult their intellegence
1.1.1 calling them wrong isn't an insult in and of itself, as long as you do it without derogitory terms or language, after all
1.1.1.1 except some narcicists combine the worst of both worlds.
1.1.1.1.1 everyone hates these guys try to appear to have as little in common with them as possible.
1.2 no one ever convinced someone of their point of view by condescending
1.2.1 that just marks you as an enemy, to be argued with.
2. Maintain a positive atmosphere.
2.1 So if you feel condenscending, take a few breaths, cool down, and say it while hiding the emotion of superiority.
2.2 Also, self depreciating jokes make almost everyone feel you are on their side.
2.2.1 Which makes allistic people more likely to agree with you.

I'll be honest, I made it an outline because I have no idea how to make all those points in paragraph format.

Also, EVEN AFTER READING 2.2 IT WORKS BWA HA HA! :twisted:



I liked this post enough to make a 3 I feel like this describes donald trump to a tee. Have some smuckers.
What? What part?
Ohh, bump.

Status of RedGirl? Protecting locally important Catgirls is kinda important locally.