|
Eripsa, why is it you think that everyone who has read your three massive threads on the subject and responded all don't understand anything going on in this thread? It's not like this is the first: we've all participated in knocking down these ideas before. Naturally, the third time people aren't going to be as nice about it when you've demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to understand and respond to criticism.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Sep 13, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Not at all. But I think most of you are groupthink idiots who haven't demonstrated a basic comprehension of anything going on in this thread If this is really a concern of yours, you might go back to any of the repeated requests from Jawn, Obdi, Sedan et al to provide specific concrete examples. People are not comprehending because the concept you are proposing is not one which it is possible to comprehend, and it is clearly not one that you yourself comprehend well enough to explain. Like, the basic issue here is that, unless it was buried in one of your 1500-word diatribes, you still have yet to describe a set of human interactions and how strangecoin would affect them. The basic fundamentals have been completely bypassed in favor of wild philosophy with its own undefined lexicon, supplemented by high-handed generalizations and an incredibly ironic disdain for the audience. e: if you truly want to be comprehended, I think the best (and probably only effective) thing you could do would be to take a step back, focus on revising and increasing the specificity of your proposal in the OP. The fact that people are unable to keep track of what's going on in the densest thread in D&D shouldn't come as a surprise, and the onus is on you, the proprietor of the idea, to present it in a legible format and keep the changing proposal maintained to reflect your own changes of heart. Believe it or not, communication is not a one-way street. As for personal attacks: this is the something awful forums, dude. Grow a thick enough skin to deal, or actually make an effort to change what is being criticized. Think before you post. Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Eripsa, why is it you think that everyone who has read your three massive threads on the subject and responded all don't understand anything going on in this thread? It's not like this is the first: we've all participated in knocking down these ideas before. Naturally, the third time people aren't going to be as nice about it when you've demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to understand and respond to criticism. This actually is the first time I've read one of this guy's threads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:I'm still waiting on this complete spec rewrite. I probably won't be able to work on the spec again until Monday, but I fully intend to do so. If I waste your patience in the process, then let me say thank you; it's motivated and inspired me and taught me more than I can hope to articulate. Seriously. If nothing else happens but my own tweaking of your code so I can run some tests, it will have been a profoundly educational experience of exactly the sort that makes me still love these ornery forums so goddamn much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Not at all. But I think most of you are groupthink idiots who haven't demonstrated a basic comprehension of anything going on in this thread, and whose only interest is getting out shots in where you can. It forms the constant background of hostility which fields people like obdicut can launch their more obsessive concern for my identity and existence. This is the third thread in which we've dance the same dance, and to my utter lack of surprise you've shown virtually identical behavior. Are you really surprised that some of us are getting a wee bit tired of the effort of asking valid questions and raising concerns about your feverish thought experiment, only to get back gibberish and/or dismissal in return? Especially when it comes in the form of: quote:I think the most objectively helpful parts of the thread are when others clarify confusions expressed in the thread, or link discussions to similar ones in previous threads, or work through various dystopian possibilities with the proposal, and in general When other people contribite to the development and systematization of the idea. Which presumes that, somehow, the burden is on us to help you flesh out, or shore up as the case may be, the idea in question. You proposed this strangecoin nonsense, you are the one that is responsible for making it make sense. This isn't a research seminar, dude. quote:Amateur psychoanalysis is, you might expect, not particularly productive. Well I'll certainly grant if anyone in this thread is an expert on not being particularly productive, it's you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I probably won't be able to work on the spec again until Monday, but I fully intend to do so. If I waste your patience in the process, then let me say thank you; it's motivated and inspired me and taught me more than I can hope to articulate. Seriously. If nothing else happens but my own tweaking of your code so I can run some tests, it will have been a profoundly educational experience of exactly the sort that makes me still love these ornery forums so goddamn much. Do you understand that putting your nonsense into code doesn't make it any less nonsense? Jawn has tried to tell you this multiple times. There's nothing worth keeping in it. It's kind of an insult to them, who has put far more work into this than you deserve, that you continue to ignore their fundamental critique (which is the same as everyone else's: realize you've been spouting nonsense, abandon your present line of inquiry, educate yourself). woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
The weird part where he cites Adar as someone offering 'interpretation' and how great that is when Adar has been more (hilariously) merciless in his mocking than anyone else. And again the whiplash of "You guys are all groupthinking morons/thank you so much for helping me (even though I ignore the ways that you tell me I'm full of poo poo!)".
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The weird part where he cites Adar as someone offering 'interpretation' and how great that is when Adar has been more (hilariously) merciless in his mocking than anyone else. Yeah, that is truly bizarre. Eripsa, I've said it before and no doubt you'll ignore it again this time but seriously: you are too drat personally invested in this idea. Please, please, please; step back, take a breath or two, and at least try to consider this entire thing on its own merits alone, separate from how much of a digital pioneer or whatever you feel for having thought it up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Eripsa, why is it you think that everyone who has read your three massive threads on the subject and responded all don't understand anything going on in this thread? It's not like this is the first: we've all participated in knocking down these ideas before. Naturally, the third time people aren't going to be as nice about it when you've demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to understand and respond to criticism. I'm thinking explicitly of this post: Little Blackfly posted:So what I'm understanding now is that strangecoin is a model meant to simulate and explicitly quantify cognitive biases in human social relations. To what ends exactly? Will it tell me exactly to what degree Emden is a Nazi? What do you expect these patterns you observe to reveal in terms of new information or insight? After dealing thoroughly with his criticism, he realizes that there are critical aspects of the theory beyond the interpretation he had been entertaining. Upon realizing this, he asks a question that was covered 30 pages ago. And this is a person whose raised one of the most detailed criticisms in the entire thread. I'm not saying the theory is complete, but there's nevertheless a clear gap between the material I've laid out and the thread's comprehension of that material. I know I know it's incoherent and incomprehensible; all I'm saying is that it helps when sone of the constructive thread content is coming from other people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not saying the theory is complete, but there's nevertheless a clear gap between the material I've laid out and the thread's comprehension of that material. I know I know it's incoherent and incomprehensible; all I'm saying is that it helps when sone of the constructive thread content is coming from other people.  Again: the best thing you can do is condense all of the criticisms you have absorbed Borg-style into the spec and keep an updated version of it somewhere, so that questions like "hey so if I can pay one billion trillion Strange Coins to you Tuesday for a hamburger today, why do endorsements matter in the slightest" can be answered by looking at a reference instead of trawling the short novel that is this thread. Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Hmm I wonder, if it was incoherent and incomprehensible, was it really covered 30 pages ago? If a tree of RA posts falls down in a forest, does anyone understand? Can anyone understand?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Which presumes that, somehow, the burden is on us to help you flesh out, or shore up as the case may be, the idea in question. You proposed this strangecoin nonsense, you are the one that is responsible for making it make sense. This isn't a research seminar, dude. The burden? I'm asking for help on an idea I can't work out on my own. I'm not putting any burden on you. The door is right there dude. Obdicut posted:The weird part where he cites Adar as someone offering 'interpretation' and how great that is when Adar has been more (hilariously) merciless in his mocking than anyone else. Interpretation can be critical and constructive. Adar's one-liners have been some of the most insightful and entertaining analysis in the thread. I'm not asking for you all to be friendly; be merciless. But focus the analysis on the proposal and not my mental health, kthx.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
I certainly found these statements by Adar insightful: quote:I know you were searching for something, anything to throw at the wall, but coming up with "oh by the way in some sense it's also a property abolition vehicle" is genuinely dumb even on the scale of your theories. ... quote:Eripsa in the middle of your incoherent raving about the multitude of things you don't understand have you ever actually tried to sit down and think of a single one of the real world implications ... quote:Eripsa, while you've been skimming past the 500,000 posts from all sorts of professionals explaining how terrible your ideas are, has your reaction been that they might have a point or is it that you are simply a misunderstood genius who is on the cusp of transforming the world and the other advanced degree holders ITT are simply too blind to see it? ... quote:You are literally proposing that a specific economic theory "provides tools" for solving economic problems and then stating the fact that you don't understand economics is not an indictment of your theory. ... quote:Your impression is wrong; your proposal itself is generating this ire because it's terrible. The cognitive disabilities you're exhibiting are the reason we think it's funny enough to keep posting. ... quote:If you ignore the word salad and incoherent babbling your proposal as stated in this thread (and this thread only) is making what is already there much more complicated and also hyperinflationary and murderous, but doesn't contain anything unknown to economics. ... quote:Unless Strangecoinland is also full of immortals you are literally retarded if you believe this. ... quote:and now we're once again back to "this is exactly the same as any other economic system except the parts where I wave my hand around and say it's not"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The burden? I'm asking for help on an idea I can't work out on my own. I'm not putting any burden on you. The door is right there dude. That's no door, that's the dripping cloaca of the Singularity itself. None of us can leave.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Two thoughts: First, Strangecoin has more of a technical focus than Attention Economy, but it still falls short of a real, implementable proposal as JawnV6's attempts have shown. What you think is a concise, technical proposal is wildly different than what actually is a concise technical proposal. I think that if you sat down and spent some time prototyping your ideas in actual programming code, then it'd become clearer to you what kind of things you need to think about in your proposal and which parts you need to communicate. In my experience, when we approach a big problem with lots of uncertain areas, its usually instructive to sit down and bang out a prototype, then throw it away and make a second pass once the domain is better understood. This next one is about you personally. I am not trying to attack you. I genuinely want to see you succeed, so please take this as offered in good faith. You call us idiots that don't understand your proposal, but the onus is on you to actually communicate your ideas in a manner that is clear to lay-people (which is what we are on this forum, in aggregate). I used to get really upset by people not understanding what I was saying, and considered them idiots. But after getting some mentoring and coaching, it became apparent that *I* was actually the idiot; I was vomiting out whatever came to my head without regards to my audience or understandability. My mentor made it clear that the onus was on me to effectively communicate my thoughts, and made it understood that I would need to put more effort into organizing them before engaging with other people. My career prospects and personal reviews really took off after those talks, and I was suddenly able to influence engineering and policy in my organization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not saying the theory is complete, but there's nevertheless a clear gap between the material I've laid out and the thread's comprehension of that material. I know I know it's incoherent and incomprehensible; all I'm saying is that it helps when sone of the constructive thread content is coming from other people. It is incoherent because it is garbage. The thread comprehends what you're saying better than you do, and that's why we all reject it: because we've taken pieces, applied critical thinking and analyzed their assumptions, and found them fatally flawed. You keep acting like the means are good, the end is good, we just have to figure out how we assemble them like it's a puzzle you haven't quite put together yet. But it's not: people are telling you that these parts do not go together, they do not do what you claim they do, and that your end goal is frequently an absolute nightmare no sane person would ever want. For those criticisms, you stick your fingers in your ears and produce word salad, and act like they're saying you've just not elaborated enough on how the means you've decided to use will get us to the ends you've decided you want. But that's not what anyone is saying, and you absolutely refuse to listen to that sort of criticism. The issue is that you're trying to build a grand unified theory of society while disdaining the idea of putting in the effort of understanding the workings. You give learning the details lip service, but even when doing that you don't get it. You learn the details, then you assemble a theory. You're inverting it so however loudly you claim that you understand details are important you just don't get it. Before you design a plane you need to know how aerodynamics and lift work, material science, and all those other hugely important details. You're going yes, yes, but here is the plane design now let's all explain how you're going to do all those things so that the plane flies. That's not how it works. You understand what goes into making a plane, and then you make the plane. You don't have any conception of the building blocks of your theory. You also have an incredibly bad habit of using "examples", where a real-world situation, if you squint at it, is vaguely like what you want to have happen. But you never actually understand those examples so you can never apply the right lessons and so when people dig into the example they always find that you're wrong. The reason is you're intellectually lazy: you start with what you want to believe, then grasp the first thing that supports that. Because you're going from "here is what I believe" to "here is evidence for that", you're never rigorously working from the bottom up and you're always wrong. If you were working, correctly, by understanding the basics and building up from that this would not keep happening. When you do that, you don't pick random examples that wind up having nothing to do with what you're trying to prove and actually prove the opposite. This intellectual laziness is what gets people so irritated with you, because people put in the effort to understand and you just sort of blather on and don't put in critical thinking or real effort. Part of intellectual rigor and part of the hard part about thinking is being able to realize you are wrong, and actually throw it out and start over. You've vaguely heard that is a thing and parrot it (going so far as to claim that's what you've done), but everyone here can see you didn't. You just changed the way you're trying to describe something but at no point (as you've admitted) will you even consider the idea the whole framework is garbage. That's not realizing you're wrong and starting over: that's slapping a new layer of paint on poo poo and seeing if it's now not poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
I do find it a bit funny to be bothered by personal criticisms after proposing a system for completely replacing the world's economic, financial, social, and personal systems of human interaction. Marx has been brought up - his ideas and the (mis)understanding of them were a direct influence on a 50-year nuclear standoff on a global scale. If Strangecoin were effective at modeling a tenth of the interactions you hope it does, you'd be touching on things that directly threaten the assets of billionaires. You'd be the next Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden x10 and at best you'd have international media criticism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
I can't decide whether to feel bad or to die laughing I guess that's what happens when a bad idea has my undivided attention do I make all the moneys?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Marx has been brought up - his ideas and the (mis)understanding of them were a direct influence on a 50-year nuclear standoff on a global scale. And Marx is still vilified by wide swaths of people living in capitalist nations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
You're going to make eripsa think that criticism of his ideas means he's the next marx 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You're going to make eripsa think that criticism of his ideas means he's the next marx How would that be different than his current view of his ideas?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:By the way the founder of Belua just confirmed to be in attendance at the hangout tonight. Lolol. How did this work out, by the way? lolol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
ryde posted:How would that be different than his current view of his ideas? evilweasel posted:You're going to make eripsa think that criticism of his ideas means he's the next marx Don't be silly, Marx never even had an iPhone and as such was an incomplete human being
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Sorry, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I've had to jump on a plane for a family thing, and I've been on planes, trains, and automobiles for the last 36 hours straight. I'm posting from my phone, on the road in the middle of Idaho. Life happens. RealityApologist posted:** Personal note, was on a plane for most of the day and will be in a car for most of the night. I'm not abandoning the thread, but life sometimes happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You're going to make eripsa think that criticism of his ideas means he's the next marx If we could make him think things, we'd be halfway there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:I do find it a bit funny to be bothered by personal criticisms after proposing a system for completely replacing the world's economic, financial, social, and personal systems of human interaction. I'm not bothered by it, or I wouldn't be here. But it makes the conversation much more difficult than it would be otherwise, and the standards demanded of my posting are that much higher. Again, you all seem to think that only a genius demigod is worthy of considering these ideas publicly, and that I should be ashamed of the hubris I've displayed by entertaining the thought in a comedy forum. I mean lol. I'm not bothered but the deep irony of the criticisms thrown at me is certainly necessary for interpreting the thread, and I'm just pointing it out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Don't be silly, Marx never even had an iPhone and as such was an incomplete human being Marx died trying to graft a cotton gin onto his arm and was probably history's third cyborg so I expect that he feels a kinship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not bothered by it, or I wouldn't be here. But it makes the conversation much more difficult than it would be otherwise, and the standards demanded of my posting are that much higher. The fact that you think understanding basic details requires being a "genius demigod" is why you're intellectually lazy and the idea you think it's everyone else that doesn't understand what you're saying is so hilarious. Yes, people expect you to have the faintest idea about what you're talking about 150 pages into the subject when you've repeatedly insulted the intelligence of everyone criticizing your idea who have proven you wrong innumerable times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Again, you all seem to think that only a genius demigod is worthy of considering these ideas publicly, and that I should be ashamed of the hubris I've displayed by entertaining the thought in a comedy forum. I could posit an economy run on Hawaiian shirts and the sliding scale of alcoholism and have a better response than you because when people point out that my economic model would get ruined by sweaty drunk driving I could at least recognize that the idea is a failure and move on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not bothered by it, or I wouldn't be here. But it makes the conversation much more difficult than it would be otherwise, and the standards demanded of my posting are that much higher. Ah yes, "knowing anything at all about what you're talking about = being a genius demigod." You sure got us there, what absurdly high standards we've required of you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not bothered by it, or I wouldn't be here. But it makes the conversation much more difficult than it would be otherwise, and the standards demanded of my posting are that much higher. The issue is that you are "considering ideas" in the same way that a blind man might consider colors, except that you're not blind, you just haven't opened your eyes. You don't seem to have any actual grounding in the subject matter, but instead of finding that grounding, are trying to have a "conversation" about it. Do you see how that does not add any value to anyone, including yourself, as you don't even have enough knowledge to understand the ways in which you are fundamentally wrong?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yes, people expect you to have the faintest idea about what you're talking about 150 pages into the subject when you've repeatedly insulted the intelligence of everyone criticizing your idea who have proven you wrong innumerable times. Especially when you've compared yourself to loving Marx.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Again, you all seem to think that only a genius demigod is worthy of considering these ideas publicly, and that I should be ashamed of the hubris I've displayed by entertaining the thought in a comedy forum. That's not what people are saying. You need to come down off your cross there. They're saying that you haven't developed your ideas to the point where there can be useful discussion of them. They're also saying that what you do have you do not communicate well. No one is saying that you have to be a genius or perfect or whatever to discuss ideas, or else nearly all the posters here would already be banned (myself included). The hubris comes from things you've actually said that demonstrate hubris, like calling your detractors idiots, comparing yourself to chemists in a world of alchemists, saying that you want to give economists new tools despite not understanding the existing tools, etc. You throw in a "But no, I don't think I'm awesome, I'm actually not that great" once in a while, but it rings hollow because you're still wedded to the thought of your ideas being some sort of new, paradigm-shifting system and you actively refuse to limit your scope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not bothered by it, or I wouldn't be here. But it makes the conversation much more difficult than it would be otherwise, and the standards demanded of my posting are that much higher. No. You would likely need to be a genius with an excellent founding in multiple disciplines to have a chance of succeeding in having a good idea. You certainly don't need to be a genius to consider such issues and ideas. Everybody in this thread has already done so- we considered the specific ideas you put forward and found them to be unmitigated garbage. You shouldn't be ashamed of thinking about such things, and if you want to create a thread where people huff farts and talk about possible systems for post-scarcity economics then so be it. But this isn't that thread, and the notion that the first half-baked idea you came up with is actually going to be a good means of radically revising all human social and organizational systems is spectacular hubris that should provoke equally spectacular feelings of shame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:and that I should be ashamed of the hubris I've displayed by entertaining the thought in a comedy forum. If this is just a comedy forum then why the gently caress are you so upset that we're making fun of you. That's the point of a comedy forum. And if you expected otherwise, then stop calling this a comedy forum. This is like the fifth time I've had to explain how the tone of your posts is contradictory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
I'm Quantum Boy. As Quantum Boy, I occupy many places at once. I want your advice, but giving me advice is bullying. I'm admittedly incoherent, but insist that I've "explained plenty." I call myself a crank and laugh off my own proposals as only being fit for a comedy forum, but keep comparing myself to intellectual pioneers. What's my superpower? In examining me, you change me bro.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I mean lol. I'm not bothered but the deep irony of the criticisms thrown at me is certainly necessary for interpreting the thread, and I'm just pointing it out. You're so incompetent that even your attempted reversal of fortune is unfounded, pompous, and displays a profound lack of fundamental understanding of the concepts you wish to talk about. You're not just confident in your own abilities, you're incapable of self-assessment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Eripsa, all I can say is that if you find this thread to be unfair and bullying, I don't think academia is for you. If you presented these ideas, in this format, at any of the big politics/philosophy/law conferences, you would be absolutely torn apart. On methodology, theoretical framework and ability to effectively engage with criticism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
quote:giving me advice is bullying. This digression started by simply trying to identifying the vitriolic bullying, hostile misinterpretation, and character assassination I have to cope with in this thread. Not to avoid the criticisms but to explain how difficult the rhetorical situation is and how much it contributes to the confusion and misunderstandings in this thread. None of you so much as acknowledge this situation or the difficulty it poses or the ways your posts have made it worse. And then you expect me to interpret your hostility as a thorough and adequate refutation. This is discursively unreasonable. If I didn't know any better I'd think you actually want me to stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Sep 13, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
You contribute to 99% of the confusion in this thread by posting page after page of nonsensical bullshit and ignoring the majority of legitimate criticism. It would be great if you could replace that with coherent and concise argumentation, but then you'd be submitting that to a journal instead of posting it here. I'm still waiting to you to make a single coherent statement about inhibition. I actually have an idea what you might be thinking. You probably have some vague idea that StrangeCoiners would voluntarily inhibit their income during periods of peak earning to contribute to TUA, possibly avoid hitting their balance cap and gaining ecred or whatever. The problem is that you forgot to actually state this anywhere or posit any plausible mechanism for earning this epeen. You're probably imagining someone walking into Strangemart with a sparkling gold badge indicating their recent generous contributions to TUA and the health of the StrangeCoin network. Again, this is all in your imagination and not actually part of your proposal. Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:11
|
|