Sabitlenmiş Tweet
John Nerst ✈️Berkeley/SF Mar 31 to Apr 7!
7.8K posts
John Nerst ✈️Berkeley/SF Mar 31 to Apr 7!
@everytstudies
aspiring erisologist ("the study of disagreement and intellectual difference") | Author of "Competitive Sensemaking" (https://t.co/0zc8p9EBAR)
Katılım Mart 2017
1.1K Takip Edilen4.1K Takipçiler
@obversers Doubt that in this case:)
English
@everytstudies maybe it's a subtle trick assertion, a brainteaser. he didn't say *listening* to an audiobook, just its existence, and he only said *picking up* a book, not reading it.
English
This is such a funny debate. Wdym "count as"? Counts for what purpose? In what context? (Narcissistic brownie points obviously but that's dumb in the first place).
On an unrelated note: check out chapter 10 in my book Competitive Sensemaking (link in profile), about what it means for a thing to "count as" something socially.
Shane Donovan@SDDonovan
Hot take! Audiobooks do NOT count as "reading" the same way picking up a book does.
English
@myhandle I know how you feel. x.com/everytstudies/…
John Nerst ✈️Berkeley/SF Mar 31 to Apr 7!@everytstudies
The sequel trilogy is so illustrative of boomer radicalism. It desperately wants to continue being the underdog rebelling against the oppressors that they more or less just ignore that they won in the previous movie and larp on. If the prequel trilogy was about democracy collapsing, and the OT about rebelling against the Empire, what should the final third be about? How to handle power responsibly, of course. But that would require growing up.
English
this random nonsense I fired off two hours past my bedtime has gotten more views in 24 hours than my two blogs, which I've poured thousands of hours into, have accumulated in a decade
Jakeup@myhandle
if you eat pussy may as well start drinking and smoking, yolo
English
That moment just *before* you drink the coffee
English
Proud to announce that in one week I'll be on a long flight to California to be an advisor at Inkhaven (inkhaven.blog)! Looking forward to meeting a lot of interesting people.
English
It's funny with this passage... for a second, as a rhetorical flourish, I decide to inhabit the mind of censors (actual villains) in order to actually live the perspective-taking ethos my book is built around, and more than once it leads to people (not Peter) thinking I genuinely support censorship.
Peter Boghossian@peterboghossian
English
@gibransghost @everytstudies, @fratrik
Unusually blatant cat couplings here.
(Not commenting on the content, just the structure of the argument.)
English
If you measured a shitload of stuff on people's bodies (and minds) I'd wager you'd get a pretty relevant first principal component.
Danni@DanniBrener
Quick question to everyone out there who believes that sex is a bimodal distribution…. What are the labels on the axes of the graph that creates this bimodal distribution?
English
@yavanikashah Nice. Would you elaborate in similar detail on what it means to think in emotional webs?
English
Coming back to that whole “boy brain vs girl brain” debate - I’ve cracked something that lowkey saves relationships daily:
Men don’t think in emotional webs, they think in tickets. Like… full corporate workflow.
You hint = not logged
You sulk = unclear requirements
You say “it’s fine” = ticket closed
Ladies, if you want peace, stop being Shakespeare. Be product manager.
File CLEAR JIRA tickets:
“Call me.”
“Plan the date.”
“Compliment me before I start a fight.”
And if he loves you? That ticket becomes HIGH PRIORITY, auto-renew, no deadline missed.
Men don’t ignore you. They just didn’t see the task. Meanwhile you’re running a full emotional Netflix series in your head.
Love is not complicated; it’s just good communication + project management skills
English
@backtothepulse @prinkasusa It's nice to see harmless examples 😁
English
@prinkasusa Funnily im reading the chapter about polysemy right now and this appeared 🤷♀️🤷🤷♂️😂@everytstudies
English
@jdoyleDoyle1 Fair enough, I just don't find it much of a problem that people do this too much.
English
@everytstudies The only thing I said about the starting-point was it shouldn’t assume the impossibility of one side entirely being in the right & the other in the wrong. That’s consistent with everything you’ve said
English
Considering that the opposite problem of jumping straight to "my enemies are just wrong and bad" is far more common, that should in fact be the starting point, and when you've understood the opposition in enough detail from that vantage point, you may declare them full of shit.
Jimmy Doyle@jdoyleDoyle1
The standing assumption that there *has* to be *some* insight on both sides of a dispute, that it *never* happens that one side has just comprehensively shat the bed, is a core element of every superficial person’s conception of depth
English
I'm guessing 10 pages in Word is too much for a substack post, right?
English
Any sufficiently unfamiliar narrative is indistinguishable from derangement.
English
@brianluidog Adding "compulsively" to only one side seems unprincipled.
English
I suspect a rule like this just might incentivize people to call every single thing they want a human right but idk
𝗁𝗈𝗈𝖽 𝗅𝗈𝗋𝖽 𝖿𝖺𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖺𝖺𝖽💂🏾♂️@hoodfarquaad
this applies to stuff like “pancakes or waffles” not human rights btw
English