ZIG skrev:Meget meget morsomt, dreamz!
Og jeg er glad for, at du orker at fortsætte vores diskussion, for jeg synes, at Nerds er blevet et meget kedeligt sted, hvor der egentlig ikke sker noget.
Det lykkes dig i dit indlæg at illustrere, at min position er absurd. Det gør du ved hjælp af retoriske kneb, der er ganske virksomme og slutresultatet står ved magt!
Men rent logisk har du ikke bevist noget som helst. Så jeg vil vende tilbage til logikken.
Signalering er en meget kompliceret affære.We seem to give more attention to the signals we send, vs. interpreting the signals of others. For example, we think more about what we will wear than about the judgements we form based on what other people wear.....
For our distant forager ancestors, their most important public speaking probably happened in situations where they were being accused, and needed to defend themselves. Since the generic accusation behind any specific accusation was that one wasn’t doing enough overall for the band, and maybe should be exiled or killed, our ancestors should have been eager to collect examples of the help they have given, especially unheralded help. So we may have inherited a habit of doing helpful things, and not calling attention to them, but remembering them so we could mention them later if called on to defend ourselves.
More generally, our ancestors probably acquired the habit of consciously thinking about actions that others were likely to challenge or criticize. They’d continually come up with explanations of what they did and why, and be ready to tell those stories, even if they didn’t actually have to explain or justify most of them. And because they were rarely asked to justify or explain the judgements they made about others, they didn’t get into as much of a habit of explaining those.
This theory predicts that we in fact give just as much mental attention to buying as to selling, and just as much to interpreting signals as to sending signals, because these are in fact on average equally as important to us. But we give a lot more conscious attention to the side that needs to be explained, because that is what consciousness is about – consciousness helps much less to make decisions than to explain and justify them.
(Robin Hanson @overcoming bias)
Så, altså, ifølge Robin og Zig har du f.eks. dreamz ikke priviligeret adgang til dine motivationer. Du kan sige en helt masse om dem - men talens egentlige formål er den offentlige modtagelse (med andre ord PR) fremfor en dyberegående selvransagelse.
Som udenforstående har jeg faktisk bedre mulighed for at gætte mig frem til den egentlige motivation, end du selv har - (hvis nu jeg er sådan en særling der går op i andres signaller mere end mine egne).
Zig
Gad vide, om den forklaring havde tilfredsstillet vores forfædre, eller om Zig og Robin var endt på hver sin stage....
God ide med noget Patti Smith, Macwerk! Pissin in a river har jeg godt nok ikke hørt i umindelige tider.
Mens jeg endnu gik alene og konfliktramt hjemme tidligere på dagen, havde jeg den her på:
Michael Formanek: The Rub and Spare Change (2010)
(betyder hvad, Zig?)
En rigtig ECM'er - suveræne musikere, der maler landskaber
