💀 I know it takes energy but I'll probably keep arguing. What I've found is that I now choose who I argue with and on what.
Maybe aging helps me filter/decide better.
I think the self censoring comes with age tbh. It might make you seem less authentic when you write, but I think it just means you get to be more objective and clear in how you communicate.
Which works if you're speaking to a diverse mix I guess.
Glad you're writing again in a way that let's you sound like you. 🤗
My favourite excerpt is something I've been thinking about lately:
"I used to have an authentic online voice. It was a bad voice, to be sure, but it was authentic; the sort of outcome where when people read something by you, they could tell you wrote it.
I neutered my writing voice to blend with the homogeneous stew of thought leadership, and I frankly think this may have been my greatest mistake in life.
Because I write in a deliberately-constrained way, I have lost all interest in writing or self-expression, since I don’t even sound like myself even to me."
_____________
Writing in an industry that has its own distinct tone has a way of crowding out your own distinct tone, and I fear I don't write enough in my own voice to me to still retain some semblance of authenticity. Maybe this'll be the kick up my butt I needed.
Glad to see you writing, I came straight here from the pod (ISWIS). I resonated with your experience as a first child and hoping to learn more from your experiences. I have always struggled with experiencing myself. I wonder if I ever could attain this EMS level of self-awareness and self-consciousness
like Ese, I don't think I'll give up on arguing either. but my music industry friends forced me to evolve past arguing all that time. their world is vibes-first vs my obsession with precision, so I had to learn to reframe my arguments as "manipulative" questions("yes and" kinda things). Even with that, I'm still selective with who I argue with. You'd hardly see me argue with a conflict-avoidant person, but will readily jump in the ring with a fellow disagreeable.
Oh, and for overthinking, I'm usually just like "oya, what are we going to do?".
On blending in and doing due diligence on beliefs:
I read something a while ago, and I'll try to explain the author's point as best as I can because I think it applies here. He described 3 types of issues: primary, secondary, and tertiary.
- Tertiary issues are ones that you should care less about; they're the ones you should avoid over-deliberating.
- Secondary issues carry some weight, but they aren't as critical. For these, you want to listen to the best advocates of either side of an argument/belief and subscribe to the one that resonates most with you.
- Primary issues, however, demand your due diligence because they're deeply important to you.
I know you're were discussing beliefs, but I hope this framework helps filter which ones are worth your energy.
thanks, though what you've suggested doesn't look like a framework to me.
how do you assign weights to issues? for example, you say "tertiary issues are ones you should care less about", which just kicks the can further down the road, because now my question is: "how do you know what you should care less about? how do you decide that?"
a real framework would answer that. this is just chaining definitions without bringing clarity.
my post above at least presents a framework for deciding what you should reduce fixation on: things you do not have the direct power to change, like the economy or war.
Ah, thanks. It appears I have some new pondering to do.
It sufficed for me, because my rule of thumb for assigning weight depended on what was genuinely interesting to me. Topics like abortion, which carry some societal weight but do not directly impact, are classified as secondary issues. In such a case, I listen to the best advocates of the conversation. Now, who I consider the best advocates, well, is another conversation.
I've also become comfortable knowing I can't have an opinion on everything; thus, not everything should bother me. I think the term I'm looking for is rational ignorance.
if you assign a lower weight to the topic of abortion, how does that affect what weight you assign to body autonomy overall? and to considerations about big versus small governments? to my mind, they're all inexorably linked, but i'm curious to see how you make the distinction.
I can't help but think that I'm engaged in the Socratic method here, and you're Socrates. Hehe!
I agree that some conversations, such as abortion and self-autonomy, are tightly linked, but I also think I have less to grapple with because I'm a man.
I'm for self-autonomy; however, I understand that there could be societal consequences for my actions. Let's say I decide to waste my youth (my life, my choice!), I should also be aware that I might become unemployable. "Type shi" (sorry...)
Abortion is a bit nuanced: there's a life involved, and I have a fundamental belief that no child should be brought into the world to suffer (serious medical issues) if it can be helped. But I think all the circumstances that led up to that moment are also important to consider – especially if it's a case of rape. However, until I'm in a situation where it directly impacts me, I can't affirm I have any solid stand yet.
I'm not familiar with the debate of big vs small governments. A quick Google search explained it "centers around the appropriate role and size of the state in a society." Is this what you're asking?
waiting until something impacts you to have thoughts is, to me...not very good. we have the ability, as human beings, to engage in thought experiments to study the downstream effects of present-day events. the thought experiments are necessarily lossy, but they often go into tangible things (such as policy: you may not be directly affected, but the broader implication of a local decision can affect you in a broader, global category).
also i struggle to understand why the fact that 'abortion' doesn't affect you directly means you should assign it less weight. it may be misplaced empathy on my part, but abortion laws affect the women in my life: my mother, sisters, and romantic partners. it even affects me directly—because i am a potential father, hypothetically and en realite. the laws governing who owns the fetus (human: pro-choice; government: pro-life) detail complex reams of interaction between entities and systems, and it'd be a mistake to assume it doesn't affect you at all.
'rape' is a small subset of the issue, but i notice people fixate on it because it satisfies their moral bent ("oh if she was raped she had no choice in the conception, so she can abort only in this circumstance" is just a long-winded way of saying "women should have no choice, period").
i've argued this extensively on twitter before, and i'm always struck by how simple the arguments people make are.
Ah, my good man. You have raised multiple salient points, and I agree with them. But unlike you, this is my first argument on the matter; as you can see, I've not given it a lot of thought.
I'll bookmark this and return to reply when I have. I hope you'll still be willing to tug it out by then – and just maybe, we'd have arrived at the same conclusion.
Sweetie, I am you in your 70’s. Your understanding of yourself is most likely correct from a historical perspective however, please try your best to veer away and off of this limited one-way track for at least (I’m just guessing on a number) five hours a day, every single day, to appreciate and live in a “larger” world.
i'll keep that in mind, though i wish you'd actually tell me what it means to "live" in a larger world, and what you think, from reading my piece, suggests i'm living in a "small" world.
💀 I know it takes energy but I'll probably keep arguing. What I've found is that I now choose who I argue with and on what.
Maybe aging helps me filter/decide better.
I think the self censoring comes with age tbh. It might make you seem less authentic when you write, but I think it just means you get to be more objective and clear in how you communicate.
Which works if you're speaking to a diverse mix I guess.
Glad you're writing again in a way that let's you sound like you. 🤗
Plus we all like being precise.
haha, thank you so much ese. and yes, i hope i can rediscover my original voice and writing becomes less of a chore.
how are you these days?
My favourite excerpt is something I've been thinking about lately:
"I used to have an authentic online voice. It was a bad voice, to be sure, but it was authentic; the sort of outcome where when people read something by you, they could tell you wrote it.
I neutered my writing voice to blend with the homogeneous stew of thought leadership, and I frankly think this may have been my greatest mistake in life.
Because I write in a deliberately-constrained way, I have lost all interest in writing or self-expression, since I don’t even sound like myself even to me."
_____________
Writing in an industry that has its own distinct tone has a way of crowding out your own distinct tone, and I fear I don't write enough in my own voice to me to still retain some semblance of authenticity. Maybe this'll be the kick up my butt I needed.
Glad to see you writing, I came straight here from the pod (ISWIS). I resonated with your experience as a first child and hoping to learn more from your experiences. I have always struggled with experiencing myself. I wonder if I ever could attain this EMS level of self-awareness and self-consciousness
thank you! (also—what does EMS mean?)
Eternal Mangekyo Sharingan 🤣
LOOOOOOOL OMFG
🤣🤣🤣🤣 although I am a bit curious as to what you thought it meant
lol honestly i drew blanks. i assumed EMS was an arcane hierarchy of spiritual awareness, so i wanted to see if i could read up on it.
LMAO.. that was the only reference that came to mind while typing the comment at the time. I just went with the flow.😅
like Ese, I don't think I'll give up on arguing either. but my music industry friends forced me to evolve past arguing all that time. their world is vibes-first vs my obsession with precision, so I had to learn to reframe my arguments as "manipulative" questions("yes and" kinda things). Even with that, I'm still selective with who I argue with. You'd hardly see me argue with a conflict-avoidant person, but will readily jump in the ring with a fellow disagreeable.
Oh, and for overthinking, I'm usually just like "oya, what are we going to do?".
Another Banger!!!
Oooh thank you.
On blending in and doing due diligence on beliefs:
I read something a while ago, and I'll try to explain the author's point as best as I can because I think it applies here. He described 3 types of issues: primary, secondary, and tertiary.
- Tertiary issues are ones that you should care less about; they're the ones you should avoid over-deliberating.
- Secondary issues carry some weight, but they aren't as critical. For these, you want to listen to the best advocates of either side of an argument/belief and subscribe to the one that resonates most with you.
- Primary issues, however, demand your due diligence because they're deeply important to you.
I know you're were discussing beliefs, but I hope this framework helps filter which ones are worth your energy.
thanks, though what you've suggested doesn't look like a framework to me.
how do you assign weights to issues? for example, you say "tertiary issues are ones you should care less about", which just kicks the can further down the road, because now my question is: "how do you know what you should care less about? how do you decide that?"
a real framework would answer that. this is just chaining definitions without bringing clarity.
my post above at least presents a framework for deciding what you should reduce fixation on: things you do not have the direct power to change, like the economy or war.
Ah, thanks. It appears I have some new pondering to do.
It sufficed for me, because my rule of thumb for assigning weight depended on what was genuinely interesting to me. Topics like abortion, which carry some societal weight but do not directly impact, are classified as secondary issues. In such a case, I listen to the best advocates of the conversation. Now, who I consider the best advocates, well, is another conversation.
I've also become comfortable knowing I can't have an opinion on everything; thus, not everything should bother me. I think the term I'm looking for is rational ignorance.
Still, I have some pondering to do.
this is a good example, thank you.
if you assign a lower weight to the topic of abortion, how does that affect what weight you assign to body autonomy overall? and to considerations about big versus small governments? to my mind, they're all inexorably linked, but i'm curious to see how you make the distinction.
I can't help but think that I'm engaged in the Socratic method here, and you're Socrates. Hehe!
I agree that some conversations, such as abortion and self-autonomy, are tightly linked, but I also think I have less to grapple with because I'm a man.
I'm for self-autonomy; however, I understand that there could be societal consequences for my actions. Let's say I decide to waste my youth (my life, my choice!), I should also be aware that I might become unemployable. "Type shi" (sorry...)
Abortion is a bit nuanced: there's a life involved, and I have a fundamental belief that no child should be brought into the world to suffer (serious medical issues) if it can be helped. But I think all the circumstances that led up to that moment are also important to consider – especially if it's a case of rape. However, until I'm in a situation where it directly impacts me, I can't affirm I have any solid stand yet.
I'm not familiar with the debate of big vs small governments. A quick Google search explained it "centers around the appropriate role and size of the state in a society." Is this what you're asking?
yeah, that's what i'm asking.
waiting until something impacts you to have thoughts is, to me...not very good. we have the ability, as human beings, to engage in thought experiments to study the downstream effects of present-day events. the thought experiments are necessarily lossy, but they often go into tangible things (such as policy: you may not be directly affected, but the broader implication of a local decision can affect you in a broader, global category).
also i struggle to understand why the fact that 'abortion' doesn't affect you directly means you should assign it less weight. it may be misplaced empathy on my part, but abortion laws affect the women in my life: my mother, sisters, and romantic partners. it even affects me directly—because i am a potential father, hypothetically and en realite. the laws governing who owns the fetus (human: pro-choice; government: pro-life) detail complex reams of interaction between entities and systems, and it'd be a mistake to assume it doesn't affect you at all.
'rape' is a small subset of the issue, but i notice people fixate on it because it satisfies their moral bent ("oh if she was raped she had no choice in the conception, so she can abort only in this circumstance" is just a long-winded way of saying "women should have no choice, period").
i've argued this extensively on twitter before, and i'm always struck by how simple the arguments people make are.
Ah, my good man. You have raised multiple salient points, and I agree with them. But unlike you, this is my first argument on the matter; as you can see, I've not given it a lot of thought.
I'll bookmark this and return to reply when I have. I hope you'll still be willing to tug it out by then – and just maybe, we'd have arrived at the same conclusion.
Sweetie, I am you in your 70’s. Your understanding of yourself is most likely correct from a historical perspective however, please try your best to veer away and off of this limited one-way track for at least (I’m just guessing on a number) five hours a day, every single day, to appreciate and live in a “larger” world.
i'll keep that in mind, though i wish you'd actually tell me what it means to "live" in a larger world, and what you think, from reading my piece, suggests i'm living in a "small" world.