There’s an older joke about being able to afford things that might put this into light for you; “I wish I had the money to afford an expensive Italian sports car. I don’t want to buy one, I just want to be able to afford it.”
makes sense. i’m coming to see how people do this, but it’s still baffling to me.
by ‘this’ i mean socially affirming each-other, rather than trying to interact with the issue in any way. not just as preferred, but as a forced exclusive.
also legitimately sorry that i can’t compress the whole picture to a quick quip.
but what i meant by my comment was as much asserting that the comment being downvoted to oblivion was possibly more misinterpreted in intent and meaning than their own interaction with OP’s meme.
i see it as low dimensional communication exacerbating the size of blindspots for the whole of what is being communicated, because everyone is trying to reduce the energy consumption of language by socially affirming heuristics built on salient preference. this can be mapped to first principles from friston’s free energy principle, into active inference. MITpress has a good textbook for it, although there’s been a lot of new work since then. those who don’t naturally share that preference become ‘wrong’ for communicating what they could interpret without having that same importance given tothings they might not think about, like social ego stroking over just interacting with the concept sans ego.
more commonly, people are becoming familiar with the ‘double empathy problem’
basically a context and language equivalent to yelling at the autistic kid for not making levels of eye contact that they find painfully intimate and uncomfortable. yes, the local community can think eye contact is ‘just having basic manners’ or ‘just being a decent person,’ but forcing them to do it, and creating a majority salient confirmation bubble chastising them for not doing it constantly and confidently is salt in the wound.
again, thank you for reading this far if you has. none of this is accusatory towards anyone, just an honest attempt at noting current popular communication failures and how to frame them.
the double empathy problem also applies to most predictive models projecting in differently socialized spaces. it’s good for people to comprehend.
And I do see the points that you’re making and I do agree with them on the whole. The problem is that you’re stating those facts in a instance of someone just looking for commiseration about not being able to do something that helps alleviate some of the stress of day-to-day life. For lack of a more accurate phrase, You misread the room.
And you are correct if you’re looking at a purely economic standpoint finding some way of streaming a movie is usually more cost-effective than going to a movie theater. But that discredits the event that going to see a movie is going to see a movie usually entails going with someone be that friends or significant other (sometimes you go alone), possibly getting you know some popcorn and a soda or a slushie, and experiencing it on a massive screen with a sound system and the event of it.
There’s an older joke about being able to afford things that might put this into light for you; “I wish I had the money to afford an expensive Italian sports car. I don’t want to buy one, I just want to be able to afford it.”
makes sense. i’m coming to see how people do this, but it’s still baffling to me. by ‘this’ i mean socially affirming each-other, rather than trying to interact with the issue in any way. not just as preferred, but as a forced exclusive.
also legitimately sorry that i can’t compress the whole picture to a quick quip.but what i meant by my comment was as much asserting that the comment being downvoted to oblivion was possibly more misinterpreted in intent and meaning than their own interaction with OP’s meme.
i see it as low dimensional communication exacerbating the size of blindspots for the whole of what is being communicated, because everyone is trying to reduce the energy consumption of language by socially affirming heuristics built on salient preference. this can be mapped to first principles from friston’s free energy principle, into active inference. MITpress has a good textbook for it, although there’s been a lot of new work since then. those who don’t naturally share that preference become ‘wrong’ for communicating what they could interpret without having that same importance given tothings they might not think about, like social ego stroking over just interacting with the concept sans ego.more commonly, people are becoming familiar with the ‘double empathy problem’ basically a context and language equivalent to yelling at the autistic kid for not making levels of eye contact that they find painfully intimate and uncomfortable. yes, the local community can think eye contact is ‘just having basic manners’ or ‘just being a decent person,’ but forcing them to do it, and creating a majority salient confirmation bubble chastising them for not doing it constantly and confidently is salt in the wound.
again, thank you for reading this far if you has. none of this is accusatory towards anyone, just an honest attempt at noting current popular communication failures and how to frame them.
the double empathy problem also applies to most predictive models projecting in differently socialized spaces. it’s good for people to comprehend.
And I do see the points that you’re making and I do agree with them on the whole. The problem is that you’re stating those facts in a instance of someone just looking for commiseration about not being able to do something that helps alleviate some of the stress of day-to-day life. For lack of a more accurate phrase, You misread the room.
And you are correct if you’re looking at a purely economic standpoint finding some way of streaming a movie is usually more cost-effective than going to a movie theater. But that discredits the event that going to see a movie is going to see a movie usually entails going with someone be that friends or significant other (sometimes you go alone), possibly getting you know some popcorn and a soda or a slushie, and experiencing it on a massive screen with a sound system and the event of it.