Winnyace wrote:
My wish to be rational and factually correct most likely stands from my desire to stand-out here, in some fashion. Back in 2020-2021, very few wanted to be logical. A lot of this sub-forum was RP stuff, very fantastical in nature. I didn't fit in at all. Nowadays, most people here are more serious, for the lack of a better word, less whimsy. I guess I also try to seem rational and factually correct than really be. If I was rational, I wouldn't have accused Karmine of being an asshole, would I?
It is also coming from my belief I'm not really funny. If I'm not funny, I can be rational, right? Well, it seems I can't be either and that's weird and disappointing.
[...pending, for when i return...]
Winnyace wrote:
You honestly seem really indecisive a lot of the times. You edited your previous post 10 times in the span of two hours. Not sure if it is due to gramatical errors or what, but it is a bit excessive. You also seem to ruminate massively, sidetracking from the original subject entirely and going into the realm of socio-politico-psycho analysis, even when it is ultimately unnecessary and only dilutes your points, resulting in a mess that can be tldr'd by saying "I don't really agree with either side, since both sides have good points". It's not like you lack logic or you aren't grounded. I feel like you ultimately try to seek answers where the answer is sometimes just gut reactions and feelings. I don't know, however, so take everything I said here with a massive grain of salt.
i think that's actually quite a fair assessment!! i genuinely feel quite gratified in finding that someone can hand me a good-enough mirror to at least loosely approximate my features/characteristics in a way that makes sense and isn't totally inaccurate <3
on
indecision, that's very consistently true-- i generally dread having to prune my thinking, although that's not to suggest that i (+ the majority of humanity) wouldn't regularly use impulsive little feeling-kernels and thought-weeds to heuristically determine something and do something. i find that there's a visceral kind of discomfort that might approximate some impulsive fear like "reductivism ~/= ignorance/oblivion" and "ignorance/oblivion ~/= death(?)", and i seem to refuse to summarize anything without trying to lend at least one or two roots leading toward the mychorrhizal structure of contexts for some kind of network of subjects and their characteristics/applications. i tend to rely on other people to either match my explorative rumination and satisfyingly expand on it themselves, or have them instead be capable of accurately summarizing the substance of what i mean to convey without discarding a meaningful component of the model i'm theorizing with or describing. but without that assistance, inevitably this means you're weighing far too many things at once to reasonably make regular competent executive decisions, or really even bring yourself to try to, leading to extremely low volition in exchange for arguably moderately-high breadth/depth of "connective/contextual" understanding (if even that) instead of necessarily a thorough competence in the subject's substance itself. i generally don't like advising someone with one insistent conclusion when i'm not that person nor will i thoroughly understand their obstacle or the environment for that obstacle, so a lot of qualifying is done so at least the numerous branches can be traced to their roots and bridged between to try something else... or that's what i supposedly seem to think, i'm not sure :p
on
editing, it's a perfectionistic mixture of fine-tuning my delivery, correcting a factual error (or at least finding a more probable/plausible reflection of reality), clarifying an impression so that it may be less vague, as well as a discomfort with whatever i'd consider to be a grammatical error. i don't particularly personally consider it excessive partly because there is no penalty i could readily reference beyond maybe the time-and-effort investment in exchange for a message that's more accurate to what i mean to speculate/evaluate. i don't really view others' scrutiny of my editing to be that regularly significant, since it usually only produces a trivial impression of indecision, and arguably even would cause some people to positively believe i'm particularly meticulous or thorough. or at least i imagine that's probable, but i don't particularly rely on either of those impressions because i tend to be comfortable as long as they generally serve some kind of internally-reasoned purpose, even if not necessarily universally
executively practical for someone
on
ruminating, i find an incredible amount of comfort and ease in exploring and developing a personal "universal web" model of something i'm thinking of/about, it's where i most readily turn to in order to understand something that i truly want to understand, by elaborating on its many possible interrelated contexts so that all ingredients can be acknowledged and readily available to reference and play with or test in my mind, even if i don't particularly remember everything concretely. they leave a ton of layers of abstractions and relations i don't really understand until i'm actually visiting that tree of internalized material/substance to think about it. it's how i've explored myself and my relationship to things as much as i have, though i suspect there are far better ways-- i just haven't particularly developed a model that can observe and verify and make sense of them, perhaps partly due to a self-preservative ego, or maybe a general distrust of the accuracy and applicability of what someone would claim
on
diluted reasoning, i'm a bit puzzled about how to elaborate on it. it seems fair to note about anything where i might be explaining something for the purpose of someone who might make a decision on account of
"just give me an intuitive instruction list about this that makes sense. tell me what to do, what an action does, and how to do that, and you can leave the Why of it strictly to whatever has direct/immediate relevance. i don't need to know what other people do with this, and i don't need to know its history". i imagine that part of an attempt at a rebuttal would reference my other priorities as i described them earlier, but ultimately i think this is a really salient critique of these kinds of approaches (or perhaps i'm just not sure how i would resolve them) when prioritizing pragmatic/heuristic application
on the
tldr you submitted, i do think that's a little imprecise. it makes sense to me to imagine that, and i
think i tend to "both-sides" things or respond as an "angel's advocate" for people/positions/perspectives, but not necessarily to the effect of equal agreement/disagreement, really it
usually has just been the same case of indecision
on
gut reactivity, i generally try to form my understanding of something so that it would be inclusive of that raw uncomplicated reactivity-- what i tend to do though is expand on possible causes for why it was intuitive for someone to have their particular reaction in the context of one particular situation and then any pattern over the course of similar or unrelated situations. in essence, the idea is for that model of understanding to attempt to be both a generalizer and specializer, and
...mmnh, i'm on a limited time budget now and have to leave, so i'll have to post this as it is, though i wanted to clarify further