Natasha Tori Maru

@questionreality what do you think I am disagreeing with? The thread itself? No.

I think using AI like this is so good for finding holes where we aren't hitting macro and micronutrients. I do similar to get an idea of what I need to balance energy against my heavy cycling training. For myself though, it's with the aim of NOT losing weight. I have trouble with underfueling more than over. The only issue I have with it is quantifying oil in food. That's a hard one AI can miss. And considering fats are 7cal per g (as opposed to 4g per carb/protein) it can rather insidiously let calories creep in (not bad for me necessarily ☺️). I tend to focus on fats as this are key for my general well-being more than any other macro. Thanks for sharing !

Sometimes that kind of thinking can be a comfortable hopelessness. A sort of denial of the possibility of any other explanation to avoid feeling the despair of ones situation. Just one possibility. But I think a much fairer take would be it simply isn't true. We could look at the need for food, water etc as things men might care more about. I think within the context of the thread we would approach these two things as taken care of. Men care about lots of things. Not just sex. A stronger claim would be "men care more about sex than anything else". But this doesn't accommodate people who are asexual - just as one example.

@something_else bias errywhere 😅

Pulled the move I was making in my head from the start as a retort here! "I wonder if they would appreciate being reduced to a wallet in terms of use? Or a high maintenance automated teller machine?" To be honest though, that type of thinking is reprehensible to me. Anathema to connection and love. I feel gross even writing it!

Therefor you don't need to behave properly?

You're not listening or understanding.

@Joshe The sheet music case isn't circular in reasoning like the "most model don't model minds with high enough resolution" case, because there is an independently testable skill. But I only say that because you haven't gone into how this could be empirically proven - which you could reasonably do. And is a sufficient line of reasoning to explain how your reasoning isn't circular. I thought you would take that route. I like figuring out how others perceive "Knowing". Also I don't think I need to tell you exactly which part of your conclusion is false in order to question the epistemic process by which you arrived at it. This also can be a valid method to reveal some problem in reasoning. I just perceive you as being confident in your theoretical psychological analysis (I would say you are slightly predisposed to making leaps) - but also hesitant to address me as coming with charitable intent (which could possibly lead to some conclusion about rigidity made on my end in applying a frame to me, which I don't feel I have enough evidence for). You expressed your meaning a lot better here - so I understand that a lot better now through relational dialogue. I no longer see you as motivated by justice seeking or egoic stuff. I think your rhetoric is a bit charged though. I don't think you appreciate my questions. And I don't want to upset you. Within my experience I feel as if you aren't able to accept I can be a charitable person to entertain a dialogue with. It appears as if you are trying to find my motivations behind this line of enquiry - I wanted your meaning and how you think. Not to make judgement. Just curious. And I apologise if I did phrase or put anything in a way that might make this unclear. Tapping out so we can go back to the blog discussion

Okay, cheers. You avoid parts of my enquiry. I won't press further. I perceive the above is a bit circular. It appears like a potentially self-validating epistemic structure. "I see the hidden psychological structure and others don't, so their ordinary interpretation is superficial & my deeper model explains why they are missing it". Because if anyone disagrees with you, their disagreement can be explained as "They simply don't have sufficiently high resolution psychological modelling capability". If you follow. I do this also. Leo does this. Many forum users also make this move. I think it is a slight trap some of the more sophisticated thinkers slink into. Not always consciously.

Cheers ~ It didn't intend it as a nit-pick - it was rather clumsy and poorly phrased question by me that didn't communicate my thoughts properly. I should have said "why do you think so few people see the pattern"? People largely aren't oblivious to seeing poor behaviour - I think many see behaviour and do not call it out. I also think it is a ordinary human behavioural pattern to call it out. It does not necessarily need a psychological motive. And to be clear, I am aware I am putting forth a hypothesis that involves inference. I am inviting you to correct me So to rephrase - how did you come to the "mostly no one else sees the harmful pattern" conclusion? And to be even more frank, this: is probably the sort of leap I see you make often. I would move to challenge this because it requires substantially more evidence than you have access to.

@Joshe Can I ask why you think no one else sees the pattern you illustrate and the causative harm chain? How did you come to this conclusion?

@Joshe correct - that's why I (if you reread carefully, I think you again didn't relationally ask me) didn't claim to know exactly what you mean. I offered my hypothesis and asked you to tell me. That's what I am saying to do. The worst my post could come across as is a speculative interpretation with some explicit epistemic hedging. And yes, my speculation is analytical and looking at mechanism as a possible explanation. But once again, I am asking your meaning, but also illustrating potential gaps that could be missed in this process. Calling out Leo by psychologically analysing him can be received poorly. Just also Leo's words can be received poorly. Do I mean to understand this as a rightuous endeavour on your behalf? Also again you express to "know I am probably cringing" . Also notice I am not saying your model is wrong.

@KosmicGeng You misunderstand on all counts.

You need to be able to relationally understand to know. Sad state of affairs.

@KosmicGeng I'm not saying anything about the state of women in my post. Let's make sure we don't twist anything around in our minds to justify dehumanising and objectifying others.