Natasha Tori Maru

If you have something to prove you will never truly listen, take in or understand what another person is presenting. Seeking validity is a root cause of this - and we emotionally pick which domain we want validity based on our values. I think these types value their perceived masculinity - so they play the part of the "Prover". And they attempt to wield logic, rationality and thought as methods to avoid contradiction. It is really the emotion that wants to avoid contradiction, as it is the emotion that is the motivator.

It will change how people participate with cognitive tasks. Unknown effects. We see some stuff thats shit already. The fact that AI is abused in education by students reveals the cracks that were always present; education was always about passing the test, never about true understanding and crafting a cognitively astute, clear mind. Students use it to pass - which lowers participation. This was already a problem. Just amplified with AI. Education system was busted, AI just amplified it. I am interesting in ethical guardrails and programming of AI - who is in control of that? Should there be total transparency there? Pros/cons? I am already frustrated enough that consumer AI doesn't like to give a straight answer to general ethical/moral questions & general societal/systemic problems - I feel like this is also getting worse. This is different to using say, Claude or ChatGPT to read documents/contracts and extract precise meaning and terms. When it is appropriately trained on something I find it fantastic for fast referencing and compiling. Anyway, I digress

@AION nice try

Very much appreciate you ☺️

@Jirh sure, just explaining the dynamics at play - not blaming, accusing or keeping score

That's just an opinion. And while you can have it, it doesn't mean it is immune to criticism. Stolen data remains stolen data.

@Wilhelm44 thanks, I don't think that answers my question. But that's chill 😊

@Wilhelm44 so you suspect this is just a clash of epistemologies, or an issue with behaviour? Or both? I don't think anyone understands one another from what I read. What people want to prove is getting in the way of real listening (not you necessarily, just in general).

It's not necessarily about truth. It's about setting a standard for expectation and not measuring up or delivering. This applies to any other domain. Unmet expectations are the breeding ground for resentment. This toxic dynamic is usually what collapses romantic relationships - especially when they are unspoken expectations. It happens in politics, interpersonal relationships, family, business etc It's one of the biggest reasons I don't really tell anyone about my own plans, unless I have a very, very strong incentive structure in place that will force delivery. If you can't see, feel or know the incentive structure you are heading for trouble.

Society is structured to atomise us now, distilled into little worlds, isolated from other humans. Capitalism works with this system as it costs much more to live like this, unintegrated with a sharing community. Maybe I notice it also being born early 80s. I have something to compare the change with.

Do you think this is enough incentive to change behaviour? IMO - to really get the most out of a person, connection must be made and maintained. I think a zoom call can make the connection, but maintaining it is another ballgame. And Leo has expressed he likes to be very hands off with the Mods, and let us use our own discretion independent of him ( which is a method that dovetails well with very invested selection process, do it once, do it right - not as much maintenance in between as we just do our thing without needing management/micromanagement). The caveat being, connection over time can degrade - whether it is connection to Leo (a bit parasocial imo, members have enough issue with this as is) or connection to the teachings.

Mods should just not have any greentext.

It is not like Leo doesn't see exactly how the moderators operate. Moderators serving a term puts additional strain on Leo's workload. He is quite particular with who he selects. Also noting how behaviour changes over time. This is a pattern in all humans.

This is how it works As users get more and more naughty, they accumulate enough points to hit a level they are auto-banned. I will remark that some users have been allowed back, despite this policy. This is based on Leo's discretion. Often, behaviour does not change. Even warning points are not incentive enough. We try to appeal directly to the user, through discussion, prior to points being assigned. Unless it is a clear and deliberate violation.

There's no attempt to engage with the arguments.