This was all interesting and useful for ongoing discussion. If our discussion were instead information systems, we would be like two devices attempting to TX and RX 'handshake' with what communication protocols we can use, to then use the most secure or highest speed one available to both of us. In systems, this handshake occurs first, a…
This was all interesting and useful for ongoing discussion. If our discussion were instead information systems, we would be like two devices attempting to TX and RX 'handshake' with what communication protocols we can use, to then use the most secure or highest speed one available to both of us. In systems, this handshake occurs first, and we are doing it only lately!
Freely tell me this is wrong, but I think you are most comfortable with less-structured communication where many potential points can be made in one statement and there is no obligation to continue/address prior ones, but interesting related ones may be started. Or not. It feels like something a creative person would do (versus the linear ones common to engineers with whom I work).
It tempts me to go more with the total vibe from the sum of it all more than to depend upon all of the supporting parts. This does not mean that it is not well qualified in parts, but perhaps you wish to emphasize the forest more than the trees? I am probably wrong.
I do have a tip. You don't like voice that amounts to projection (did I just project?, LOL), and I am listening to that request. At the same time, when you say that Steve or I like or don't like something, it feels like a similar sin. This ask (don't project) and this frequent mention (Steve does not like) seem too similar to each other to come from the same person. What is the practical difference that others would appreciate and should they? Sincere ask.
I believe we are both trying to find constructive consensus, and I am enjoying that. For you and for anyone, I always look for the most flattering possible interpretation of whatever is said, because I believe we are all more similar than different until proven otherwise.
I say "From my perspective, you seem confused". That's about me.
Projections are "You're confused". That about the person you're talking to.
That's the difference.
As for a "constructive consensus", always a great ideal. Not something I believe will happen here. On Medium, I had a bunch of articles, one was about what writers are looking when people comment. It's a great question to Steve, he wrote the article and opened it for comments. He does not specifically ask what type of comments he's looking for. The articles I wrote on Medium, I usually ended with a question on what type of feedback I was interested in.
I comment because it helps me clarify my position and ideally get feedback on my position from others. I have gotten much feedback from you and Steve. On some things you seem to agree, on some you feel I'm not on point, on some Steve thinks I'm weird.
As for staying on topic, I believe I'm on topic. You suggest I'm not.
As you said, about the forest versus the trees. Many questions are focused on the details of a situation and fail to see the larger picture or overall context.
The analogy I like to bring up on this one is the famous "the answer is 42" from Douglass Adams Hitchhiker's Guide. Don't know if your familiar with. 42 was supposed to be the answer to "life the universe and everything". No one could understand the answer. Douglass Adams point was that the question many times is more important than the answer.
For the trans discussion, what question is Steve really trying to address? The article is titled "The Long Overdue Question Of What A Trans Woman Is." You would think that question would be clearly stated in the article. As far as I can tell, the question is "Is a trans woman is a woman?". He ends with a statement "Trans women are not women". But he never ask the question. The title of the article is not a question. It's a statement.
My first response to Steve was really about trying to clarify what the question might be.
“ On some things you seem to agree, on some you feel I'm not on point, on some Steve thinks I'm weird.”
😅Like a belligerent goldfish. I was having a quiet bet with myself about how long it would be before you claimed I called you weird again, even though I’ve clarified that three, or I guess four times now. But even I thought you’d do better r than the same article, twenty-four hours later. You really are hopeless. I’ll stop wasting my time.
The sentence begins “some things”. I state three ways you interpret my “things”:
A. I’m on point
B. I’m not on point.
C. I’m weird
It’s all about my “things, not about me.
Maybe I just don’t understand the basic structure of the English language.
Regardless, you’re beating a dead horse. Hope my restructuring of the sentence helps you understand my intended goal with the sentence.
As I said, for me, writing and responding are casual for enrichment and distraction. Not my profession. For many years I was in technology. Now I run a bakery business.
I’m more interested in what “the question” was for your article.
I’m also interested in what question you’re asking us as readers to comment on.
“Maybe I just don’t understand the basic structure of the English language.”
This much is clear. I don’t care what you do for a living or why you write, all I’m asking is that you don’t lie about/misrepresent the things I say.
I didn’t call you anything. You have no idea what I think (projection, remember?), I have clarified several times that I didn’t call YOU weird, I called your comment weird, which I stand by. So every time you repeat the claim that I called you weird or even the “projection” that I think you’re weird you are consciously lying about me.
I would like you to stop doing that. In fact, I’d appreciate it if you stopped discussing me altogether and stuck to discussing the article.
Shared Traits: Both ENTPs and ESTPs are extroverted and enjoy engaging with the world around them. They are also both thinking types, which means they value logic and rationality in their decision-making processes 1.
Differences:
Intuition vs. Sensing: ENTPs are intuitive, meaning they focus on possibilities and abstract concepts. ESTPs, on the other hand, are sensing types who prefer concrete information and practical experiences 1.
Flexibility: Both types are perceiving, which means they are adaptable and spontaneous. However, ENTPs might lean more towards exploring new ideas, while ESTPs might prefer hands-on activities 1.
Compatibility: These differences can complement each other well, with ENTPs bringing innovative ideas and ESTPs providing practical implementation. Their shared extroversion and thinking traits can help them understand each other's perspectives and work together effectively.
I feel the above AI summary is accurate to us. I had already figured that I would listen to you as a bit more of a brainstormer versus me which is a bit of a solution-committer. These are all relative, of course. We all dip into creativity and solutions, just with different things and emphasis.
Reacting to your wanting From my perspective" to avoid projection, I appreciate the request for more precise language. At the same time, everything I write is from my perspective, so this is understood unless I am trying to quote you with quotation marks to indicate this is not my interpretation but your literal words.
You also said things about others positions without the "from my perspective", so I don't think you are very insistent on it. I don't really care about that or when I do it, because everything we all say is "from my perspective" unless air quoting otherwise. I won't be distracted when seeing it and then not seeing it in use.
Reacting to your points about larger context and addressing (or even properly stating) the original question, this too I appreciate, but properly the larger context more than anything. Time and time again people move off of the original intent of a query, so yes, stating a strong question and sticking to it can help. In the case of the OP though, I see that Steve QJ is writing in an appealing/entertaining style and not as a scientific paper for peer review. If he doesn't get clicks through big headline and rapid movement in the first paragraph, his substack will not maximize appeal and growth. Just being real here.
(You can call what I say next is projection, but again, everything I say is in my voice, and I don't need to say that explicitly. I would rather say more with fewer words.) Your style is spontaneous, unedited commenting to what you feel should be more structured OPs from Steve. Steve's style is his style, and he isn't changing it for you. I don't think you should hold Steve and I to the same standard since I am your peer in being only in comments and not OP, and it matters not whether I claim to edit my comments or not. We all write from our own seats. All of us communicate how we do. So, after all these dozens or even hundreds of comments, why not accept the communication style differences, the apparent use of projection, and instead focus on the substantive arguments within the OP?
The communication style comments are not worthless! They are the TX and RX of systems handshaking in an attempt to communicate at the most-effective protocol. But protocols should be negotiated in initial handshakes and not renegotiated ad-nauseum. Our common denominator for communicating is not at the fastest and most secure protocol that each of us would individually prefer, and that is necessary and okay. I mean it must be okay, because here we all are doing it.
TL;DR summary. In order to focus on the juicy issues and not communication protocols, I accept any of your communication foibles and hope you can see through mine to any potentially salient ideas I potentially have. I will take the best from your creative, unedited style and hope you can do the same with whatever it is that I am. I enjoy the differences, because I want new ideas that are not already in my own head, and you have lots of them. I have sincere thanks for your travelling this journey with me.
This was all interesting and useful for ongoing discussion. If our discussion were instead information systems, we would be like two devices attempting to TX and RX 'handshake' with what communication protocols we can use, to then use the most secure or highest speed one available to both of us. In systems, this handshake occurs first, and we are doing it only lately!
Freely tell me this is wrong, but I think you are most comfortable with less-structured communication where many potential points can be made in one statement and there is no obligation to continue/address prior ones, but interesting related ones may be started. Or not. It feels like something a creative person would do (versus the linear ones common to engineers with whom I work).
It tempts me to go more with the total vibe from the sum of it all more than to depend upon all of the supporting parts. This does not mean that it is not well qualified in parts, but perhaps you wish to emphasize the forest more than the trees? I am probably wrong.
I do have a tip. You don't like voice that amounts to projection (did I just project?, LOL), and I am listening to that request. At the same time, when you say that Steve or I like or don't like something, it feels like a similar sin. This ask (don't project) and this frequent mention (Steve does not like) seem too similar to each other to come from the same person. What is the practical difference that others would appreciate and should they? Sincere ask.
I believe we are both trying to find constructive consensus, and I am enjoying that. For you and for anyone, I always look for the most flattering possible interpretation of whatever is said, because I believe we are all more similar than different until proven otherwise.
If you're into Myers-Briggs, I'm an ENTF.
On the projection in writing. Its the style.
I say "From my perspective, you seem confused". That's about me.
Projections are "You're confused". That about the person you're talking to.
That's the difference.
As for a "constructive consensus", always a great ideal. Not something I believe will happen here. On Medium, I had a bunch of articles, one was about what writers are looking when people comment. It's a great question to Steve, he wrote the article and opened it for comments. He does not specifically ask what type of comments he's looking for. The articles I wrote on Medium, I usually ended with a question on what type of feedback I was interested in.
I comment because it helps me clarify my position and ideally get feedback on my position from others. I have gotten much feedback from you and Steve. On some things you seem to agree, on some you feel I'm not on point, on some Steve thinks I'm weird.
As for staying on topic, I believe I'm on topic. You suggest I'm not.
As you said, about the forest versus the trees. Many questions are focused on the details of a situation and fail to see the larger picture or overall context.
The analogy I like to bring up on this one is the famous "the answer is 42" from Douglass Adams Hitchhiker's Guide. Don't know if your familiar with. 42 was supposed to be the answer to "life the universe and everything". No one could understand the answer. Douglass Adams point was that the question many times is more important than the answer.
For the trans discussion, what question is Steve really trying to address? The article is titled "The Long Overdue Question Of What A Trans Woman Is." You would think that question would be clearly stated in the article. As far as I can tell, the question is "Is a trans woman is a woman?". He ends with a statement "Trans women are not women". But he never ask the question. The title of the article is not a question. It's a statement.
My first response to Steve was really about trying to clarify what the question might be.
Thanks for the discussion.
“ On some things you seem to agree, on some you feel I'm not on point, on some Steve thinks I'm weird.”
😅Like a belligerent goldfish. I was having a quiet bet with myself about how long it would be before you claimed I called you weird again, even though I’ve clarified that three, or I guess four times now. But even I thought you’d do better r than the same article, twenty-four hours later. You really are hopeless. I’ll stop wasting my time.
Steve, Steve, Steve….
The sentence begins “some things”. I state three ways you interpret my “things”:
A. I’m on point
B. I’m not on point.
C. I’m weird
It’s all about my “things, not about me.
Maybe I just don’t understand the basic structure of the English language.
Regardless, you’re beating a dead horse. Hope my restructuring of the sentence helps you understand my intended goal with the sentence.
As I said, for me, writing and responding are casual for enrichment and distraction. Not my profession. For many years I was in technology. Now I run a bakery business.
I’m more interested in what “the question” was for your article.
I’m also interested in what question you’re asking us as readers to comment on.
“Maybe I just don’t understand the basic structure of the English language.”
This much is clear. I don’t care what you do for a living or why you write, all I’m asking is that you don’t lie about/misrepresent the things I say.
I didn’t call you anything. You have no idea what I think (projection, remember?), I have clarified several times that I didn’t call YOU weird, I called your comment weird, which I stand by. So every time you repeat the claim that I called you weird or even the “projection” that I think you’re weird you are consciously lying about me.
I would like you to stop doing that. In fact, I’d appreciate it if you stopped discussing me altogether and stuck to discussing the article.
LOL, you have unlocked level '42'. Consequently all of Monty Python is in fair play.
Hello ENTF, I am ESTP. This article accurately defined major peeves I have:
https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/2016/11/15/5-ways-annoy-estp/
1 – Plan Their Schedule
2 – Seek Attention at All Costs
3 – Complain Without Wanting a Solution
4 – Do Everything Slowly
5 – Dismiss Their Analysis and Logic
From AI:
Shared Traits: Both ENTPs and ESTPs are extroverted and enjoy engaging with the world around them. They are also both thinking types, which means they value logic and rationality in their decision-making processes 1.
Differences:
Intuition vs. Sensing: ENTPs are intuitive, meaning they focus on possibilities and abstract concepts. ESTPs, on the other hand, are sensing types who prefer concrete information and practical experiences 1.
Flexibility: Both types are perceiving, which means they are adaptable and spontaneous. However, ENTPs might lean more towards exploring new ideas, while ESTPs might prefer hands-on activities 1.
Compatibility: These differences can complement each other well, with ENTPs bringing innovative ideas and ESTPs providing practical implementation. Their shared extroversion and thinking traits can help them understand each other's perspectives and work together effectively.
I feel the above AI summary is accurate to us. I had already figured that I would listen to you as a bit more of a brainstormer versus me which is a bit of a solution-committer. These are all relative, of course. We all dip into creativity and solutions, just with different things and emphasis.
Reacting to your wanting From my perspective" to avoid projection, I appreciate the request for more precise language. At the same time, everything I write is from my perspective, so this is understood unless I am trying to quote you with quotation marks to indicate this is not my interpretation but your literal words.
You also said things about others positions without the "from my perspective", so I don't think you are very insistent on it. I don't really care about that or when I do it, because everything we all say is "from my perspective" unless air quoting otherwise. I won't be distracted when seeing it and then not seeing it in use.
Reacting to your points about larger context and addressing (or even properly stating) the original question, this too I appreciate, but properly the larger context more than anything. Time and time again people move off of the original intent of a query, so yes, stating a strong question and sticking to it can help. In the case of the OP though, I see that Steve QJ is writing in an appealing/entertaining style and not as a scientific paper for peer review. If he doesn't get clicks through big headline and rapid movement in the first paragraph, his substack will not maximize appeal and growth. Just being real here.
(You can call what I say next is projection, but again, everything I say is in my voice, and I don't need to say that explicitly. I would rather say more with fewer words.) Your style is spontaneous, unedited commenting to what you feel should be more structured OPs from Steve. Steve's style is his style, and he isn't changing it for you. I don't think you should hold Steve and I to the same standard since I am your peer in being only in comments and not OP, and it matters not whether I claim to edit my comments or not. We all write from our own seats. All of us communicate how we do. So, after all these dozens or even hundreds of comments, why not accept the communication style differences, the apparent use of projection, and instead focus on the substantive arguments within the OP?
The communication style comments are not worthless! They are the TX and RX of systems handshaking in an attempt to communicate at the most-effective protocol. But protocols should be negotiated in initial handshakes and not renegotiated ad-nauseum. Our common denominator for communicating is not at the fastest and most secure protocol that each of us would individually prefer, and that is necessary and okay. I mean it must be okay, because here we all are doing it.
TL;DR summary. In order to focus on the juicy issues and not communication protocols, I accept any of your communication foibles and hope you can see through mine to any potentially salient ideas I potentially have. I will take the best from your creative, unedited style and hope you can do the same with whatever it is that I am. I enjoy the differences, because I want new ideas that are not already in my own head, and you have lots of them. I have sincere thanks for your travelling this journey with me.