The failure to admit even the slightest fault is deeply aggravating
But I wonder, for the galaxy brain neurotic, is the willingness to not only admit one’s faults, but further explain/imply one’s total understanding of one’s own and the others’ faults a sort of defense mechanism/weapon of its own? If one person understands the territory completely, and the other is simply not capable, is that truly virtuous, or just a sort of secondary humiliation? Perhaps it’s deserved, but I’m trying to distinguish tough love from lording one’s own (likely accurate) psychoanalysis over the other.
that's very fair, and i never thought i had total understanding during the process. i only write as if here, because its in part an emotional expression. that's kind of my point, even. that if I had been more assertive, some of this might have been avoided. I always go into these situations hoping im wrong, and feeling embittered when people tell me im right
Yeah. I feel you. It resonates. But I actually suspect you in fact do have a strong analysis in the moment and however much time later you now have written this.
In my case when confronted by such a secondary humiliation by a superior thinker, I believe I’d be intrigued and masochistically seek out their analysis, but I don’t know that this is reflective of a desirable way of being.
In terms of theory of mind, I can’t say that everyone should be like me, but it’s nonetheless endlessly frustrating when otherwise intelligent people don’t have the desire to break down conflict in order to resolve it
I kind of reverse-engineered a solution to distinguish impotence (those that can't distinguish impossible acts, thus becoming clueless tryhards) vs maliciousness (those that apologizes insincerely and do not act), but cannot be sure if it is valid. https://bewrong.substack.com/p/apologies-and-taste/comment/11488730
Love this essay. I'm having a bit of trouble seeing how these two are opposites, but would be interested to know what your thinking was
> impotence (those that can't distinguish impossible acts, thus becoming clueless tryhards) vs maliciousness (those that apologizes insincerely and do not act)
Candid impotence is when people naively beat a dead horse through treating platitudes as advice, maliciousness is when people are giving a perfunctory or superficial response for skimping on justified effort
This distinction are opposites in the sense of excess vs absence, or "how to do" vs "what to do", or quality of work vs quantity of work, or internalization vs externalization, or "trying not understanding" vs "knowing not doing".
I am not sure how much more needs to be clarified though.
"Every time I talk to you like a man, you begin acting like a child (operate on babytalk), and every time I speak to you like a child, you can behave semi-civilized (can't take real talk). So I am just going to treat you like a child." He needs that second-order infantilization to get back at being normal again.
obviously im missing a lot of context and kind of forgot the order of operations in your situation already, but want to deposit some thought for they may be worth:
I’ve met people who actually hate that I treated them with respect and honesty. They WANT to be placated. Partly I think they see direct communication as threatening of the game. The game is supposed to be covert, feminine. Being upfront in conflict is either A. breaking the rules and opening a can of worms or B. putting them in a situation they are unskilled at which is actually what makes them feel “emasculated” or insulted. “how dare you make me feel insecure by communicating in a way I and most have rejected our whole lives”
The failure to admit even the slightest fault is deeply aggravating
But I wonder, for the galaxy brain neurotic, is the willingness to not only admit one’s faults, but further explain/imply one’s total understanding of one’s own and the others’ faults a sort of defense mechanism/weapon of its own? If one person understands the territory completely, and the other is simply not capable, is that truly virtuous, or just a sort of secondary humiliation? Perhaps it’s deserved, but I’m trying to distinguish tough love from lording one’s own (likely accurate) psychoanalysis over the other.
that's very fair, and i never thought i had total understanding during the process. i only write as if here, because its in part an emotional expression. that's kind of my point, even. that if I had been more assertive, some of this might have been avoided. I always go into these situations hoping im wrong, and feeling embittered when people tell me im right
but youre right, it is absolutely a balancing act, and this text is kind of overcorrecting for my normal flaws
Yeah. I feel you. It resonates. But I actually suspect you in fact do have a strong analysis in the moment and however much time later you now have written this.
In my case when confronted by such a secondary humiliation by a superior thinker, I believe I’d be intrigued and masochistically seek out their analysis, but I don’t know that this is reflective of a desirable way of being.
In terms of theory of mind, I can’t say that everyone should be like me, but it’s nonetheless endlessly frustrating when otherwise intelligent people don’t have the desire to break down conflict in order to resolve it
I may indeed be sneakier than i'd like to admit but im trying very hard not to
I kind of reverse-engineered a solution to distinguish impotence (those that can't distinguish impossible acts, thus becoming clueless tryhards) vs maliciousness (those that apologizes insincerely and do not act), but cannot be sure if it is valid. https://bewrong.substack.com/p/apologies-and-taste/comment/11488730
Love this essay. I'm having a bit of trouble seeing how these two are opposites, but would be interested to know what your thinking was
> impotence (those that can't distinguish impossible acts, thus becoming clueless tryhards) vs maliciousness (those that apologizes insincerely and do not act)
Candid impotence is when people naively beat a dead horse through treating platitudes as advice, maliciousness is when people are giving a perfunctory or superficial response for skimping on justified effort
This distinction are opposites in the sense of excess vs absence, or "how to do" vs "what to do", or quality of work vs quantity of work, or internalization vs externalization, or "trying not understanding" vs "knowing not doing".
I am not sure how much more needs to be clarified though.
These three pieces immediately came to mind: https://alexdanco.com/2021/01/22/the-michael-scott-theory-of-social-class and https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1322670827838476288 and https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3buwotWsPrxyYKESe/nuanced-and-extreme-countersignaling
"Every time I talk to you like a man, you begin acting like a child (operate on babytalk), and every time I speak to you like a child, you can behave semi-civilized (can't take real talk). So I am just going to treat you like a child." He needs that second-order infantilization to get back at being normal again.
obviously im missing a lot of context and kind of forgot the order of operations in your situation already, but want to deposit some thought for they may be worth:
I’ve met people who actually hate that I treated them with respect and honesty. They WANT to be placated. Partly I think they see direct communication as threatening of the game. The game is supposed to be covert, feminine. Being upfront in conflict is either A. breaking the rules and opening a can of worms or B. putting them in a situation they are unskilled at which is actually what makes them feel “emasculated” or insulted. “how dare you make me feel insecure by communicating in a way I and most have rejected our whole lives”
By my assessment not inaccurate and not unrelated
This is "how to make a victim-bully feel the pain of a real victim 101".
Death to America
Your "friend" was just a vessel for all the worst people I had the displeasure of meeting in real life and online in one body.
Exactly. It's a possession