Talking past each other can happen for many reasons.
first, I did not move the goalpost. I was being nuanced. (like some are claiming)
I qualified that einstien was not wrong but incomplete
if I am a truth seeker then this will bother me.
it is those that feel the need to see einstein as complete that are justifying their belief systems without seeking the base of reality.
I don't, so that is why I mention sets and subsets.
somehow this is me fabricating things because in response I might have received a picture of a crazy person.
this is what the definition of gaslighting is: "You are x but I never said you were x".
I propose that within a vacuum we all are without a context to define who and who is not being reasonable/nuanced.
I am not directing this at anyone if you feel attacked by it, it is all in a vacuum with no context.
but in the context of a world model, I think that a multimodel system is best for seeking truth.
the underlying metaphysical assumptions we make guild all of us in this respect.
Then why did you fabricate me calling you crazy to justify your discomfort? And if you have accepted that this is your own confusion what is driving your discomfort now?
because of the context.
don't you feel discomfort when people disqualify your reasoning?
how exactly does communication work if we are always on edge from all the confusion?
I constantly suppress my emotions because I am trying not to be unreasonable.
If not I would rage quite more than I already do.
I cannot calm down as fast as you can because my amygdala is stronger than my orbital prefrontal cortex.
I need to calm down in real time so I pause before every sentence I make.
Those pauses can last 5 minutes.
When we connect our metaphysics to our emotions is when we feel the need to defend them. We can do so calmly or sporadically.
communication breaks down when sporadic. people can take advantage of this. I have often been taken advantage of. I am physiologically attuned to it. I often have been broken down by it. mostly in political debates. passive aggressiveness is a real trigger for me. I really hate politics.
I always try to put things in the best frame I can that would be understood by others but this does not always work. The emotional drives people have subvert what I say. So I become the enemy. Accusations fly rapent. I tried to fix this but nothing worked, people just got angrier and angrier. I wasn't able to convince them of my position. They didn't care about my position. All they can do is hate me.
No one is free of bias. But I believe in objectivity. The problem is that everyone thinks they are objective. But everyone is emotionaly driven and those that say they are not are the worst self-deceptive bullshitters there are. So I need to work around this. To things that can be agreed upon. But to do so I need to shift through all that emotion blocking people's reasoning. The social intelligence required is severely draining. Because I practice it alot with no rest. Logical people are not objective people necessarily. They can sometimes be unreasonable. They affirm their beliefs just as much as the people that they claim are too emotional. That is why I avoid them when things get hairy. It is the cringe factor. Just look at ben shapiro. Perfectly logical yet completely emotional.
On Intellectual self-affirmation: Sure everyone does it, some do it less than others though. when contradictions arise instead of looking at it from a higher perspective people reject one or the other conclusion. until cognitive dissonance arises one is perfectly capable of holding two viewpoints at once. no contradiction exists. that is why people like ben shapiro force you into contradictions. it is their tactic. one or the other not both. I am not saying contradictions don't exist but that this is often a false dilemma fallacy. realty has no contradictions. just incomplete models and submodels. people like to think their model is complete and use logic to justify it. I am always skeptical of "logical" persons. If I wasn't I would be in a false dilemma because everyone claims to be logical yet no one is. There are just reasonable persons and unreasonable persons. Everyone is emotionally driven.
Our ontological beliefs are the rules by which we believe reality operates. It is a metaphysical position on the nature of things. We hold many ontological beliefs. Some are contradictory but it is because the data source has no proper origin in our minds. So we make up an origin story that may or may not be true. We then test things and see if they are correlated to our origin stories. The sparsity of such means we must refactor the stories again and again. But at some point, there is an underlying factor that connects them all in our minds. This supra story is what makes it possible to believe or reject new evidence. It is the hardest thing to change. Changing it leads to a psychotic break. I have had multiple psychotic breaks.
Every threat to our identity must be challenged and no one is immune to having a psychotic break. Unless they are never confronted with the straw that breaks the camel's back. Once that back is broken they need to build back up from the beginning everything they thought was true. At this point, one break isn't enough but at least 3. So that the person knows they cannot trust their own logic. once the third break happens they either start being a nihilist or they start being a real skeptic, not a pseudo skeptic.
If one never reaches the third break they become conspiracy theorists and at the 4th break, they stop being nihilists.
