Conversations Going Critical – Everything Studies
Sometimes arguments and statements invites responses longer than themselves, often by making more things part of the conversation. So if we want to be thorough when arguing we risk starting a chain…
A while ago I took part a bit in discussions at Slate Star Codex . Considering what I wrote here , it made sense. Expressing myself must mean interacting with what I would hope to have as an audience. Once blogging-as-a-solipsistic-thought-dump loses its appeal – which it does – a readership, however small, may be just the necessary oomph one needs to keep going. In retrospect, posting wasn’t a great idea. Not that it’s bad and that I shouldn’t do it, but interacting online is fraught with dangers. At least it is to me. I want to keep it to a minimum, or at least
related reading
- Making Normal Conversations Better - by Sasha Chapinsashachapin.substack.com
- Making Normal Conversations Better - by Sasha Chapinsashachapin.substack.com
- Arguments: Everybody Chill Outsubstack.com
- Experiments in Conversationbitsofwonder.substack.com
- [REPOST] Epistemic Learned Helplessness | Slate Star Codexslatestarcodex.com
- what happened to conversations? - by julian rageyoungandangry.substack.com
- Conversational Cultures: Combat vs Nurture (V2) — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Before the game beginssparcjcs.substack.com
- the key to love is understandingvelvetnoise.substack.com
- Against truthsamkriss.substack.com
- The Internet is for conversationankitshah.substack.com
- The Phatic And The Anti-Inductiveslatestarcodex.com