I’m very abstracted in my thought process. It is kinda like I see statistical probabilities in everything and am open to inference about them. I don’t see absolutes or facts in much of anything.
Another way to look at it is that I make assumptions about everything I perceive, but those assumptions are not concrete or absolutes. They are embedded in layers upon layers of logic and experience.
All that said, I’m always aware of how that, many ideas and observations I make are kinda floating in mid air and not well grounded. I’m often unsure about extra perspectives or elements I may have missed or misread in my surroundings. I’m always interested in, and open to corrections. However, my assumptions are layered in such a way that I am looking for any corrections that mesh with all of my other observations and experience.
I’m content with the insecurity at the edge of my understanding. That is where my veracious curiosity resides. However, I have a deep need to ground the edge of my curiosities in the thoughts and experiences of others. It has nothing to do with popularity or emotional reinforcement, although there are some emotional side effects. I am primarily looking for validation of my abstractions on many levels and mostly indirectly.
I do not learn well conventionally. I can maintain above average scores, but retain less than an ideal amount of information from such structured schooling. Learning primarily by curiosity and abstraction makes my perspective angle very… unique. It also makes communicating the edge of my curiosities challenging.
Anyways, that is just one type of functional thought and approach to validation.
I think one of the biggest pros of social media is the connectedness outside of one’s community and social network IRL.
People seem to self select for information bubbles in ways I find interesting and concerning on social media platforms.
One of the biggest negatives is understanding the scope and depth of the demographic present at any given point in time or place.
Back in grade 9 I had trouble showing my work in math because I did it all in my head. My teacher, not believing that was possible, challenged me one day after class to do a tough problem in my head, in front of her. Upon writing a number down, before I could double check myself, she started yelling at me for being a cheat and a fraud… because I “forgot the negative sign.” That was the day that I stopped caring entirely whether or not others gave me validation, because it’s really more about whether or not they like you rather than whether or not you’re actually right about anything. It’s a decision that perhaps made my life harder for a while, but has resulted in the development of talents which I am quite grateful for, and eventually a near perfect score when I re-did grade 12 math later on to get into STEM.
Seeking validation from others can just as easily steer you wrong, as they are anything but an impartial indication of whether or not you’re doing things right. If the person doesn’t like you, there’s nothing at all in the world which will be good enough for them, and if they do like you, they’ll gloss over and sugar coat everything to the point you can’t even tell if they’re being honest with you.
Sure, others will steer you wrong, but with abstraction everything is like a statistical observation and not a firm point of reference.
I’m watching primarily the indirect indicators. These tell a certain truth that is beyond most people’s self awareness and ability to alter. The posturing, language, bias, word use, punctuation, spelling, grammar, verbosity, curiosity, open mindedness, cultural bias factors, etc. etc. In person, it can be body language, posture, appearance, habits, mistakes, quarks, etc. I don’t need to think about this stuff individually, it’s just part of my natural awareness. That awareness can focus more or less on an individual or interaction, but these aspects are often more of what I remember than the topic of conversation. I’m pretty terrible with people’s names in general. I actually remember people in a way, like they are this identity of traits I see in abstraction. It’s kind of like a flavor of a person but complex.
Like in this instance, I could be wrong, but you’re likely an interesting person. You were willing to respond first on a deeper question than average for Lemmy, and make a solid argument and observation. When I asked you leading questions that prompted you to rethink, you doubled down. When I took the lead to attempt steer the overall complexity of responses and hopefully make people think about the subject more, you show thought, experience, and reasoning that reflect depth and a friendly comradery I appreciate.
Just based on your writing composition I can tell you are a good bit different than me in how you think and process information. With abstraction, I think in a way that is kinda multi threaded. I write my thoughts largely based on whatever thread I’m thinking about more persistently in the moment. It can make my writing scattered at times and more like a rough draft. I need drafts and revisions to polish my writing in a more congruent flow, but that is largely outside of the scope of this place, at least for me.
I know many people do not value or understand how intuition, and observation based statistical abstraction like thinking is valuable or even valid. It is challenging to communicate all the things I perceive and process. There are many things I do and say that are pseudo manipulative to probe for information. Like when I meet someone for the first time, I might use an odd greeting, or shake hands with my left. I may make direct eye contact until you break eye contact first, or I may avoid eye contact then ask a deeper question and change my eye contact posturing. I often put a hand in my pocket or cross my arms while you’re talking to see how you respond as it says a tremendous amount about what and how you are thinking. None of this is invasive or done with harmful intent. I’m never trying to manipulate someone for my benefit. These are all just part of communication. I’m ultimately introverted and looking for information that aids and expands my internal curiosities and explorations. These are all tools to measure your real response in a way that goes beyond words and a way to contextualize whatever information you’re sharing. From my perspective, words have very little value. Actions are what I value most. Action tell me much more than words ever can.
One example, I was feeling mixed feelings about a previous post and deleted it after feeling like I did a poor job of explaining some complex ideas openly and net getting a response and getting some negativity without engagement. Mulling over why I felt that way lead to this post question. My expanding your initial response to this point is an exploration of the depth of the community and their understanding of functional thought and complexity. Internally, I’m addressing why I should not let the last post have an effect on me even though the last post was truly on the edge of my curiosity in need of grounding.
It is also worth mentioning, I’m partially physically disabled from a bad driver while riding a bicycle to work 2/26/14. I’m disabled in a way that makes holding posture a problem without a good solution. Sitting upright and standing are equally problematic and I have around an hour before I turn into a pile of pumpkin on the floor. I’m in near social isolation as a result. That makes this place my primary form of outside human contact and connection. The situation sucks, but one makes the best of things and all of that jazz.
Nope, divining the inner workings of the minds of others is beyond me. I can only tell you about the world that I see.
I’m very abstracted in my thought process. It is kinda like I see statistical probabilities in everything and am open to inference about them. I don’t see absolutes or facts in much of anything.
Another way to look at it is that I make assumptions about everything I perceive, but those assumptions are not concrete or absolutes. They are embedded in layers upon layers of logic and experience.
All that said, I’m always aware of how that, many ideas and observations I make are kinda floating in mid air and not well grounded. I’m often unsure about extra perspectives or elements I may have missed or misread in my surroundings. I’m always interested in, and open to corrections. However, my assumptions are layered in such a way that I am looking for any corrections that mesh with all of my other observations and experience.
I’m content with the insecurity at the edge of my understanding. That is where my veracious curiosity resides. However, I have a deep need to ground the edge of my curiosities in the thoughts and experiences of others. It has nothing to do with popularity or emotional reinforcement, although there are some emotional side effects. I am primarily looking for validation of my abstractions on many levels and mostly indirectly.
I do not learn well conventionally. I can maintain above average scores, but retain less than an ideal amount of information from such structured schooling. Learning primarily by curiosity and abstraction makes my perspective angle very… unique. It also makes communicating the edge of my curiosities challenging.
Anyways, that is just one type of functional thought and approach to validation.
I think one of the biggest pros of social media is the connectedness outside of one’s community and social network IRL.
People seem to self select for information bubbles in ways I find interesting and concerning on social media platforms.
One of the biggest negatives is understanding the scope and depth of the demographic present at any given point in time or place.
Back in grade 9 I had trouble showing my work in math because I did it all in my head. My teacher, not believing that was possible, challenged me one day after class to do a tough problem in my head, in front of her. Upon writing a number down, before I could double check myself, she started yelling at me for being a cheat and a fraud… because I “forgot the negative sign.” That was the day that I stopped caring entirely whether or not others gave me validation, because it’s really more about whether or not they like you rather than whether or not you’re actually right about anything. It’s a decision that perhaps made my life harder for a while, but has resulted in the development of talents which I am quite grateful for, and eventually a near perfect score when I re-did grade 12 math later on to get into STEM.
Seeking validation from others can just as easily steer you wrong, as they are anything but an impartial indication of whether or not you’re doing things right. If the person doesn’t like you, there’s nothing at all in the world which will be good enough for them, and if they do like you, they’ll gloss over and sugar coat everything to the point you can’t even tell if they’re being honest with you.
Sure, others will steer you wrong, but with abstraction everything is like a statistical observation and not a firm point of reference.
I’m watching primarily the indirect indicators. These tell a certain truth that is beyond most people’s self awareness and ability to alter. The posturing, language, bias, word use, punctuation, spelling, grammar, verbosity, curiosity, open mindedness, cultural bias factors, etc. etc. In person, it can be body language, posture, appearance, habits, mistakes, quarks, etc. I don’t need to think about this stuff individually, it’s just part of my natural awareness. That awareness can focus more or less on an individual or interaction, but these aspects are often more of what I remember than the topic of conversation. I’m pretty terrible with people’s names in general. I actually remember people in a way, like they are this identity of traits I see in abstraction. It’s kind of like a flavor of a person but complex.
Like in this instance, I could be wrong, but you’re likely an interesting person. You were willing to respond first on a deeper question than average for Lemmy, and make a solid argument and observation. When I asked you leading questions that prompted you to rethink, you doubled down. When I took the lead to attempt steer the overall complexity of responses and hopefully make people think about the subject more, you show thought, experience, and reasoning that reflect depth and a friendly comradery I appreciate.
Just based on your writing composition I can tell you are a good bit different than me in how you think and process information. With abstraction, I think in a way that is kinda multi threaded. I write my thoughts largely based on whatever thread I’m thinking about more persistently in the moment. It can make my writing scattered at times and more like a rough draft. I need drafts and revisions to polish my writing in a more congruent flow, but that is largely outside of the scope of this place, at least for me.
I know many people do not value or understand how intuition, and observation based statistical abstraction like thinking is valuable or even valid. It is challenging to communicate all the things I perceive and process. There are many things I do and say that are pseudo manipulative to probe for information. Like when I meet someone for the first time, I might use an odd greeting, or shake hands with my left. I may make direct eye contact until you break eye contact first, or I may avoid eye contact then ask a deeper question and change my eye contact posturing. I often put a hand in my pocket or cross my arms while you’re talking to see how you respond as it says a tremendous amount about what and how you are thinking. None of this is invasive or done with harmful intent. I’m never trying to manipulate someone for my benefit. These are all just part of communication. I’m ultimately introverted and looking for information that aids and expands my internal curiosities and explorations. These are all tools to measure your real response in a way that goes beyond words and a way to contextualize whatever information you’re sharing. From my perspective, words have very little value. Actions are what I value most. Action tell me much more than words ever can.
One example, I was feeling mixed feelings about a previous post and deleted it after feeling like I did a poor job of explaining some complex ideas openly and net getting a response and getting some negativity without engagement. Mulling over why I felt that way lead to this post question. My expanding your initial response to this point is an exploration of the depth of the community and their understanding of functional thought and complexity. Internally, I’m addressing why I should not let the last post have an effect on me even though the last post was truly on the edge of my curiosity in need of grounding.
It is also worth mentioning, I’m partially physically disabled from a bad driver while riding a bicycle to work 2/26/14. I’m disabled in a way that makes holding posture a problem without a good solution. Sitting upright and standing are equally problematic and I have around an hour before I turn into a pile of pumpkin on the floor. I’m in near social isolation as a result. That makes this place my primary form of outside human contact and connection. The situation sucks, but one makes the best of things and all of that jazz.