It’s better to be alone than to be around people who make you feel alone.
What you're describing is the concept of positive and negative agents, and consequently of positive, negative, and intelligent relations. Let me explain:
Any fucking sane person would appreciate being treated nice and treat the other person likewise. It's basic "rewarding" behavior. To make others treat you well, you reward them when they do so by treating them well likewise. This is called a "positive" agent because there's a positive correlation between how they get treated and how they treat others.
However, as your post points out accurately, that's not at all how most people react. Most people, when you're being a douchebag to them, start respecting you more (paradoxically) and treat you better. That's called a "negative" agent because there's a negative correlation between how you treat them and how they treat you. In other words, if you treat them worse, they treat you better; and the other way around.
Now comes the concept of the intelligent agent, which is a mixture of the first two. Basically, assuming you want to be treated well, you'd treat others differently depending on whether they're positive agents or negative agents. If they're positive agents, you treat them well so they treat you nicely too. If they're negative agents, you treat them like the piece of shit they are so they respect you and treat you well. So, you gotta switch flexibly depending on the other person.
Hope that clears things up :D
Nope. I think you made it worse to me
I think @gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de has it a bit off, because he sees the individuals as positive or negative agents. I'd say it's positive or negative social situations.
If you're playing dodgeball, the point of the game is to hit other people with a ball. That's the situation you're in and your social reward is in playing the game.
By contrast, if you start flinging food at a wedding, you do not get the same social rewards. The point of a wedding is not to physically dominate your peers.
In OP's Greentext, you've got a kid who is in aggressive, jockular friend circles where verbal sparing is expected and rewarded. Greentext would not be rewarded if he behaved the same way with his mom.
But it's certainly possible that if the mom was younger and in a social circle with more jockular members, or she was sparing with other old biddies on Facebook, that she'd drop the nice demeanor and come out swinging.
Different people will approach those social situations differently. Work, play, drinking, hanging out, flirting ... everyone has their own ideas of what they enjoy or find inappropriate or don't know how to engage with in various settings. The same individual is often wildly inconsistent across different settings.
Personal adaptability and the willingness to apologise or double-down according to what the other party expects are the only ways to avoid getting one's feelings hurt and/or hurting others across a broad-range of experiences and individuals.
Of course, social isolation and intentionally keeping a small circle and/or routines are also valid options.
The answer is because 90% of the people you meet are sheep. They’re not gonna take shit from another ship but get a wolf in the room and they are quick to fall in line and shut up.
I downvoted at-first, but I just explained this to my son yesterday. Over 90% of us are sheep, and over half of that are just sheep who are concerned primarilly with the social-status and evident power/autority of anyone who tries to give them directions, no matter how correct or absurdly-wrong the directions. They actively despise the notion of thinking for themselves.
I noticed this too. People like me a lot more when I roast them with confidence, and then laugh in their face about it instead of apologizing or saying "I'm just kidding". You can get away with saying a lot if you say it with a smile.
Of course this only works if the other person is smiling too. Be mean with a smile, but don't drive the nail too deep and attack their insecurities. Gotta find that delicate balance. If you have autism it can be a struggle.
I think the key is having some nice verbal sparring. And like with sparring, both parties accept that it's just for fun and nobody is supposed to get hurt. That's why it very easily flips from being funny to being mean if one party doesn't adhere to the unwritten rules.
The key is figuring out when to use assertiveness vs aggressiveness vs gentleness. And, to learn how to do the first two while being respectful and the third while still insisting on at least basic respect.
It ain't fucking easy. But it is true that assertiveness shifts behavior, as does aggression. People respond to both, and often in ways that seem the same on the surface. But aggression only results in hidden ill feelings, so it's not usually good to use it if you aren't fully sure it's the right stance to take.
Learning that judgement is not a fun experience.
Smart people are reluctant to express confidence because they are better able to understand all the ways they may be wrong. Unintelligent or uninformed people are more likely to be confident. Listeners get much more satisfaction listening to confident people
Dunning Kruger effect I believe
Edit- yeah sounds like what you're describing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
While true, veritasium is terrible and fakes science experiments for advertisements. You shouldn’t support him.
him being friends with mehdi (electroboom) is good enough for me. i personally found derek annoying years ago but he and his team seem to be putting some serious work into their episodes these days. one i saw recently had animation on par with the Cosmos reboot from a while back.
This is the first I'm hearing of this, usually it's the opposite. Care to provide justification and evidence?
The one instance I’m referring to that caused me and my wife to stop watching was when he faked a science experiment for a wet wipes company, showing that wet wipes are flushable and used a faked experiment to show why.
You should not need proof for why this experiment was faked, but you can also just go find the video yourself and watch it. It’s so blatant that it doesn’t really need proof. And any wastewater engineer would tell you that wet wipes are not flushable as well.
Was quite a lot of controversy around this topic https://www.veritasium.com/videos/2021/7/23/why-you-should-want-driverless-cars-on-roads-now
Not well disclosed sponsoring among other things afaik. That video was why I unsubbed, no idea if there has been new stuff since
EDIT: Talking about people like tyler, you were just providing neutral commentary which I appreciate.
original comment: Jesus, people on the internet are like fucking elephants. One mistake, even if it's corrected and they change, and a creator gets branded for the rest of their career. What a joke, acting like people can't change from experience.
That was not the one I’m talking about. I’m talking about the literal faking of a science experiment he did when he did a sponsored segment for wet wipes.
I understand your justifiable concern, however I disagree with the blanket statement.
First off, if I remember the video correctly, it is not hidden that Waymo was the video sponser. It may not have been in the spotlight, but I don't think that's automatically a bad thing.
Secondly, it is very possible for some one to hold different opinions to yours, even with identical evidence. It was clear to me that he really did like the technology and made his best case for it. If new information has come to light, then that's worth re-examining the opinion. Personally, I have always been in fabour of replacing human drivers with AI, for a wide variety of reasons. I agree with his sentiment that the sooner we replace human drivers, the safer we'll all be. That being said, there is obviously a conflict of interest in the industry between making the technology safe, and profitable. And we all know what happens the larger an organization gets.
Third, the majority of the videos are not opinion pieces. They explain physics, chemistry, mechanics, etc. I'm not sure how some one can misrepresent physics, without being objectively wrong. And they seem to be pretty universally correct in their rigor. There has been more than one instance where the channel has come under scrutiny for being accused of manipulating experiments, and each time he comes back to re-explain the experiment and show that it had been misunderstood, not misrepresented.
https://www.iflscience.com/youtuber-derek-muller-won-a-10000-physics-bet-against-professor-60235
Hard to find a direct like but the "How electricity works" controversy also seems to fit this theme.
I am not saying the channel is above skepticism or is the poster child of perfection by any means. But I don't think it's fair to boycott on the grounds of a single opinion you happen to disagree with, especially when that opinion is genuinely based on available research and evidence. I think this is actually a disservice to progress as a whole. If you find an enemy in everyone that does share your exact values, it leaves progressives divided.
We need to get rid of cars, the sooner the better. Whether self-driving, electric, or a combination of those, they are the worst transportation method for most use-cases. Cars are only used as much as they currently are, because they are the most profitable for the capitalist and seem immediately convenient for the user, resulting in a double tragedy-of-commons situation.
Being paid by a car company, regurgitating their opinions, and not being clear enough about the whole situation, all while being a presumably trusted science presenter is unethical.
It may not have been in the spotlight, but I don’t think that’s automatically a bad thing.
Absolutely wild fucking take.
Yes, that is automatically a bad thing.
Personally, I have always been in fabour of replacing human drivers with AI
AI is overkill for this, like the vast majority of its applications
I get the impression they meant AI as in general "Artificial Intelligence", rather than the buzzword AI used to describe LLMs.
There are types of AI that are very good at specific things and have been since before LLMs became accessible to use. We need to recognize that those are the types of AI which should be encouraged.
When the video was published it was not clear at all that it was sponsored content by waymo when you watched it via Youtube and that they only added clarification after a lot of reactions speaks as a plus, however I think you have a responsibility to expand on why you post glorification about a tech that was not then nor now ready for use. How many "self driving" accidents has happened due to the same population (ie humans) that increase risk of crash with ordinary Cruise Control?
I also choose to stop supporting people who blindly promote LLMs as panacea for everything. I fail to see how that interacts with my political beliefs. American progressives are way too right wing to ever seem like allies to my swedish leftist views and political works. I will always abhorr being painted as divider of progressive factions when choosing who Im subscribing to. I can hear prager u content without subscribing to them as well
Veritasium kinda obviously dumbs things down and sensationalizes stuff somewhat, compared to actual scientific content creators. But the peak of this was when he popped up with a video about how “electricity works differently than everyone thought”, with the two long wires doing induction or whatever, and then every physics and electrics youtuber had a reply video explaining how Veritasium was wrong with his theory.
But the peak of this was when he popped up with a video about how “electricity works differently than everyone thought”, with the two long wires doing induction or whatever, and then every physics and electrics youtuber had a reply video explaining how Veritasium was wrong with his theory.
fun fact: i study physics and one of our profs actually referred to exactly this video as a nice visualization of what we were doing in class. they said that the video's right, actually, but there's lot of dumb people on the internet who don't get that and who nonsensically shit on stuff.
and then every physics and electrics youtuber had a reply video explaining how Veritasium was wrong with his theory.
Veritasium's first video was making the claim that a thr setup with wires stretching in either direction for a mile would have the lightbulb turn on faster than electrons or even light could travel through the wires. This is because the electric field extends out of the wire in all directions, not through the wire, and inducts through the other end of the wire without travelling all of the distance.
Then a bunch of other Youtubers made response videos saying he was wrong.
Then Veritasium made a second video where they actually did the experiment and proved themselves right.
You don't know what you're talking about. Shut up.
The whole thing seemed to be engineered for drama, and the "results" that most people got out of it are an exceptionally clickbaity oversimplification of what's going on. It's like that numberphile thing with 1 + 2 + 3 + ...
It's more complicated than the lightbulb just "turning on faster than the electric field could travel through the wire", in fact (depending on the exact circumstances) the initial current would be tiny, probably not enough to meaningfully "light" the lightbulb, and only after the light-speed delay would it ramp up to full-brightness.
Electric field obviously travels in all directions, but the electrons which produce fluctuations in the electric field, and propagate those fluctuations through mutual interactions, are constrained to the wire. Hence unless your wires are so close together as to basically be connected to each other, air significantly attenuates the electric field wave propagation. This is a reproduction of the experiment and an in-depth explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8 .
I still watch his videos sometimes because it can be quite entertaining/thought-provoking, but for the past 5-7 years a lot of them are clickbaity sponsored stuff, and you really need to mentally skip a lot of bullshit to get to the nugget of value.
Yeah, sounds exactly like science to me. Here's my claim, here's how I came to that conclusion, now show me how I messed up.
I don't think most people realize that most science YouTubers are expert communicators, not necessarily experts in any particular science field.
No, Veritasium did the experiment and proved Veritasium right
I was agreeing with you. He made a new claim, showed his work, and asked, indirectly by posting the first video, to have experts in the field prove it wrong, or right.
I didn’t lessen the difference between aggression and assertiveness until my thirties. Not asserting yourself leads to passive aggression and frustration for everybody concerned.
*learn
Sounds like Fake and Gay news! But I can see where this half-truth posts is getting at. You can also be nice and assertive when you need to be.
one day get super pissed off
This was the moment anon decided that their own value was greater than the perceived versions of others in his social circle anon had manufactured in his head. He was confident he was worth more than those manufactured constructs. Everything after that were expressions of that confidence he had in himself.
Confidence is attractive. Now it can go two ways though:
Both can lead to success by varying definitions of the word, but I know when I get to the end of my life I'd much rather hae arrived there on a path of benevolence.
Sounds like your mom was a trick ass ho that did you wrong.
This kid should read Mitch Prinstein’s work. Bottom line: high-status people have worse lives, while likeable people have better lives.
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
