Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Feedbacks & clarifications
John, Ive had that too. Sometimes I write up a big block of text that I think it's interesting and I get crickets. It's normal. Some other posts may be getting all the action that day. Attention is a null sum game. I wouldn't take it too personally. Other than 'that idea didn't resonate as much as I thought it would'
Quote from leaderoffun on July 2, 2022, 7:55 pmJohn, Ive had that too. Sometimes I write up a big block of text that I think it's interesting and I get crickets. It's normal. Some other posts may be getting all the action that day. Attention is a null sum game. I wouldn't take it too personally. Other than 'that idea didn't resonate as much as I thought it would'
Hey LOF, going back to that spirit of "open feedback", if you're including this thread by any chance, I think there were a few strategic tweaks that could have improved it:
- Change the title to show it's a different thread: with that title, it feels like it belonged to the initial thread you took it from, but "somehow wasn't in the right place". It may feel like a poor use of the forum to some, and potentially also feel disempowering to the original thread opener that one chose to start a new thread instead of contributing to the original one. I for one, I only realized now that I looked it up that it branched out into a different topic because I had that initial reaction of "why wasn't that a reply in the original thread"
- Â Make a "catchier title": ie. "audience before product. Why this is the era of charlatans". Or anything that you feel is the crux of the problem, and then explain in a catchy way
- Post it in the open area of the forum: the private area is lower traffic, and since there's nothing that felt truly private, it may also feel like a not-so-great use of the forum
- Use markups, quotes, titles, etc... It doesn't matter how smart the audience is, everyone is far more likely to read if the text is marked up (also see guidelines, plenty of basic, yet solid tips)
Quote from John Freeman on July 2, 2022, 10:15 amHello guys,
I noticed that in the past, I started several threads that got no answer at all. I want to tell you that if you find that what I'm saying is not relevant/coming only from my mind, I'm also interested. I'm talking about negative feed-back. If what I'm saying is total bullshit, I'm interested to know.
Sometimes we make up ideas in our minds and we come up to a conclusion based only our personal frame about what happened. And sometimes we're completely off. So if that is the case, I want you to know that I'm also interested to know.
I learned that without feed-back there is no learning. Feed-back is the learner's best friend.
I'm also taking this opportunity to thank you all for your enlightening answers in the threads/posts I created. I value it a lot and I want you to know it 🙂
Thank you very much for all of this!
Cheers!
Update:Â Our ideas can also come from ego/self-image protection rather than reality-based. These ideas are therefore false.
Hi John, could you please post the links to the thread you mentioned when you have time? I generally find your threads and replies very interesting and value-adding.
Hello MMC, thanks!
It's called "Claim your status" in "Social Life"
Hey @leaderoffun
Here you power moved me again.
Really good point about Chess Kavalier. Chess was the domain of choice for Newell and Simon, who wrote 'the' book on 'human problem solving' in 1972. Unfortunately the book didn't have much of an effect in applied settings and the field itself kinda died off. The reason: Low Eexternal validity of anything you conclude studying chess to solve any other problem.
So, what is the problem here: you attacked a straw man by means of name dropping. Elaborating: your text doesn't say "Kavalier, I disagree with you because of premise 1, premise 2, premise 3, therefore: conclusion". It says "Hänsel und Gretel tried that and it didn't work". So, it all was just dismissive, all the more because I wasn't proposing the study of chess to solve human problems. In the light of that, the first sentence is a backhanded compliment.
This may sound like an attack to everything we believe, so continue reading with a antifragile ego and note that your mind will want to reject this idea. The more attached you are to your beliefs, the more your mind will resist testing them. What if they are wrong? Gulp!
You frame me as someone with potentially fragile ego. Then you describe to me what my mind is going to do. And you double task me "to read" and "to note". So now we have covert-criticism, babying, tasking, and even more frame individualization (the last one I think we had already addressed before).
It's a whole bunch. Gotta be more aware of that, buddy :)
Hey Kavalier,
This may sound like an attack to everything we believe, so continue reading with a antifragile ego and note that your mind will want to reject this idea. The more attached you are to your beliefs, the more your mind will resist testing them. What if they are wrong? Gulp!
At no point was I thinking about you in particular when I wrote that. At all. I was thinking about everyone at TPM who has 'a dog in this fight', ie who has invested time in learning this material (including myself, and you but as a member of the group, not as an individual). More than anyone Lucio. Lucio could have felt attacked because this approach 'test what you think you know' could render some parts of the edifice he has erected as 'wrong'. But he does have an antifragile ego after all!
Still loving the idea.
He's willing to go all the way because his love for truth is bigger than his love for the amazing piece of work that PU is.
On your first point of name dropping: we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand name dropping as trying to steal 'fame' by implying that you met some big shot or similar. Here I was pointing at my source. This is a reference (name of authors, title of book, and year). If there's a source for an idea I'm using, and I know it, I'll try to write it because it helps with context. I will keep doing that Kavalier, I hope you don't see it as name dropping.
On strawman: yeah, I didn't go to detail on each argument, so this is justified. I did now here.
I wrote a line as a separator to make sure the chess part (which was a response to your post) didn't get mixed with the rest of the post, which was not. But this didn't communicate my intention.
On the chess part, you have a point that I didn't address your arguments because I wanted to continue the line of thinking on testing PU. This was on my mind when I wrote the post, not the other big point on whether measuring and having a big database of 'moves' would be useful or not. I have now written about that on this continuation post
Let me tell you this: those were power moves. If you've been through Power University, you can recognize each and everyone of them. They are also described in the dictionary of power, making them easy to check. I also named them, so half of the work is already done for you.
And unprovoked power moves, which makes things worse. The first time I just dismissed it as an isolated incident and even gave ear to your discussion. Bear in mind that I could have just dismissed it is as naïf: one gets the impression that you are not from the field of humanities, not familiarized with its methods, its literature, and are pretty much flogging a dead horse. So, me not drawing attention to this fact and going along with the debate should be interpreted as a means of bonding and showing things are cool. I was giving value, despite coming from a place of disagreement.
But in your answer not only there is no apology for your power moves, but you aggravate them further.
There is a blatant difference between name dropping and referencing, and if you are serious about intellectual endeavours you should have known it by now. Strawmanning is never cool. There is a serious lack of intellectual honesty going on here, dude.
One must conclude that you are here to play games, so I will not dwell on this further. And that's petty, because it's an online forum.
Make a good use of your money and time. fellow. Do go through the course you bought.
Hey LOF, Kavalier, if you want feedback on this interaction, feel free to ask.
And same for @rwy and @mmc from this other thread.
If you guys want feedback, just let me know (and other members can also chip in if they wish).
And of course, don't feel forced to say "yes". Feedback on public interactions are thorny as people tend to be heavily invested and committed (and from a Machiavellian point of view it'd be a lot easier for me to avoid it, but I feel they're tremendous opportunities for growth, so worth the risk, and almost a moral obligation to offer).
Hello, Lucio. I'd appreciate it, thank you for this!
Quote from Kavalier on July 5, 2022, 4:40 pmHello, Lucio. I'd appreciate it, thank you for this!
OK awesome, let's wait and see if LOF is also on board.
