

OTOH, arguments at the speed of thought, with zero option to not participate, would probably resolve quickly.
For example, how often have you talked yourself into/out of a huff, in the shower? Granted it’s just you, but that internal dialogue is powerful.
Now imagine you aren’t separated from other people and your inner debate is you versus a cacophony, but one central idea rises from the noise and takes on one side of the argument in your head so you aren’t arguing against yourself. It still probably feels like arguing against yourself. And you’ll probably lose because one side of yourself knows a lot more than the other side.
Then assume that thoughts aren’t limited by speaking speed (they might not be for you, but they feel like it if you think in words like many people do. This isn’t an inherent limit to communication because you can process thought faster than a string of words can be strung)








Probably would have worked better if she hadn’t abandoned the metaphor and swapped to another one.
She went with whatever she felt would be most impactful for the message portion, rather than the whole thing.
It seems disingenuous because it is. It’s not a coherent thought. At best it’s a bunch of unrelated thoughts crammed together. Probably based on what she thinks will hit. As sound bites.
So don’t feel bad not trusting it; it’s not even internally consistent. Even if you agree with part of it, a stopped clock is right at least once.