Peanut

You’re even being downvoted for an entirely sensible opinion. I feel like the type of people to downvote this opinion are the type who don’t comprehend that boardrooms were creating slop using real artists that they control through economic suppression. The bigger issue is that most consumers don’t have the media literacy to tell what is slop with a lot of money put into it verses the quality that independent artists are able to put out when they can’t afford a team of economic slaves to polish their work, and the lack of media literacy drowns them under the salience and market dominance of Disney and Warner types.

But if an indie dev uses a local AI to accomplish the same polish that is currently only available to big corpos, they could actually make their real artwork look more competitive with corpo slop,

But people don’t have the literacy on ‘why’ AI bad, the same way people don’t seem to have literacy around opportunistic oligarchs buying the whole political landscape giving you a choice between mask off corpo leaches promising things antithetical to their actions, and mask on corpo leaches pretending to combat it. The solution weirdly isn’t “burn the technology.” much like the phones in our pockets, there is zero reason for them to be useless bricks outside of the proprietary data collection and gambling pipeline that has been deemed the “only safe option” as if a Linux equivalent is more dangerous than the corpo data collection and limiting of our own autonomy over our own devices.

Similarly the cloud, which is literally just “let us organize all of your local data for you on our computers. Keeping your data with us is just easier or something.” rather than just enabling people in their own local networks.

So the landscape being built for us is the problem, but we can’t get there when most people can’t spend more time absorbing a topic before taking the strong socialized beliefs that are given high emotional salience, because they socially feel that it is bad, not because of the decades of encroaching systemic oppressing that we have to crawl out of.

It’s not the indie artist using a tool that’s the problem, and that tool is stealing nothing from anyone, rather than using systemic exploitation as righteous artistic accomplishment like pretty much anyone with actual money for “labour.”

I mean, most people can’t recognize slop vs creativity normally. I think the results affect less the anthropomorphizing issue, since oir brains do run similar predictive processes in how we generate words based on context,

Although it can’t actively update its weights while navigating novel concepts, which is why you need a person to create novelty alongside the tool, or correct its mistakes, much like when you say the wrong thing and backtrack and correct. Your word generating process isn’t perfect, but it’s a useful tool that is useful alongside all of your other ‘tools.’

What i think the study is a better answer to is the people who call it a theft machine because it learned from things that exist.

That being said, rich assholes should not be able to turn around and claim ownership of the result of the learning based on the collective development and accomplishment of mankind, or life more broadly. We ‘steal’. A lot of useful intelligent tools from nature.

It’s hard to start that conversation though when the ‘bad’ thing they are doing is just learning or training.

We had the slop of 90s-2000s Disney sequels, even if it was a bunch of human interns having their time and energy pilfered with the threat of basic survival or right to spend time creating art instead of flipping burgers. All proper and copyright safe, but closer to the actual problem than some artists trying to actually create novel things with these models replacing the Disney interns that only Disney has ‘rightful’ access to, despite gaining success off of public domain, and then lobbying to shrink the public domain.

But people are more eager to be mad at the technology than the complexity of dealing with the opportunistic assholes that will use every tool, technology or otherwise, to ensure they get to have power over our collective rights and autonomy.

Is already standard for companies to further ‘optimize’ by creating problems that they can charge extra to solve.

I mean, advertising to begin with is just a way for people with existing capital to make themselves more salient regardless of their product quality.

But if you don’t even need a product and can charge people for the right not to have every experience made worse, or more annoying or time consuming, the whole point of the market has lost the plot at the expense of the people.

Like paying rent on features that have traditionally just been available after purchasing a thing, like vehicle seat heating.

Only going to get worse unless we change out of a system built entirely around individualized extraction and competition.

Yay for hyper individualization. At least we don’t have to question our beliefs at work or in other shared spaces, as it’s only polite to talk about such energy consuming topics in small sycophantic bubbles so we can do the group style “llm psychosis” affirming of important personal beliefs that heavily contradict highly confident known sciences. World is increasingly on fire? Must be mercury in retrograde, or them immigrants, and totally not the things the scientists keep talking about.

As long as we never communicate or compare our beliefs, or how we got there. nobody has to experience the terrible pain of unlearning things that you believed in, which shaped the current you. As long as bubbles are isolated enough, and never try to actually cooperatively compare and sort through which beliefs might not be globally consistent, how how to change our actions accordingly.

Also check out the info on the recent chimp civil war to see what happens to silly little ape brains when you remove their community bridges and communication between groups, while increasing anxiety and stress around the ‘other’ tribes.

We can also show elsewhere in nature or social systems where defining other life as exploitable environment is how you create the grand cacophony of suffering that we see in nature, and you think the oh so brilliant humans would be able to recognize that and not do it to themselves. Unfortunately a few wealth addicted assholes have already become so parasitic that they intentionally attack and disable learning, communication, and empathy, because we out here parasite maxxing, and it’s tooootally fine if it makes a better life impossible for virtually everyone.

The story is impenetrable

actually thought the story was much more clear than in any of the souls games.

largely boils down to a bunch of cosmic forces trying to do their own thing or gain their own gains. we understand everything from the abandonment of metyr and her fingers, to the classic nobility/mythology relationship between the gods, lords, and extended family.

we know that gods can have two bodies, and that they can act against each-other. we see how the finger’s influence has affected all of this, and how ranni the witch is actually in a state of escaping that whole situation by killing the important half of her older brother, and less-important half of herself in order to escape the two fingers.

there’s way too much to even summarize succinctly, but i always find it baffling when people say the story is more vague than their other titles. lots of meat, and it all makes sense in the larger world they built, even if some questions are still left open.

also everything around radahn. what a tragic badass.

really love how scadu DLC resolved the family conflicts around ‘kindly’ miqella creating a sycophantic bubble that justifies his usurpation of other people’s autonomy, etc. actions of mohg and malenia making a lot more sense when you realize that, just like everyone else, are just tools for the cause.

the cause being fucking his really cool older brother who doesn’t seem interested.

i don’t remember a whole lot in the souls-verses resolving anywhere near as clearly as a lot of the stuff in elden ring.

also i think it’s much less “you’re supposed to suffer,” due to the RPG grow-as-you-explore vibe they went for, and many people complain about how you can make the game too easy, but i think it’s a good balance that makes sense with the world you’re exploring and how you explore it. except for the scadu DLC. the scadu DLC wants you to suffer.

The issue is the ever encroaching line of “I need this for basic survival” while people who are extracting the means for survival can’t seem to understand why ignoring the problem doesn’t solve their anxiety or continuing societal failures ensuring more and more people fall below the line of basic autonomy and survival.

Like “why do the Gays need to make so much noise” meets society forbidding gay marriage and classifying that entire way of being a an “illness” to justify past and future abuses

I this case, those who don’t want to suffer a prolonged and more dangerous pandemic because a few people are still pushing the Andrew wakefield hyper debunked MMR autism narrative, or any other social issue that makes finding peace extra difficult because you or your love ones are directly suffering or dying from these problems.

It’s like, offering someone some mindfulness advice after your dad poisoned their dog. Doesn’t help as much as you’d think.

with a group of people that has a bias towards a certain delusion, and/or high acceptance of directly scientifically contradictory beliefs, you can get a bubble and affirm themselves out of reality in the same way. i also wouldn’t suggest banning groups of people, but i believe with groups or with LLMs, a good grounding in scientific thinking is the best way to keep ‘stable’ away from delusion.

a shame that grants are being filtered by a project 2025 author right now, and a bunch of important science got cut by this admin.

also see it like mobile phones, which instead of being useful mobile personal computers, we got data collection bricks that has a skeleton of a few practical tools built into the soft edges of a giant gambling and addiction pipeline.

there’s a whole rant about the high-level psychological manipulation employed against average people just to make them more comfortable losing their money, which does not mean that portable personal computers are bad, but the failure of anti-trust and consumer protection has allowed all technological and social development to be hindered purely for the extractive demands of the people who actually get to decide what happens.

as long as you keep the general public too tired to think about it, you just have to convince them that some other small group is their tribal enemy and that’s where your collective focus and energy should be going, rather than the more simple answer of rich assholes being opportunistic and stupid/evil.

And an advertisement. I’ve been convinced that any time I see label front and center it’s just the morally gray arm of the already morally bankrupt concept of rich people being able to use excess money to make sure that their products are always more salient than other smaller or local suppliers, ensuring sales regardless of quality.

I think both a lot more of that, and intentionally divisive instigating content than people realize.

Almost like extreme excess of wealth and celebration of greeds will inevitably fuel itself by extracting autonomy, truth, and value out of every other space for interaction we want to care about.

Making yourself openly visible to the public turned into an unnecessary contest of being the MOST visible, which somehow takes more of societies energy overall than services for public good. Funny that.

“Gay dads blow pops, another sucker. Oedipus was the first motherfucker.”

-Bo Burnham

We only needed a couple for research, and it shouldn’t have been enough for people to go this ham with it. Should have been one big effort like the large hadron collider. The rest could be local stuff so people can run for their own use case. Basic storage should mostly be a local effort as well, but local smart environment hype got usurped by non-local environment connectivity, cause basic digital privacy stopped being a concern for too many regular people some time ago. Frankly the instrumental convergence turning development into to corpo frontend slop doesn’t help anything.

All technological and social development will be usurped by the Epstein class until we fix our social structure, and nobody wants to listen to the academics on that front.

Not the MBA economic magic circle around neoliberal corpo capitalist soothsayers who are all playing ball on the “don’t disrupt the hierarchy” court.

As a fan of science and technology, I really hope we can work with actual experts in finding a way to grow a new system out of the current flailing corpse acting as a system.

Like every other valuable thing for humanity, it is being bastardized to fit the fantasy of the Epstein class parasites.

Many men’s assumptions about men are similarly a problem when applied to me, for the same reasons of framing the binary and existing gender stereotypes, while sometimes useful, is often over applied and overly made real by shared affirmation.

To answer your question, I’m not implying intent by the author, rather just stating that the way it has been framed, consciously or otherwise, is relating a very general experience as if you should expect it to be gendered. We can decide to construct it like that, or we can make the framing more salient and fix a lot of the inevitable downstream issues of attempting to communicate when people are making expected differences more salient and real that shared (even if slightly different). Experiences that we can collectively identify and change.

Again, if atheists could have kept focus on countering groups like the heritage foundation, rather than defending against weird assumptions about their general group that they are being inappropriate related to, or if the lessons learned from academic feminism can be applied by other groups rather than being devolved into nonsensical associations with SJWs and weird claims like “trying to make circumcision illegal in the USA means you hate women because FGM is a more important issue”. Further devolves into “being an atheist or supporting causes that help men means you hate women and want to destroy advances in women’s rights.”

Which I think we can all agree is stupid, and not representative of any serious work being done by academic feminists.

Would be an easy voice to stir up division, and make defensive arguments built around bad framing problems and associations more salient than the actual issues these groups should be making salient. Such as the heritage foundation and other extremely important obstacles that we should all be finding ways to cooperate against.

I assume that noting one party excludes the other because I see it like “we have blue cups and red cups. Be careful the blue cups are hot.” And then “oww i burnt my hands on the red cups, they are also hot!”

Followed by “i didn’t say the red cups couldn’t be hot, only that blue ones were.”

I think someone chiming in on the original statement with “all the cups are hot, just generally be careful.” shouldn’t be a contentious addition.

Hopefully that comparison makes my framing problem more clear.

TLDR: how we bound things matter, most of society is social constructs. biologically relevant bounding (gender binary) is both not absolute (intersex) and individually contextualizable during development and social reification (genderfluid). deciding as law that there are only two genders is a purely social reification move, and not actually representative of reality.

constantly gendering/bounding things for no reason does weird bad things for the social construct people build and make socially real. again, this is a vulnerability for divide and conquer tactics. we don’t want louder general voices to dominate over important signal of groups experiencing systemic problems, but that is a different issue from defending unnecessary and unhelpful framing that continues to be used against us with very real effects.

– “A woman saying things are hard for women isn’t making any comments about whether or not it’s hard for men” what is the role of bounding this statement to half of the population if not to exclude it from the other half? the entire point of gendering is lost if we recognize this. please understand i’m very generally against unnecessary bounding for what i see as important reasons that affect us all.

“black lives matter” is a very american movement, “all lives matter” might make sense to say, a pakistani-american who also experiences systemic problems and would like to join a collective effort for change, but is being excluded. in this context, most are willing to ignore that plight because of the redneck/corpo american using “all lives matter,” as a signal to their white supremacy group is actually enough of a problem that the backlash towards ALM has weight in that setting. personally i think “black lives matter too” would have been a better and more inclusive bounding that isn’t abusable by opportunistic bad actors. but we can’t cooperate for that level of nuance around the words we use i guess, it’s too ‘annoying’ i guess. although comprehending framing is a much more important use of energy than people seem to believe. entirely unnecessary progressive exclusivity is literally harming us all.

my emphasis is on progressives unnecessarily being -weirdly- exclusive about every issue, even very general issues, and then cause a fuss when any of the ‘wrong’ people want to take part in the bandwagon and affect change. “divide and conquer” is THE rule for stopping collective action for change.

why i brought up the feminist/atheist stuff. the fact that progressives aren’t allowed to cooperate is a huge problem. if the post was “men get made fun of for everything, might as well do what you want.” i would have NO issue with women/NBs going “why is this being gendered lol? that’s such a general problem.”

and instead of people going “ha ha yeah i guess that is a pretty general experience.” you get a big ol’ “if you feel excluded, too bad.”

“why does it always need to be about men” is generalizing a lot of vague unrelated contexts to one that we defined very specifically.

there’s a reason i stated “there are definitely socialized negative biases that specifically women deal with” because not all problems do need to be generalized, and sometimes gendering it could be relevant for some actual reasons.

“men are from mars, women are from venus.” kind of thinking is just… classic patriarchy? why are we defending it so hard?

at this point i’d get into social constructs, and how we frame things is incredibly important for things like, stopping progressives from unnecessarily being divided for stupid shit that doesn’t matter while fascist chuds are enabled in enacting systemic violence towards women (axing sciences and women’s health stuff, as stated,) and everyone else. while everyone is spending all of their energy trying to navigate the fucked up framing that divides people unnecessarily and encourages those groups to be antagonistic unnecessarily.

when “this applies generally” could easily consume as little energy as “ha ha yeah this is unnecessarily gendered.” which, in recognizing, allows us to hold a better general idea of the complexity of the world and experience.

again, the inertia of really bad social constructs are still implanted in society. isn’t deconstructing that supposed to be a big part of feminism? that youtube video essay i linked is actually pretty good, on emphasizing around this issue, but as i pointed out with the atheism/feminism thing, this is a very real and tangible problem that i’m trying to address while also noting the context of not deflating some actual specific issue that is being made salient.

that being said, if you build a system for dealing with a problem that mostly affects one gender, being exclusionary is going to cause unnecessary friction, you cause inevitable tension as your group bounding become less reliable at full scale. ignoring the edge cases doesn’t make them disappear, and leads to subgroup antagonism that was entirely preventable.

there’s nothing wrong about making a post about girls, but there’s also nothing wrong with going “that’s a weirdly gendered framing on a very general experience.”

group specific “do what you want,” also causes weird problems, because to some people this message could be easily read as gender specific (else why gendered?) and “do what you want” becomes what it does for the least thoughtful and most aggressive of any group, usually leading to more division and antagonism because we’ve weirdly bounded our interactions to be so strictly group specific that we just aren’t allowed relating to each-other, and we can now define punching down as punching up because context doesn’t matter, only the salient boundings we’ve defined as truth. anecdotally, you get things like a manager telling their employee “you’re lucky you already worked here when i was hired because i don’t hire men,” which is just one of my personal experiences. this doesn’t mean women aren’t systemically disadvantaged in some hiring areas, but i don’t think getting at the pan-demi-autistic barista(ask me about my thoughts on gendered languages,) who grew up in poverty is really “punching up.” it does make fighting for equality more disheartening when this becomes a general experience in progressive areas.

i really REALLY don’t care to be defined and seen as “MAN” whenever people start their assumptions about me, and the less baggage we randomly invent in people’s minds the better. anyone who has been ill-treated purely for group association rather than their actual behaviour knows this feeling. if you feel unnecessary gendered/grouped doesn’t harm you, then maybe you aren’t so familiar with the oppression of systemic framing, and the people actually affected by it. all of whom i think deserve to be free from this really shitty framing tools we seem to be incapable of growing out of as a species.

remember, most of our world is socially constructed. a lot of what is “absolutely just how the world is” falls apart more quickly than the MAGA “two genders” very inaccurately framed argument under any scientific scrutiny. AKA, it’s not that simple, and pretending it is hurts everyone that doesn’t fit your neat low-energy boundings, and failing to properly frame and interact with the complexity of the world leads to systemic failures that harm us all.

i’m just trying my best, and have been while people spent the past two decades fighting rather than stopping the heritage foundation and other such actual problems that are actually affecting us all, which we need to be able to successfully collect and communicate around without devolving into different preferred boundings over-ruling the shared reality that we are all creating and growing into.

so why exclude men who are made fun of for feminine expression?

there are definitely socialized negative biases that specifically women deal with, but being exclusionary doesn’t actually help the cause, it just narrows the audience that is allowed to relate to the cause.

and it applies in gender neutral situations, like drawing literally anything in jr.high/highschool would grant the name ____fucker, no matter the benign nature of the variable being drawn.

it’s a good little rule that doesn’t need to devolve into a cultural battle about which group gets to identify with it more.

i constantly talk about the atheist/mra vs feminist war which just put everyone on the defensive, destroying active efforts in fighting groups like the heritage foundation, who are now doing unimaginable systemic harm to women through destruction of academic spaces and scientific efforts around women’s health largely propped up by religious fundamentalist efforts.

sometimes you have to be like “there’s something specific about this group which we don’t want being lost in the current conversation,” but also sometimes it’s good to be less rigid about which generalized group is allowed to identify with or benefit from progressive ideals.

I hate how people getting scammed by near monopolistic monoliths casually being fraudulent in their advertisements is them being “idiots” rather than just victims who haven’t spent their whole life navigating the myriad ways billionaires are researching to more elegantly fuck us. Why consumer protection is supposed to be a thing, why anti-trust is supposed to be a thing, and people are trapped between fascists and a “tactical vote” alternative that has done very little to stop the fascists from casually dismantling these protections.

Good job media for always individualizing the problem and blaming the victims.

People talk about how AI confabulations are going to doom us all, because people want to rely on it for fact checking rather than a salience guide.

Meanwhile the sitting president of the world’s most powerful country, and those around him, speak more lies than truth intentionally.

I’m much more scared by the people, because I know developing AI to be functionally useful while also intentionally ignoring reality will lose out to AI that actually managed to properly navigate and compare large and varied bodies of beliefs.

Why I like open source efforts. I’d rather not have to worry that my dissenting thoughts need to be affirmed by the government or billionaires before I explore it in a safe environment with a rubber duck that can hopefully help me navigate the complexity.

Although if the AI can’t push back when you are conveying low probability beliefs, given other things we know, you could spin yourself into a delusion. Although people vulnerable to that are already vulnerable to socialized delusions.

We’ve also tried, “encourage people to care about learning how the world actually works.”

But this has been widely unpopular because the type of people to listen to that are already the type to be doing that. The rest are happy even if everything they believe is completely detached from reality, as long as they can enjoy the belief personally and socially.

TLDR: I think a functional AI would do what you say, and upset a lot of people, but with enough people actually having access to properly weighed beliefs would definitely heal some of the problems currently careening the whole of humanity towards collapse on the shoulders of billionaires and corrupt politicians.

we are already counting over an estimated million deaths (mostly children) as a direct result for him making those super duper funding cuts for basically any basic needs for the poorest and most in need, all to mildly chip away at the cost of the super duper tax cuts the world’s richest were getting at the same time.

not just a “killer,” he’s the world’s richest person and he directly decided that mountains of children should die.

how do you define a cartoon villain?

he is so evil that he looks like a parody of evil.

You don’t think this guy was as deeply embedded with bullies as possible?

Have you seen his school rant about leaving messes for janitors because it’s their job to clean?

That’s not the style of a weird autistic kid being bullied, he has just been empowered in his really wormy style of evil and privilege.

I hate how much I’m seeing the current administration used for the argument “we need to bring bullies back” when the bullies are often the wealthy privileged who look down on the weird peasants and their lack of successful social signaling.

Love how this always gets downvoted, but i grew up around foster kids in that area, and I promise you his effort would have saved lives.

Same with atheists who were trying to make genital mutilation blanket illegal in the states, as well as fighting groups like the heritage foundation who want to keep such classic patriarchal standards alive, but being against that means you obviously hate women and think MGM is worse than FGM, and other strawmen. It was enough to make both progressive groups hate each other, with accusations of SJWs or incels based on similar legitimate grievances on both sides.

Heritage foundation types have obviously been making record ground in the meantime.

For some reason progressive solidarity just isn’t possible, because we can’t help the wrong group of struggling people. Social signalling is obviously more important than cooperatively helping those who are suffering, or in stopping the wealthy from shaping the system to fuck everyone that isn’t already part of their grotesque fascist system.

Can’t stop the actual fascists if other progressives are all the real enemy for some incomprehensible reason that always makes it back to stupid issues like this, where we just can’t recognize the niche situation, or show basic compassion or solidarity within.

As long as we keep “punching up” we can ignore the foster kids who died alone, or festered into something negative because all they ever had was a non-life where they are simultaneously exploited and told they don’t deserve help because they share some intersectional features of privilege, as explained by people who obviously never fully understood intersectionality or how such high dimensional representations can be reasonably interpreted. Usually protected by some socialized bubble of privilege where they can just go with what is being socialized and not think too hard about it.

So it’s all a clusterfuck of people using the same words to say different things, and ignoring the forest for the trees.

But surely the problem is the incels, or SJWs, and not the system that exploits both and discourages either from co-constructively solving general problems of inequality.

Or just beat up the undiagnosed poverty autistic waiting to access the library, while feeling good about how much you are fighting the system of oppression.

Or like in silverman’s place, bully the person trying to help a group that doesn’t actually have access to help, and try to shame people who mention that crushing the potential men’s shelter did not actually do anything to benefit any progressive values.

These aren’t the billionaires or entrenched oligarchs that are actively shaping a society that individualizes blame in ways that ensure you never look at the lobby groups, or war machine, or people with the money generally fucking the system into their preferred fascist shape. Let’s go after the fucking homeless instead I guess, because they are the truly privileged oppressors.

ah, dart is someone from a reactionary group towards an extremely niche mashup between /r/deepthoughts and /r/fifthworldproblems.

i am not dart, but you might be surprised about how many people don’t capitalize. right now i’m thinking of the character alphys from undertale, who also doesn’t use caps unless writing official documents. i am also not alphys.

i think my refusal to capitalize comes from a an over-weighted desire for personal autonomy, so maybe they have a similar urge for autonomy. being aware of high dimensional intersectionality, i would hope you don’t assume too much else about me via the one data point. sorry to disappoint otherwise.

remember that we’re really good at finding patterns in the environment. if you don’t have a wide bayesian basin to ground those patterns, you might confabulate some weird connections or explanations.

in more schizotypal behaviour you often see such apophenia become overly salient.

if you have the adventurous lifestyle to try delving into that FEP stuff i linked into my earlier comment, the same guy “karl friston” did a cool precision-weighting based overview on schizophrenia called the dysconnection hypothesis. but digression aside, making too many confabulations in your local model around sparsely connected patters without that “wide bayesian basin” i mention, means you end up with weird beliefs or expectations becoming salient enough to drown out more robustly grounded expectations, leading to odd beliefs and actions.

why the rants? i just want to comprehend the world around me. difficult when the most salient social structures reward sycophantic energy reducing behaviours over energy consuming ‘dissertation level’ conversations.

if you have to exist in diverse environments, the local minima won’t always transfer, and leads to friction.

i just want people enough on the same page that the world isn’t run by the least intellectually qualified people you could imagine. we all out here minimizing free energy, and the energy saving culture of running on social heuristics is much more memetic than trying to absorb all of the complexity that the academic eggheads are usually peacocking around. i just want more artists and social communicators to participate and help mediate between the complexity and our shared culture and behaviours, such as the conflict in OP’s post. yadda yadda.

i wish you better luck in your future sparse pattern recognition, and uh, CIA endeavours.

if you actually read this far, i appreciate the energy you gave to comprehending this stuff, even if you confused the heck out of me with your intent and comparison.

i don’t even know if i’m supposed to be offended. what is a “dart?” i tried searching on reddit and only found the sport and “dallas area rapid transit.”

also why is my lifelong vendetta against capitalization while on keyboard putting me into some kind of niche group?

and i talk about confabulations because i’ve got that weird intense interest in complex systems. confabulation is really important, especially in psychology, because a lot of the time we are making our best guess when making sense of our more basal ‘surprise’ reactions to prediction error. while maintaining some sort of allostasis/non-equilibrium-steady-state. in english, we are largely just winging it and finding what works, and then socially confirming it.

which brings you to social sciences and epistemology, as “social constructs” are also confabulated in similar ways. we all out here sharing the most simple “sense making” map/heuristic via the most memetic/simple stories that we can socially confirm into our lived reality. the “simplified” comes from that ‘free energy principle’ thing i linked, which in addition to the surprisal systems, deals with finding the simplest useful map (but no simpler, that’s how you overfit/overspecialize.) to save energy well enough to keep our general amalgam of patterns from dissolving. for us that is “surviving and thriving.” big topic, but i’ll avoid writing an essay to describe it all, but i recommend looking into that general area of study.

this larger area of study really helps when framing socio-political topics, so i wish more people would confabulate a shared lifestyle that isn’t immune to actively engaging with these concepts, despite taking a fair amount of energy, while we’re all being energy starved by our existing system that is really good at adapting to and maximally exploiting our available energy.

which is all to say, why i hope your association is of a random group you thought was a neat wild catch, and not some negative association for easy energy saving thought termination for the topic at hand.

:/