Adell wrote:Speaking personally, I would prefer more openness between all of us. I feel like problems like this could have been avoided if we were more clear with one another.
Yeah, that would help a lot. Different people have been approaching this in different ways, and there are multiple advisors to contend with. I've been bugging people with all my questions, which are partly due to coming in so late, and partly due to how much
Subtext and
Reality Subtext is going on here. The actual experience of each Metaguard differs based on many factors - who they are, how they think about their experience, and which combinations of others they start getting to know. Which
friends a person makes, which
rabbit hole of archive bingeing they go down, which tropes they apply to their
interpretation of others in
their world, all affects how they perceive and think about the situation they're in. This is true for fictional characters, just as much it is for real people, or players in a game.
averagejoe wrote:Sicon, if you are going to posit that you are essentially the team philosopher, you should know that the way various brands of philiosophical thought are refined is through the sharing of various thought experiments. Without sharing them, others cannot poke holes in logical inconsistencies and develop new strategies for dealing with them. It would be great if you could share these thoughts of yours - with your foundational work, it's possible that some of those initial thoughts that you believe may lead nowhere could be expanded upon by other Metaguards

(I am trying to be more active!)
Hi, AverageJoe, I don't think we've met. I'm glad everything seems to be looking up for you. I've followed your videos for a while, but I wasn't sure what I could do to help, until Mr. A pointed me to the Introduction forum here. Now that you have more time on your hands, maybe you could help the Metaguards with the challenges we're facing.

I totally agree with you about sharing foundational thoughts and ideas. I think an important part of that is a person's backstory, which is part of how they came up with their ideas, in combination with their neurophysiology, their consciousness, the mental models they've developed through their backstory experiences. Those mental models (a.k.a., categories, tropes, concepts, stereotypes, scripts and schemas, theories and beliefs) in turn feed into their subsequent thoughts and ideas. This leads to a risk of a person being
totally lost in their own world, and is a big reason why
Socratic dialogue is such a powerful method for making one's way out of that
Chinese Room or
Platonic Cave.Like Sicon, I'm trying to play more of an advisor role than one of jumping in to the fire of gambit-running amid uncertainty. There's enough fire to be had as it is! I think it's good, though, that some people *are* taking those
Heroic risks, or nothing would ever get done. However, when the stakes are high -- in terms of both relationships and reality -- thinking about and discussing the nature of those decisions might be worth the time. Unfortunately, the philosophical/psychological/theoretical side of things often suffers from
Cutting The Knot when things get intense, and from the
"meh!" problem when there's no particular
dramatic tension.This whole situation involves the relationship between the voice of authority, and initiative on the part of individuals when the authority offers a loose framework, along with a
Shrug of God. In other words, the individual -- you, or the person you're empathizing with -- has a range of freedom, but the rules, instructions, or the "right thing to do" is not always clear.
Fortunately, there seems to be consensus about being more open. Now, consider this twitter exchange with Mr. A, about how he can be SO SURE OF SUCCESS amid SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY:
https://twitter.com/YouHaveFailedUs/sta ... 1233116160Mr. A referenced this trope:
Unspoken Plan Guarantee. But given that this thread is about blowing cover and open discussion, what are the implications?
Unspoken Plan Guarantee on TV Tropes wrote:This, by the way, is why heroes always manage to escape a villain's Death Trap. The villains always insist on describing exactly what the traps do.
Admittedly, the reason for revealing only failed plans to the audience is obvious. Where's the drama in something going wrong if no one knows what was supposed to happen? Conversely, where's the drama in seeing exactly what you were just told would happen?
This may be justified if the plan must be kept secret, even from one's allies. Perhaps the enemy can read minds, and will know everything your friends know as soon as the two sides come into contact. Or perhaps they have other methods for making people talk. Or somebody on your team might be an enemy agent. If so, the only way to keep your opponents in the dark is to lie to the people on your side about what the plan is, or don't tell them any plan at all.
Another possibility is that the plan includes a deception, and your allies aren't in on it so that their reactions to the apparent situation will be convincing.
So much of this comes down to trust. Even with trust established between Metaguards, there's the question of what Mr. A is really up to, what assumptions he's running with, and how much he really understands about how reality works.
What do you all think?