The usual misunderstanding. Trying to learn how to naturally speak their language while still saying what I am intending to say.
The usual misunderstanding. Trying to learn how to naturally speak their language while still saying what I am intending to say.
Can you come up with a hypothetical person that would serve as an example of someone who doesn’t fit into that diagram? The only type I can think of is Type D - (neuro)Divergent, they reside outside the diagram.
I already accounted for that. I said the lines separating them as grayscale boundaries. A sliding scale.
I agree. But you CAN break a complex thing into many simpler things, and simpler things into even simpler things, etc etc. Eventually you get down to a grain of sand. This is Ontology.
I would counter that this is a borderline impossible task, but likely the wrong question, as if you create a system that includes people who see the trees, people who see the forests, people who see both, and people who see neither (or, alternatively, people who see the whole equation fundamentally differently; the aforementioned neurodivergent category), then of course you’re going to include all of humanity. It’s like saying “there are twelve kinds of people: those born in January, those born in February, those born in March…”; true by definition, debatably useful due to the broadness of the categorization.
I’m still not entirely certain I understand the point you were making in the original post, so I can’t really comment on the validity of the point itself, but I am certainly familiar with the Type A/Type B categorizations, and I’ve never found it to be that useful, simply because a person is not static across the board. Someone can be biased by their own personal experience to view the world in contradictory ways on a per-issue basis. In my experience, very few people are truly “type A” or “type B” all the time, as the viewpoints are inherently subjective and humans are seldom perfectly logically consistent. Indeed, the people I find to be the most often internally consistent are those who are outside of the classification (neurodivergent). Speaking from a personal perspective, I’d guess it’s likely because there is often a lot of manual reasoning involved in adapting new information to worldview/behavior.
Yes, but then you limit the SCOPE and BOUNDS to just the topic of the conversation at hand! And then suddenly… it becomes a much simpler discussion. Because of the concept of Ontology, if the discussion is at the societal level, the facts have to be society level facts. If the argument is at the individual level, you use single examples and explore the possibilities that branch from the one case. But more often than not I see a right wing person talking about his lived experience using very poor wording and insufficient formulation, arguing with a left wing person who is talking in systemic realities and predictable reasoning, arguing that the generalized system applies perfectly uniformly to all people as if they were a monolith.
If I remember my old math and physics, it would look like the cross product of two vectors as the two conversations they are actually having, and the resultant reality of no actual understanding or communication took place.
AxB = M (the vector result representing the misunderstanding that occurred.)
EDIT:
I had an LLM translate my weirdo brain native tongue into normal words. I’ll try and develop this skill now that I am aware of it.