Do people still have value to you?

purelambdaphi said:

I don't know what you mean when you say, "Your style of writing initially seemed more appropriate to a 2nd year university psychology dissertation."

I'll illustrate some of the sentences you have used and what I believe you will find the vast majority of the population would use instead. Please note this is not criticism, just explaining it to potentially see why there may be a communication gap happening.

I made no normative claims

I didn't make claims about standards

I hope I haven't caused you to believe interactions with me are generally likely to become adversarial

I hope you don't think I have lots of arguements

I'll specifically use terms as understood under my semantics of value

I'll tell you what it means to me.

I was using the term in its set-theoretical sense.

I was using the term how it was meant to be used.

To give a pertinent material example: the set F of people who are also your friends (set "friends", hereafter) is explicitly smaller than the set H of all people in general. Hence, by definition, the relevant set "friends" is a proper subset of the set of all people.

I'm not sure I can imagine this being part of a regular conversation to be honest. It was this sort of writing that led to me description of university conversations.

I guess a lot of this is finding ways to say simply what you mean by using more common words. They may lack the specific meaning you want but they are more likely to be understood and possibly replied to but those you talk to.

I hope it is of some use to you. i'll stop now as making more examples can feel like negative rather than positive criticism.

A polite / restrained version of my view of that comment is that it was ill-advised.

purelambdaphi said:

I'm sure the ones out of you that are parents, or have SOs, will say yes.

...that is not an experience mirrored in my own life.

Whether, or not, I am a parent, or if I have a significant other, are (for me) not the determining factors in the likelihood of my finding that people still represent value to my life experience.

I can find socialising solo, in unrelated circles, may provide me with more opportunities for ways to establish rapport with people who are new-to-me.

In some aspects, I suspect this is because each setting affords me different styles / levels of presenting my authentic self - depending upon my energy level and ease within those varied settings and contexts.

By that I mean; by operating within an array of different environments / groups simultaneously: I afford myself the range of opportunities / options against which to match up my energy at a given time - without quite the same sense "command performance" which may be assumed or attempted to be imposed by e.g. my household, or relatives, or colleagues.

My intention is to be understood, and that's what I suspect I aimed to accomplish. I don't know what you mean when you say, "Your style of writing initially seemed more appropriate to a 2nd year university psychology dissertation."

The only words I used that I would expect, in some level, would seem confusing to people is "non/instrumental" or "moral/social value". And I did offer clarification by examples to the one I anticipated people would likely find most difficult to understand.

I'm open to clarifying any term or reasoning further upon request.

ArchaeC said:

I thought it was reasonable to ask someone to use commonly known words to help me and others understand.

As a rule of thumb I tend to look at what I am going to post on a public forum such as this one and think if there is a way or saying it that is suitable for someone like my grandmother to understand.

Your style of writing initially seemed more appropriate to a 2nd year university psychology dissertation to be honest - but few people here have the understanding or patience to work out what you were really saying.

It is no fault of yours but an opportunity to learn and adapt to the current audience.

This is just my opinion so feel free to ignore.

That's fine. I hope I haven't caused you to believe interactions with me are generally likely to become adversarial. If you have that belief, maybe I could help dispel it if you're interested. And don't take that as a bad thing that you didn't get what I'm saying. There's nothing bad about not being familiar with certain words or not sharing certain concepts with other people, by itself.

I'll just give it one last attempted at clarifying my original post for the sake of diligence, and I'll specifically use terms as understood under my semantics of value so you can have a more concrete idea of what I'm talking about:

When I say something has value to me in general, I'm referring to some preference I have. For instance, murder being morally not valuable to me just means I prefer that murder by itself not occur. "Moral preferences," in this sense, are just preferences about things commonly labelled as being a matter of ethics (murder, stealing, lying, etc.).

Under this use of the term, people "having social value" would mean I preferring or having the desire to interact with them.

TL;DR: So, following that thread, the OP is just asking something along the lines of "In the context of casual interaction, do you still have the preference of interacting with people?"

I still don't understand what the OP is about, or how I can I ask you to clarify further, so I'm just going to bow out of this conversation before it gets adversarial

What are your intuitions on it being expected that someone that is merely "struggling to understand" would say: 

ArchaeC said:

Ah I see! AI is caught in a loop.

Bunny?

ArchaeC said:

I can spend ages agonising over many of my posts before replying in order to make sure the post is appropriate, especially if it is someone who I haven’t engaged with much.

Taking that you said:

ArchaeC said:

Ah I see! AI is caught in a loop.

It is unclear to me what you mean by "appropriate".

ArchaeC said:

I thought it was reasonable to ask someone to use commonly known words to help me and others understand. I think in future I will just ignore the posts that I don’t understand and try to stay clear of  criticism.

That seems fair. If you have the goal of engaging, though, you can still reply to such posts and, also, avoid saying things that is likely to be construed as adversarial like:

ArchaeC said:

Ah I see! AI is caught in a loop.

You take it as expected that someone that is merely requesting for someone to "use a different communication style" to say: 

ArchaeC said:

Ah I see! AI is caught in a loop.

?

I think it would be more unsurprising that ArchaeC was requesting me to "use a different communication style" in additional to something else.

Anticipating that this "something else" having being them taking offense to something I said, or how I said it, I remained apologetic -- as to prevent the interaction to turn adversarial.

You take it as expected that someone that is merely struggling to understand someone else's post to say: 

ArchaeC said:

Ah I see! AI is caught in a loop.

?

I think it would be more unsurprising that you were struggling to understand my post in additional to something else.

Anticipating that this "something else" having being you taking offense to something I said, or how I said it, I remained apologetic -- as to prevent the interaction to turn adversarial.

Thank you for your support Iain. You are very good to stick up for me.

 I often upset people, although this is the first time I have received direct criticism on this forum. I can spend ages agonising over many of my posts before replying in order to make sure the post is appropriate, especially if it is someone who I haven’t engaged with much. 

Elsewhere I have been criticised for things like not speaking out, not saying what I mean and trying to be too nice instead of saying what I want. 

I am aware that people have different styles of communication on this forum, and I don’t have a problem with that. I thought it was reasonable to ask someone to use commonly known words to help me and others understand. I think in future I will just ignore the posts that I don’t understand and try to stay clear of  criticism.

Bunny said:

I get upset whenever new members find themselves being criticised for their autistic traits.

I'm not sure it is fair to accuse ArchaeC  of criticising - I would see this as a request for using a communication style that others can access while explaining why this is necesary.

As an autist I have needed this sort of prompt to enable me to work in groups interactions in the past and I think this would be very helpful to the OP here as their communication style is sufficiently obtuse as to be excluding of most ofthers here.

Sorry that you are upset Bunny. I did not intend to upset you. I was struggling to understand the post rather than criticise and I believed it was more constructive to say so, and to ask for the meaning to be explained. Apologies.

ArchaeC said:

Your posts are welcome here purelambdaphi , but would you please use everyday English phraseology?  Not everyone here is familiar with your philosophical terminology as it is not commonly used in everyday speech. Everyday English would help more people to respond.

ArchaeC said:

Apology accepted.

ArchaeC said:

Ah I see! AI is caught in a loop.

I get upset whenever new members find themselves being criticised for their autistic traits.

Differences in communication are a core feature of autism, and can include using more "formal, precise and technical speech":

NAS - Autism and communication

Regardless of whether or not any of us might find another person's style harder to read or to understand, to me "inclusivity" includes not criticising anyone's differing style, and not expecting / asking / requiring them to mask - including by writing differently than they prefer to.

This article also refers:

"A lot of autistic people have grown up being told that they are aliens, or that they sound like robots, or there’s just something wrong with them,” Young says. When ChatGPT came along, they “quickly realized that it kind of sounded like I do”—logical and specific."

Wired - For Some Autistic People, ChatGPT Is a Lifeline

I think that romantic relationships are predicated on both expectations of 'acceptable' behaviour in the partner and a level of altruism towards the partner. Therefore, they often contain both instrumentality and non-instrumentality. There can be entirely instrumental relationships, Henry VIII's marriages come to mind. 

That sounds plausible.

What are your thoughts on the plausibility of romantic relationships often not involving instrumentality too?

I don't understand what you mean, or your goal, when you say that.

If you interpreted something I said as some indirect slight against you, and are retaliating against it somehow, I'd like to clarify: I did not intend to slight against you. If I did so, I apologise.

I think that the only human relationship that can be entirely unconditional, and therefore potentially free of all instrumentality, is the parent-child bond. It is, of course, is not always so, but is the only one that often is.  

I don't know what you mean by "no point" there.

I'm assuming the way you re-phrased my original question somehow preserves the moral-social value distinction I introduced in my post, but in some way that is believed by you to be easier for most people to understand.

Just to be clear: I suspect I was mostly either just curious, or trying to generate conversation "indirectly", or indirectly attempting to survey whether people here would relate to what I said.