Comment by jahsome
19 hours ago
I didn't say you are nuts, I said your statement is. The distinction should be "obvious" no?
Here's a hint though: normal is a myth.
19 hours ago
I didn't say you are nuts, I said your statement is. The distinction should be "obvious" no?
Here's a hint though: normal is a myth.
Normal isn't a myth. The mistake people make is taking the mode as normal, or worse mistaking their own experience as normal. But humans generally do tend to have a range of common behaviors that a significant percentage of people fit into. And you probably can even predict it to a reasonable degree, if you have some other metadata to correlate which sub-group they might correspond to.
Normal in the sense of "you can model a distribution of human behavioral processes or outcomes" that encompasses, say, 95% of humans in a given culture or geography is very much a thing you can do. And I'd go as far as to say a large chunk of the mental bandwidth of the average person is running those simulation models just to operate in a multi-human-agent world.
(If you want to say we observe bimodal or other multi-peaked distributions in practices rather than "normal" ones, I will strongly agree, but that usually isn't the objection when people say "normal is a myth")
Fair enough, perhaps I could have said "normal is relative"
A behavior may be typical, or common maybe, but I think "normal" evokes certain connotations when describing human behavior.
[flagged]
> you're a liar... a dick
Oh, I have a perfect response for this!
"Let me put it this way, would you say what you said to someones face? Your best friend? You mother? or father and call them a liar and a dick because they said something that was off? Would you go on some holier than thou lecture on intent and deception? You would?"
They clearly weren't calling you nuts, for what it's worth. Saying something you said is nuts is not the literal saying "the person who said this is clinically insane and should be locked up".
Legitimate question, I don't mean to be insensitive, but are you not a native English speaker or something?
>Calling it "obvious" someone meant something rather than what they actually typed with their own fingers is pretty nuts though.
The above is what he said in response to me defending someone and saying that they are not "nuts". I am the person who called it "obvious".
The colloquial meaning changes in context. Under normal conditions you're correct, it's a benign statement, that's slightly derogatory. But I changed the context. I emphasized the minor derogatoriness of making that statement and I said the person you said that to is not in actuality "nuts". Then he proceeded to call me (aka my statements) "nuts".
Look I don't know if you're trolling, but you're utterly wrong. It was a targeted statement. It's clear what was said, there is just something wrong with how YOU are interpreting it. I am a native english speaker.
1 reply →