[mistermann]

> I'm not a sociologist, but I think the degree to which people can't turn it off maps fairly well onto the "low-high trust society" continuum

We're not fully aligned here....I'm thinking more like: stop (or ~isolate/manage) non-intentional cognition, simulated truth formation, etc.....not perfectly in a constant, never ending state of course, but for short periods of time, near flawlessly.

[advael]

Sure. There are people who can do that. I think it's a hard skill to master but definitely one that can be performed and improved somewhat reliably for people who manage to get the hang of it initially and care to work at it, and which I have seen a decent number of examples of, including a few who seem better at it than me

[mistermann]

Could you name any such (famous) people?

I think we're not talking about exactly the same thing though, which I'd say is my fault. I would like to modify this:

> stop (or ~isolate/manage) non-intentional cognition, simulated truth formation, etc.....not perfectly in a constant, never ending state of course, but for short periods of time, near flawlessly.

...to this (only change is what I appended to the end):

> stop (or ~isolate/manage) non-intentional cognition, simulated truth formation, etc.....not perfectly in a constant, never ending state of course, but for short periods of time, near flawlessly, without stopping cognition altogether (such as during "no mind" meditation or "ego death" using psychedelics). Think more like a highly optimized piece of engineering, where we have ~full (comparable to standard engineering or programming) access to the code, stack, state, etc.

[advael]

I'm not close enough to anyone you'd probably consider famous to claim to know the inner workings of their mind, and you keep adding more weirdly circuitously specified conditions. At this point I'm not sure what point, if any, you're trying to get at, and it's hard not to form the impression that you're being deliberately obtuse here, though it also could just be the brainrot that comes of overabstraction

[mistermann]

> and you keep adding more weirdly circuitously specified conditions.

1. I explicitly acknowledged I misspoke and wanted to clarify: "I think we're not talking about exactly the same thing though, which I'd say is my fault. I would like to modify this:"

2. What is circuitous about my question? Is my refined question non-valid?

> At this point I'm not sure what point, if any, you're trying to get at

I encourage you to interpret my question literally, or ask for clarification.

> ...and it's hard not to form the impression that you're being deliberately obtuse here...

obtuse: ": lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid. He is too obtuse to take a hint. b. : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression".

I'd like to see you make the case for that accusation, considering the text of our conversation is persisted above.

Rhetoric is popular, and it will work on most people here, but it will not work on me. I will simply call it out explicitly, and then observe what technique you try next. You do realize that you people can be observed, and studied, don't you?

> ...though it also could just be the brainrot that comes of overabstraction

Perhaps. Alternatively, my question could be valid, challenging to your beliefs (which I suspect are perceived as knowledge), and you lack the self-confidence to defend those beliefs.

You are welcome to:

1. genuinely address my words

2. engage in more rhetoric

3. stay silent (which may be interpreted as you not seeing this message, regardless of whether that is true)

4. something else of your choosing

[advael]

I'm telling you that what you've asked is too obtuse to be comprehensible, even setting aside that I've already nominally answered your question based on the other criterion you've added, which is that the person specified must be famous. To reiterate, I'm not intimately familiar enough with anyone you would likely consider famous to claim I have significant insight into their capacity for metacognition whatsoever. My issue with your question is not that you've modified it, it's that in the form that you've asked it, it reads to me as somehow both impossibly nebulous and overspecified. I can't even be sure I understand it. I can barely parse it. Maybe I'm dumb for that, who knows? I have said nothing ingenuine and have addressed your words to the best of my ability. I generally view rhetoric as being for the benefit of an audience, and this deep on a hn comment thread there is virtually no chance there is one. If you perceive me to be expressing exasperation or frustration, I encourage you to interpret this not as a rhetorical ploy but as a genuine expression of my state of mind in trying to make sense of what looks to me like some kind of thrice-cooked mincemeat made of psychobabble. Also please understand that I have no expectation that expressing my exasperation in this way will be well-received by you, or even witnessed by someone who might appreciate it. I'm really genuinely this mean in my head and sometimes just keep writing things like this because the act of submitting the post seems to stop the thought from being stuck rattling around in my head for days. Maybe at best I can call it a mental hygeine practice. Sweeping up the cobwebs before they become whispers and add to the cacaphony

[mistermann]

This seems pretty reasonable!!