[robocat]

I would call the difference intuitive knowledge versus rational knowledge.

I've never seen the word calibration used this way:

  different modes of learning. The first is instruction: the transfer of explicit models, rules, and relationships from one person to another through language. The second is calibration: the development of internal models through repeated exposure to feedback in a specific environment.

  Judgement is learnable through calibration. It is not transmissible through instruction.

Unfortunately the word "intuition" has been debased.

[Slow_Hand]

You raise an interesting question. How do we keep the meanings of words from diverging so dramatically and so rapidly?

A little bit is natural and expected, but this kind of change in meaning feels like a consequence of a culture that in the last decade has accelerated the practice of re-framing specific words and concepts as something that's "actually a positive" or "actually quite negative if you think about it".

Part of this is a result of our (in the US) culture wars and hijacking of popular terms, but it's also a symptom of social media culture that's always seeking a hot take and creators who are looking to distinguish themselves with (what seems to me) clever re-framing.

The result is a culture that is increasingly fragmented and in which a word can have dramatically different meaning and insinuations depending on it's use in certain social groups or intellectual cliques.

It increasingly feels like I need to download a massive amount of linguistic context before I step into the world of a niche online community because their tight-knit dialogues and shared experiences have now re-framed a word or concept that was largely understood to mean something else.

[perilunar]

> How do we keep the meanings of words from diverging so dramatically and so rapidly?

By reading and re-reading old books. You learn the original meanings and usage of words and then recognise when someone tries to twist them.

[darkerside]

It's always been like this, just on a smaller scale. Every time you join a group, some people can read the room, learning and sensing the cultural implications, while others step in all the landmines and don't even hear the explosions. How do you do this? Not sure how to explain it, mostly calibration through experience!

[justonceokay]

Not being self-centered is helpful.

[saghm]

If you think that everyone else who is worse at you than reading social cues is self centered rather than your way of experiencing the world maybe just not being universal, I feel like you might be the one acting self-centered.

[justonceokay]

I was more addressing the alternative of “stepping on all the landmines”. Every time I have made progress in being a better listener I have found I suddenly also make fewer social faux pas. That I can hang with a wider range of individuals because I am less rigid in my own thinking.

It’s difficult to imagine someone who is very present with what is happening be truly socially awkward. They might be uncomfortable but they will likely still be funny and caring. But it’s easy to imagine 100 ways in which a more egotistical person could offend, confuse, or otherwise put off bad vibes in a social setting.

[saghm]

> It’s difficult to imagine someone who is very present with what is happening be truly socially awkward. They might be uncomfortable but they will likely still be funny and caring. But it’s easy to imagine 100 ways in which a more egotistical person could offend, confuse, or otherwise put off bad vibes in a social setting.

I think I mostly agree with the sentiment behind this, if not the terminology. I would certainly describe plenty of people who are well meaning but inept as socially awkward, but I agree that for the most part they are less likely to ruffle feathers.

That being said, I do think the parent comment was speaking specifically about the ability to adapt to new groups with different expectations on the fly. At least based on personal experience, I don't find it particularly difficult to imagine a circumstance where good intent is not enough for someone who struggles to read social cues to still encounter some initial friction with a new social group that doesn't closely resemble one they're familiar with, but I'd agree that it's probably less likely than someone who genuinely doesn't care about whether they offend anyone.

In any case, I appreciate your elaboration on this! I don't think I inferred the point you were trying to make very well initially, so the extra context was helpful to understand where you're coming from.

[darkerside]

I'd be wary of testing this as binary. It's not self centered versus not. It's a continuum, which I think you understand because you discuss making progress.

But, what you don't seem to acknowledge is that you don't hear what you don't hear. Some groups may be quietly judging you in a way that is VERY difficult to perceive because you don't understand their subtle social cues. Or, maybe you have perfect social awareness in all situations. I truly don't know.

[alsetmusic]

> How do we keep the meanings of words from diverging so dramatically and so rapidly?

We don’t engage. It’s the only shot we have.

There was a useful article at 404 Media recently about our failure to prevent those on the extreme edges of culture from normalizing their language and behavior: We Have Learned Nothing About Amplifying Morons[0]. See the article, but essentially by engaging we cede ground. Sorta like how both-sides journalism gives space to anti-science nuts and lets them spread falsehoods.

0. https://www.404media.co/we-have-learned-nothing-about-amplif...

[WalterBright]

Intuition is just our brains' amazing pattern recognition ability at work.

[rawgabbit]

I believe the author was arguing that “calibration” is also rational but it cannot be transmitted. You cannot learn it from reading or following a framework. Books and frameworks are too lossy. The author cited the example of doctors in their residency as an example of this second mode of learning. They are learning from hands on experience what other doctors had also learned before. With residency there are others who oversee the residents.

[robocat]

You're arguing against something I wasn't trying to imply.

Choosing a good abstract dichotomy is hard (mine is also faulty, as you have noted).

They chose "instruction" versus "calibration" which I feel is a terrible splitting plane (muddying whatever they are trying to articulate).

I have been fascinated listening to a smart nursing friend of mine explain some of the intuitions they learnt through observation (not explicitly taught). I believe they had an outlier skill for noticing patterns. They might have been able to teach the patterns they saw, but they probably couldn't teach the skill of discovering patterns ≈intelligence.

[neerajsi]

I think intuition is what is developed through calibration, so I personally like the word calibration.

Intuition and other forms of knowledge are stock quantities while calibration and instructions are types of flows which change the stock. I'd love to know if there a better word for learning through trial and evaluation than calibration.

[robocat]

> better word for learning through trial and evaluation than calibration

How about training. Implies practicality. You can be trained or do your own training. Avoids the bad academic/factual associations of "teaching".

Calibration makes some sense to people that work with tools, but the word is a poor metaphor for honing our intuitions.

It is quite amazing how little of what we do or know is actually explicitly taught. I learnt the most in the sandpit.

[paulpauper]

Language changes though . He's directionally correct about calibration. People have some intuition about how something works, and then calibrate this tgrough feedback.

[skeletoncrew2]

Or maybe inductive vs deductive reasoning

[robocat]

I should avoid the word rational. Unfortunately I really love the word due to the paradox of rationalisation (being irrational).

Analytical or reasoned would be better opposites (of intuitive) for the split in meaning I was looking for.

Inductive and deductive reasoning are usually analytical.