Re: Computing big numbers



Erik Naggum wrote:
* Gabriel Lear @2006-01-15 00:09Z
It wasn't about my feelings being hurt, at all. I was wanting to know about the true reason for asking the question in the first place, and possibly getting an apology from you, because it seemed like a "cheap shot" at discrediting both Stan and I, with only one "shot".

FWIW, it seemed to me that he had just read the brief opinion article «The word: Sock puppets» from /New Scientist/ issue 2533 page 42 (2006-01-07).
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18925331.900


You go a lot less wrong on Usenet if you consistently ignore your urge to interpret other people's emotional states and motives and stick to what they have actually argued for or against. Reading people's minds is crucial in real life, but we just don't have the bandwidth to do it here, and we're too different to be able to converge on a single, unified protocol, anyway. Innocent differences in protocol make the paranoid and strong reciprocator (i.e., the «punisher» personality) believe in the other's evil intentions and explicitly turn to evil intentions himselv at a significant cost both to himself and to others because rooting out evil is more important than communicating usefully and intelligently with different kinds of people. Yet, the evil usually starts with the punisher. There's a lot of this going around here, in between the many enormously valuable posts by people who can stick to their arguments and ignore their misinterpretation of other people's emotional states and intentions.
The hostile noise-makers can grow a clue: Just because they think they are able to discern intentions accurately at a distance through text alone, does not make it so. If you want to know how good you are at interpreting intentions, dare to /test/ your interpretations and listen to the other guy's counter-information as if he knows his intentions better than you do -- but then again, if you recognize that you could be wrong about someone's intentions and if you would actually listen to him, all the problems emanating from absolute certainty in one's ability to know other people's hostile intent would instantly evaporate.
I have enjoyed the many discussions between people who discuss crypto here tremendously. Those who want to discuss emotions and intentions would do better in a talk.* group, not least because by being so rabidly off-topic, it is hard to ignore the suspicion of malicious intent to disturb quality discussions to which they have no hope of contributing. If those who make so much noise would please consider the possibility that having some unstable punisher attack you for his paranoid suspicions of your intentions and emotions makes for a lot less willingness to post anything useful, they would realize that their suspicions have created the hostile environment to begin with. Sans such suspicions, no one would need to prepare to defend himself every time he posts something that the paranoid might misinterpret.
A few paranoid people can turn a whole forum into a highly defensive arena. It is the paranoid who have to go to make it less defensive, not those the paranoid believe are attacking or have evil intentions. If you think other people are primarily hostile to you, personally, consider the possibility that you are being paranoid, and don't act on your suspicion. Even if they were hostile, you are better off not acting on it.
Sorry for wasting nearly everybody's time on something that should be so obvious to people who are smart enough to be interested in crypto.


Erik Naggum

I enjoy reading your posts, Erik. Please send more. .



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Computing big numbers
    ... Innocent differences in protocol make the paranoid and strong reciprocator believe in the other's evil intentions and explicitly turn to evil intentions himselv at a significant cost both to himself and to others because rooting out evil is more important than communicating usefully and intelligently with different kinds of people. ... The hostile noise-makers can grow a clue: Just because they think they are able to discern intentions accurately at a distance through text alone, ... If those who make so much noise would please consider the possibility that having some unstable punisher attack you for his paranoid suspicions of your intentions and emotions makes for a lot less willingness to post anything useful, they would realize that their suspicions have created the hostile environment to begin with. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Maybe Stephen Hawking has a point? (evil aliens)
    ... we might someday contact will be hostile. ... There is equally no reason to automatically presume it will NOT be ... And even if they have the best of intentions that may not mean they ... thermonuclear weapons will probably work. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)