Log of Discussion on Interpretation Swings on Polis: Investigating the Causes of Terrorism

from Polis: Discussing the Causes of Terrorism Log of Discussion on Interpretation Swings on Polis: Investigating the Causes of Terrorism

hrjn I’m in the “I have no desire to understand the logic of people who commit terrorism” faction, but I guess everyone thinks they can cozy up to me.

• hrjn No, well, I don’t think we can understand others in the first place, so we should find common interests through dialogue.

• hrjn Sandel’s justice is based on the fact that the common good can be found. Since neither utilitarian justice nor libertarian justice can avoid conflict, he says that justice can only be found in what we do with the common good.

• I am close to this idea. I’m in the “I don’t think I can understand the logic of a terrorist at all” faction, but I guess we all think we can stand by each other…

• nishio “I think we can all lean on each other” is an unfounded interpretation (no opinion poll with that content).

• I’ll post that opinion later and make it an actual observation.

  • hrjn If you look at this and see what’s in it, A generally says that it can be solved by pursuing the cause or motive, so “everyone” thinks it can be solved by “understanding = leaning on” the cause or motive. I think you mean that “everyone” thinks it can be solved based on “understanding = leaning on” causes and motives.

  • 

  • @nishio: @hrjn “Understanding causes and motives = leaning in” is the interpretation. Probably False.

    • @nishio: @hrjn and I see value in it as a system that produces zintages like this.

    • Interpretations are validated by observational data.

  • @hrjn: @nishio If “leaned in” was the wrong word, then my intention is to be able to understand the cause and motivation.

  • @nishio: @hrjn That would be a swing in the meaning of “understand”.

  • @hrjn: @nishio What is shaking.

  • @hrjn: @nishio Assuming there was a swing in the “understanding” of the crowd,

  • ①I don’t think polis expresses the semantics swing because it synthesizes and maps the positives and negatives of the superficial string.

  • 2. If the interpretation of the surface layer is blurred due to the characteristic of classifying by surface expression, I feel that the mapping loses its meaning.

  • @nishio: @hrjn It’s simple, the assumption in (2) is True. That is, people’s usage of the term is of course blurred, so “a snapshot of the distribution at a point in time” has no “reliable meaning”. It means that there is value in the “process of improvement” as the distribution is updated as the current swing becomes observable data.

• If “leaned on” was the wrong word, my intention is to be able to understand causes and motivations.”

  • @hrjn: @nishio So to write it properly, what I meant was “I wonder how many people think they can understand the motives and causes of people who commit terrorism” @hrjn: @nishio

  • @kazuho: @hrjn @nishio With the question, for example, I thought that someone who seems to think “we need to check for influence of foreign intelligence agencies” might also be willing to “understand the causes I thought “understanding the causes and motives” would be a good answer!

  • @nishio: @kazuho @hrjn good good good, I’ll add it later

  • @nishio: @kazuho @hrjn When any opinion is preceded by “let’s observe the distribution of everyone’s opinions” instead of “I agree, I disagree” The system is guided toward productive discussion, not fighting.

---

This page is auto-translated from [/nishio/解釈の揺れに関する議論のログ on Polis:テロの原因究明](https://scrapbox.io/nishio/解釈の揺れに関する議論のログ on Polis:テロの原因究明) using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.