Social Trigger Quality

Based on the discussion of quality of pleasure in WHAT UTILITARIANISM IS, I thought Social Triggers also talked about the quantity of “is there or not” and the quality of “good or bad triggers”

First of all, subjectively, for me personally, the following tweets are perceived to be of much the same value

• This article is awesome!
• I see. URL.
• URL” (a tweet with just a URL)
• URL.”
• I disagree with this opinion URL.”

In other words, they value the fact that a “mention occurred” and not the fact that they agree with it.

• The exceptions are “positive feedback from people who think I’m a smart person” or
  • Move to the end of the page as it refers to this paragraph and the paragraph below.
  • This “smart” and “positive evaluation” are expressions that lack resolution.
    • To get a “helpful” response from “the type of person who appreciates information that helps them develop their own thinking as much as I do”?

The type of “social trigger” that I find of greater value than this, and often reprint in this Scrapbox, is a reference to an article, but with additional information or new associations or something added to it.

Having experienced both, I’ve found that I prefer the latter trigger.

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/社会的トリガーの質 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.