domain:reddit.com
Dean
Flairless
35m ago
It is a reminder against the fallacy of composition without calling it such, since overtly calling on a fallacy can come off as an attack / belittlement. Which was not the intent, but lost some clarity, particularly on the categorization hierarchy.
The fallacy of composition is the error in which what true for a part of a whole is assumed to be true for the whole. It is a common categorization error when sub-sets are conflated with broader overarching categories. What is true for a subset (all dogs are mammals, A = B) does not necessarily apply to the over set (all mammals are not dogs, B =/= A). (Part of the error is that it's not actual the same category in both sets, as 'mammals' and 'all mammals' are not the exact same group- that is, they are not both 'B'.)
Reciprocal relationships are a category of relationships, distinct from other, non-reciprocal relationships. It itself is a subcategory of [relationships]. Reciprocal relationships as a (sub-)category can in turn be broken down into further sub-categories.
Obligation-based and transactional relationships are subcategories of reciprocal relationships. There are additional subcategories as well, types of reciprocity that are also not obligatory or transactional. Mutual love and mutual hatred are both reciprocated relationships that have no intrinsic obligatory or transactional element. More can be found.
The fallacy of composition limits the application of any of them to characterizing the others- what is true for a part (a specific subcategory) is not true for the whole (other subcategories / the broader category). What is true for one subcategory (god's relationship with man is not a specific type of reciprocal relationship, i.e. not a transactional relationship) does not disprove another subcategory, or the overarching category.
hooser
36m ago
That's musicians at work. Their work involves play, must involve play, because they are trying to tap into emotions through novel sound and poetry. The particular riff happened by chance, and Guns N' Roses maximized the situations where such a chance can occur, and trained to recognize such chances.
It's like Dorothea Lange's famous "Migrant Mother" photo. Lange finding that particular woman with such an expressive and sympathetic face while surrounded by young children is pure chance. But it's not like it could've happened to anyone. Lange maximized her ability to recognize the opportunity for such a photo, take it, and get it published.
I've been reading Ar'Kendrithyst on the recommendation of a few people here / another friend.
Book One started off really slow but I was enjoying the system exploration and the worldbuilding up to Book Four.
I'm in Book Five now though and I'm starting to drop off the novel. It feels too early to end the titular Ar'Kendrithyst, which kept getting hyped and foreshadowed as the greatest threat to the world, and which was imo the most interesting part of the word building. The "Worldly Path" arc feels a bit aimless since Erick is pretty much already a minor deity with every relevant god already in his rolodex to back him up, I'm getting a bit bored of this book pretty much just being him going around curbstomping everything.
More options
Context Copy link