What you’re saying makes sense and is important to me. In fact it’s mainly what I care about.
In the comment that appeared above your first reply. I said the experts (like take the billions of people in the world, and then take the best in each domain) might be so good that it’s difficult to communicate or understand them.
So my claim was that it is unwieldy for a large group of people to act like grant makers because of the nature of these experts. I left the door open to grantmakers being this good (because that seems positive and it’s strong to say they can’t be?).
I think you believe I’m arguing that current grantmakers are unquestionable. That isn’t what I wrote (you can look again at the top comment, I can’t link, I’m typing on my phone and it’s hard, seriously this physically hurts my thumbs ).
In the other comment chain with you, you replied objecting to the idea of malign behaviour requiring centralization. Here, sort of like above, I find it tempting to see you pushing back against a broader point than I originally made.
I’m not writing this comment, the previous comment or any comment here to you because I want to argue. I didn’t write it because I want to be polite or even strictly because I had a “scout mentality”. I literally don’t have any attachments for or against what you said. I wanted to understand.
You expressed something important to you. I’m sorry you felt the need to write or defend with the effort and emotion you did.
The reason why this is valuable is that most of what I wrote and the top of what you wrote are just arguments.
We can take these arguments and knock them out of someone’s hand, or give better new ones instead. It’s just logic and reasoning.
It’s the values that I care about and wanted to understand. The reasons why you wanted to talk and how you felt. (This wasn’t supposed to be difficult or cause stress either).
What you’re saying makes sense and is important to me. In fact it’s mainly what I care about.
In the comment that appeared above your first reply. I said the experts (like take the billions of people in the world, and then take the best in each domain) might be so good that it’s difficult to communicate or understand them.
So my claim was that it is unwieldy for a large group of people to act like grant makers because of the nature of these experts. I left the door open to grantmakers being this good (because that seems positive and it’s strong to say they can’t be?).
I think you believe I’m arguing that current grantmakers are unquestionable. That isn’t what I wrote (you can look again at the top comment, I can’t link, I’m typing on my phone and it’s hard, seriously this physically hurts my thumbs ).
In the other comment chain with you, you replied objecting to the idea of malign behaviour requiring centralization. Here, sort of like above, I find it tempting to see you pushing back against a broader point than I originally made.
You did this because it was important to you.
I’m not writing this comment, the previous comment or any comment here to you because I want to argue. I didn’t write it because I want to be polite or even strictly because I had a “scout mentality”. I literally don’t have any attachments for or against what you said. I wanted to understand.
You expressed something important to you. I’m sorry you felt the need to write or defend with the effort and emotion you did.
The reason why this is valuable is that most of what I wrote and the top of what you wrote are just arguments.
We can take these arguments and knock them out of someone’s hand, or give better new ones instead. It’s just logic and reasoning.
It’s the values that I care about and wanted to understand. The reasons why you wanted to talk and how you felt. (This wasn’t supposed to be difficult or cause stress either).