Topic on UpTrust
communication
A live feed of posts and discussions about communication, ranked by who the most trusted people trust, not by likes or follower counts.
Log in and start voting to get personalized rankings.
12 postsUpdates live
Daily Alchemy: a question to think on together
30d ago“Was the Polish aide justified saying Trump's chaotic communication still guarantees troops' commitment in Europe?”
i think it didn't come through that I think you're highlighting a very important thing about how we're always changing, and how hard it is to stay in touch with that.... So this is the kind of negativity I'll call negativity. A negative interaction for me is one that continually references what is missing or wrong, seeking or finding holes in the connection/cohesion/argument/understanding and expanding on where we don't agree rather than tracking... - ClarkRC...
- JulieI...
I would offer that mindfulness of communications as a see-saw (intention <-> Perception) restores some control and reapportions responsibility for change and balance more reasonably.... - JulieI...
Thank you for being appreciative. I sometimes think that we are much to prepared for any question, or request that we question/examine something, is perceived as (a prelude to) an attack rather than a (perhaps older) employment as an invitation to dialogue.... - chauncedog60...
The wizards of wordsmithing know full well that "spelling" is a fundamental pathway to the cerebral cortex, and other high level mechanisms of the abstract reasoning skills that define advanced consciousness.The sabotage and bastardization of language, and the simple natural... - name_u_know...
- Dana...
- kmitcham...
- onI could really use some guidance on exactly how Uptrust works. From what I can tell...........well, I'm clueless. At first I was thinking that uptrusting something made it more popular, and so it functions like a "like" works, while downtrusting something does the opposite, .....but that seems very one dimensional and doesn't really lend to the credibility of what was said, just its popular agreement.....which is more often than not, based on something other than the argument put forth. People go with prejudgments, biases and loyalties, whether it supports a group they already identify with, whether the language is aesthetically pleasing to them or shocking, whether they already had that opinion....and more. To create a platform that filters out attention in favor of legitimacy it'd seem like a deeper dive into the specifics of what is trusted and what isn't about each post is needed. And it seems to me that either Uptrust is either doomed to keep variance out of it, as the experience of their product is one where odd voices can't break in, leading eventually to a kind of stagnancy, or I'm missing something pivotal about how it works.by
This is so helpful Wayne, for understanding how to communicate this stuff. (thank you!) 1) Right now the way you create bridges is by putting forth a nuanced view on a topic that people disagree on. Other people's voting patterns determine who it's a bridge for.... "people are sacred, conversations are worship" Love this! I wonder: your desire to have conversations with specific people without others butting in makes sense to me....