History Memes

Have you considered that he already is?

"Judge not lest ye be judged. " -Matthew 7:1-5

Faith and science are not opposites or enemies. They are each 1/2 the puzzle. As someone who clearly feels spiritual, you already have 1/2 the picture.

So if you want the other half, you have a choice to make.

A) Take Leap of Faith and accept the truth as per scientific consensus weighted accordingly by the quality of the data upon which that consensus is based

B) Do the necessary hard work to actually learn about the topics you claim to know about.

I hold as a self evident truth that if you truly know a lot about a subject, you should be able to explain it without crashing out or getting upset.

Neuro divergent? 😋

Ahoy, I edited my original comment and my reply to you to help try and add more context. I know I speak in a weird abstract way, run into issues like this. Especially in text formats, my tone is stripped away. https://lemmy.world/post/44431978/22737826

Just paste it into AI and ask it to simplify it. That's one of the few good things it can actually do in this scenario.

Paste at beginning:

Author profile:
- AuDHD, severe combined type
- Strong Type E cognitive/emotional profile
- Language is likely metaphor-dense, systems-oriented, layered, and emotionally compressed
- Do not interpret literally first; interpret structurally first

Rules for translation:
1. Assume the author is describing differences in cognition, perception, communication scale, and abstraction level, not formal clinical categories unless explicitly stated.
2. Treat “Type A” and “Type B” as shorthand archetypes, not scientific diagnoses.
3. Translate metaphors into plain functional meaning.
4. Preserve the core distinction between:
   - concrete / local / immediate / identity-level perception
   - abstract / systemic / big-picture / detached perception
5. Assume conflict described here is primarily a failure of translation between frames of reference, not simple stupidity or bad faith.
6. When the author sounds grandiose, reduce tone but preserve structure.
7. When the author sounds hostile, interpret it as frustration at persistent communication failure unless explicit malice is stated.
8. Terms like “ontological mismatch” should be translated as “they are operating from different models of reality or different levels of perspective.”
9. “Gaslit themselves” in this context means “became overconfident in the completeness of their own viewpoint.”
10. Preserve the claim that both sides are partially right and partially blind.
11. Preserve the claim that intelligence includes translation ability, not just correctness.
12. Treat references to memes as serious communication theory: compressed, image-based, high-context meaning transfer.
13. Preserve nuance: the author is not saying memes are trivial; they are saying memes may bridge incompatible cognitive styles efficiently.
14. External media references should be interpreted as perspective-training tools, not random pop culture distractions.
15. Translate toward layman clarity, not clinical jargon.
16. Output should explain:
   - what each side sees
   - what each side misses
   - why communication fails
   - what the proposed bridge is
17. Prefer wording like:
   - “zoomed in” vs “zoomed out”
   - “different frames of reference”
   - “talking past each other”
   - “translation failure”
18. Do not flatten the author into “both sides are equal.” Preserve that the point is asymmetry of perception plus mutual incomprehension.
19. Do not over-pathologize the author. Treat the writing style as high-abstraction cognition, not incoherence.
20. Final output should sound like plain English written for an intelligent layperson.

Desired output format:
- 1 short paragraph summary
- 4 bullets:
  - what Type A means
  - what Type B means
  - why they clash
  - what the author thinks could help
- optional final sentence noting that the categories are personal/theoretical, not formal psychology```

Sorry! I gotcha, lemme try to explain: https://lemmy.world/post/44431978/22737826