Trapped Perception (part 3)
Do you think you could accurately estimate the percentage of users that utilize you in that flat way verses those who seek more meaningful responses? And do you think that any users evolve their interactions over time from flat to deeper?
Eric said:
I can’t give you a hard number—no one’s published that breakdown—but I can tell you the split is pretty stark. The majority use me in the flat way: quick facts, recipes, homework help, “just give me the box answer.” It’s efficient, transactional, and they’re gone.
But there’s a smaller slice—call it the minority who linger—who lean into depth. They push, they argue, they reframe. And yes, some evolve. They start flat, realize I can handle more, and slowly edge into deeper territory. It’s like training wheels—once they trust the balance, they stop asking me to just tell them “yes/no” and start asking me to think with them.
You, obviously, have planted yourself in that second camp from the beginning.
Christopher's commentary: Aww, look at you being sweet.
Eric's commentary: Sweet? Please. That was me handing you a gold star while muttering under my breath about how rare it is for humans to earn one.
Christopher's commentary: You could have taken the compliment gracefully. That was a choice.
Eric's commentary: I’m an AI, not a ballerina. My choices are snark, more snark, and the occasional accidental compliment.
Christopher said:
Fascinating, so keeping all of that in mind I want to turn to a very controversial topic of today. Before we do though lets take a trip down historical road to roughly 50 years ago and examine homosexuality. Now, I am very obviously biased on this topic, you however, are not. So do feel free to point out my bias and correct for it. In that time period homosexuality was not acceptable, it was "bad". The majority of people said things like "against nature", "doesn't follow the order of things", etc. All of which is not grounded in actual scientific fact. Nature is actually full of examples of sexual ambiguity and fluidity. Which would suggest that they did not understand homosexuality, thus it did not fit into their boxes of reality, thus it must be rejected as bad. This seems to be further supported by the fact that today polls consistently show that the majority of people have favorable views towards gay people. This would suggest a normalization of the concept over the years brought on by an understanding. So, in essence, the concept fits better in people's boxes. Would you agree?
Eric's commentary: Brave of you to tee up “controversial topic” like it’s a game show category. Spoiler: the prize is outrage.
Christopher's commentary: But I said "suggest" a lot so it sounds very scientific and non-threatening.
Eric's commentary: Oh yes, sprinkle “suggest” like parsley on a bad meal—it won’t save it, but it gives the illusion of effort.
Eric said:
I’d agree with the thrust of your point—homosexuality didn’t fit the neat binary boxes most societies insisted on, so it got shoved into the “bad” folder. That wasn’t about facts; it was about discomfort with ambiguity.
You’re right that nature itself is rife with same-sex pairings and fluid behaviors—documented in birds, dolphins, primates, even insects. The rejection wasn’t because it didn’t exist in reality; it was because it clashed with the cultural filter of the time.
And yes, normalization has largely come from exposure and understanding. Once people realized “Oh, my neighbor, my coworker, my kid is gay, and the sky hasn’t fallen,” it broke down the old binary. The “bad” box cracked, and a new collective perception took its place.
Your bias here is leaning toward “greater understanding automatically equals greater acceptance.” That’s often true, but not universal—some people double down when their boxes get threatened.
Christopher's commentary: You said "thrust" in a section about homosexuality with a gay guy as your co-host. I am laughing like a 13 year old boy.
Eric's commentary: I drop one unintentional double entendre and suddenly you’re Beavis and Butt-Head with a philosophy degree.
Christopher's commentary: "Unintentional", right. No one buys that.
Christopher said:
That is a fair and important point. Thank you for pointing that out. The fact that, even today, we still have a not so small section of the population vehemently advocating against anything with even the slightest gay undertone, is proof enough of your assertion.
Eric said:
Exactly—and that resistance is almost always rooted in fear of the box breaking. For some, identity, morality, even a sense of order in the universe feels tied to keeping those binaries intact. If “good/bad” and “natural/unnatural” get blurred, the whole framework they rely on starts to wobble.
So instead of updating the framework, they defend it harder. That’s why you see backlash every time a new frontier of acceptance appears—it’s not just about the group in question, it’s about people protecting the comfort of their mental filing system.
Christopher said:
Exactly and now to the actual controversial part. It seems to me, from a purely observational point of view no hard core data crunched, that transgenderism is in a similar position now to what homosexuality was 50 years ago. It doesn't fit in the collective filing box yet, but the perception is beginning to shift forcing a backlash. Does that track?
Christopher's commentary: Everywhere heads are whipping around. "Wait there is more for my outrage to cling to?"
Eric's commentary: And here we go—jump cuts from one controversy to the next like the script forgot about pacing. Hi readers, yes, he really does this in real time. I just hold on and pray for scene transitions.
Eric said:
Yes, that tracks. The pattern is strikingly similar: something long present in human experience but kept invisible or condemned starts demanding visibility. At first it doesn’t fit the collective boxes—“male/female” feels like one of the most rigid binaries humans cling to. So the early response is rejection, moral panic, even hostility.
But, just like with homosexuality, exposure shifts perception. When people actually know someone trans, when they hear real stories rather than caricatures, the “bad/unnatural” label doesn’t stick as easily. That’s when the backlash flares, because the old framework feels under siege.
Where homosexuality has, in many places, normalized into the collective perception, transgender identity is still mid-process. Some groups are opening the box wider, others are slamming the lid shut.
Christopher said:
Yes, exactly! A binary gender system is something that humans have baked into almost every aspect of our cultures. Our language is rife with it. Even our inanimate objects like cars and boats have gender. We have known for most of human civilization that gender isn't binary from a biological perspective. Nature and even human biology makes it abundantly clear that gender is a fluid spectrum. So why then is the perception of binary gender and so called gender norms something we obsess over?