After reading this I can't help but think (due to my fascination with the subject) of the parallels one can observe in modern day polarized political discourse on social and other forms of media.

> Whenever I translate, I first read the original text carefully and internalize the ideas as clearly as I can, letting them slosh back and forth in my mind. It’s not that the words of the original are sloshing back and forth; it’s the ideas that are triggering all sorts of related ideas, creating a rich halo of related scenarios in my mind. Needless to say, most of this halo is unconscious. Only when the halo has been evoked sufficiently in my mind do I start to try to express it—to “press it out”—in the second language. I try to say in Language B what strikes me as a natural B-ish way to talk about the kinds of situations that constitute the halo of meaning in question.

In any communication between two or more people, verbal or written, there is an ever present translation process going on. Political (and other similar) conversations, despite the communication taking place in the same language (or so we conceptualize it), are subject to the very same AI translation problem Hofstadter notes: the translation of words into ideas.

In his case, Hofstadter takes his time, reading the text carefully, "internalizing the ideas as clearly as I can" (~steelmanning). He is explicitly aware of the mind's behavior (ideas, triggering (an incredibly complex and poorly understood process) all sorts of related ideas, creating a rich halo of related scenarios), and that "most of this halo is unconscious". He takes his time, letting the subconscious mind do it's thing. And only then, "when the halo has been evoked sufficiently in my mind", does he put pen to paper to finalize the task of performing an as accurate as possible translation.

You can see this same sort of thing happening all over the place in the real world, except unlike Hofstadter, most people are unaware of what is happening under the covers, and lack the explicit and conscious intent to perform an accurate (as possible) translation before setting their fingers on the keyboard to have their say, which will then in turn be inaccurately interpreted (translated from words to ideas, and then processed) by readers, each in their own unique way due to the nature of their personal heuristics and mental model. "Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows."

I'd love to find someone of Hofstadter's background and capability who is focusing precisely on this phenomenon. The closest I've come across so far is Jonathan Haidt, and a few people like Eric Weinstein (who often touches on these ideas, but is focused on them to a much lesser degree than Haidt). Any recommendations of others to look into would be appreciated, as would any words of encouragement from people who believe there is actually something important going on here. I believe this, a lack of true mutual understanding of the ideas and beliefs of others, and the lack of intent or desire to do so (if not revulsion toward the very idea (in my perception, speaking of sloshing ideas)), is one of the fundamentally important and mostly overlooked problems in the world today.