Why is Pittsburgh losing population even though it's economy has been transformed? (Duquesne: transplants, renters)

[londonbarcelona]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I largely agree--we humans are complex psychological creatures, and it can be interesting and often constructive to analyze our behavior in those terms--but I would again note that rarely on the Internet do we have the basis necessary to conduct such analysis.

Except me, I have a degree in Clinical Psychology.........

[subdivisions]

Originally Posted by londonbarcelona

My "snarky" comments come out because no-one wants to discuss a topic if anyone expresses an opinion.

So you're saying that people ignore you when you say things they don't agree with?

Originally Posted by londonbarcelona

I've explained why I dislike it and yet, I get slammed because my opinion doesn't suit yours or the other cheerleaders on this forum.

Or are you saying that they talk too much to you when you express an opinion? I'm confused...

You can't have it both ways, dear. If you get to speak your piece, then so does everyone else. Sometimes you will say things they won't like, and they'll tell you so. And sometimes they'll say things you don't like, and you'll tell them so (just as you did here to me). It's kind of how this whole "discussion" thing works. Sometimes it sucks being challenged by others, but that can also be a learning experience.

Originally Posted by londonbarcelona

Forums are for discussion. But I guess not this one. It feels more like East Germany in the 80's to me!

Well, I was going to say that nobody here has yet called for anyone to be arrested for simply speaking their mind on a public forum. But, well...you know...

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here actually stopped you from posting any of your opinions? Or are you just mad because they disagree with you when you do? I'd love to hear about it if you have actually ever had your right to free speech removed here on City-Data Forum.

P.S. Does the invocation of "East Germany in the 80's" qualify under Godwin's Law or not?

P.P.S. We'd better take this over to that thread where everybody gets to snark at one another, or the mods will get mad and really delete our opinions...

[Humanoid]

Very few people on this forum are qualified to perform a psychological anaysis

Here I don't have in mind some sort of nonsensical psychological analysis. We animals and we act the part, its unclear why because this is the internet that we no longer act in the normal ways.

Anyhow, I don't think someone do an accurate "psychological analysis" whether the person is in front of you or otherwise. But I'm pretty much a starch reductionist on these sorts of matters.

Also, I think Brian's point was more a long the lines that one shouldn't discount what someone by explaining it away to psychological factors. That would be an "informal fallacy".

[Katiana]

I did not say I thought anyone should be arrested for speaking up on an internet forum. I said some people, one person, actually, should be prosecuted for harassment. There are some who weren't posting here when the troll was, but he was persistent, he was banned many times, kept finding a way to sneak around the system to come back, repeatedly violated the TOS, and harassed people. All of which I explained previously.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by londonbarcelona

Originally Posted by BrianTH
Indeed, I'm not sure it is even possible to talk meaningfully about the overall preferences of a group as diverse as that.

Why not? If he had stated that he loved the area more than anywhere else in the states, would it be considered meaningful to you then?

I'll admit to being completely baffled by this post.

First, by pulling it from the other thread it now isn't possible to see to what group I was referring in this sentence. To fill in that gap, the group in question was the approximately 30 million people in the United States between the ages of 20 and 34.

Second, your rhetorical question doesn't seem to apply to what I was saying. Specifically, I wasn't questioning that poster's ability to express his or her own personal preferences, so it wouldn't make any difference if he or she had expressed a different set of personal preferences. Rather, I was questioning whether it was even possible to talk meaningfully about the preferences of those entire 30 million or so other people. And that is not a point particular to that poster--for example, I don't think I could do it (or, if you prefer, I don't think I could do it for the age groups to which I actually belong, now that I am a little older than 34).

And I stand by that point. We all have our individual preferences, and each of us are the best authority on our own preferences. But we often get into trouble when we start trying to express preferences on behalf of other people, and by the time one might be attempting to express preferences on behalf of a very diverse group of 30 million other people ... well, I do in fact think that is a pretty bad idea, and again it is a bad idea for anyone.

[Humanoid]

one person, actually, should be prosecuted for harassment.

This is easier said then done. Firstly if they at all savvy with the web then they could be cloaking their IP and you'd never figure out who they were, or at the very least it would take far too much effort. But even if they weren't, getting the ISP to give out personal details given an IP address is not exactly easy.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by londonbarcelona

Except me, I have a degree in Clinical Psychology.........

To clarify, it isn't a matter of what personal expertise any of us might have. It is a matter of us not actually knowing each other very well, not being able to read facial expressions and body language, not being able to hear each other's voices, and so on. Under those circumstances, it doesn't really matter what sort of education you have: you simply don't have the necessary information about these other people to be analyzing them reliably.

[Humanoid]

you simply don't have the necessary information about these other people to be analyzing them reliably.

We aren't talking about complete evaluations of someone, rather isolated behavior. I think its possible to understand why someone does X without knowing everything about them. Also, we are all people and people act in predictable ways, in that sense it has nothing to do with the individual rather general human behavior. Really everyone makes these sorts of judgments whether they are up front about it or not. When you see a stranger walk to the drinking faucet what do you suppose they are interested in, a peanut butter jelly sandwich? Do you need to know the stranger in order to have a good idea what they are up too?

Regardless, of course the more you know someone the more accurately you can make judgments about them. This does not imply, judgments made about people on the net are completely inaccurate and cannot be done in a meaningful matter. There is no number X where an evaluation made with less than X information can't be made unless X of course is zero. Evaluating someone from writing alone is not exactly uncommon, even in the world of psycho-drivel.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Evaluating someone from writing alone is not exactly uncommon, even in the world of psycho-drivel.

It is indeed fairly common, and also in my opinion almost always a bad idea. In fact, I think people who indulge themselves in this sort of analysis without an adequate factual basis tend to end up looking foolish on many occasions, particularly if the people in question are around to correct the various assumptions the analyst will necessarily have to make (it is a little safer to do this with people who are long dead, but I think it still comes off as a bit silly).

Incidentally, I said "ulterior motives" not "motives", a distinction which is sufficient to explain your drinking fountain example. Indeed, in this case the equivalent to your drinking fountain example would be the similarly straightforward conclusion that Person A expressed Proposition X because Person A believed Proposition X to be true. I have no problem with that sort of straightforward conclusion. My suggestion is to avoid a very different sort of conclusion, one of the kind, "Person A is only expressing Proposition X because [fill in pyschological explanation, characterization of personal history, description of ulterior motive, or so on here]".

Again, though, I know many people on the Internet do that sort of thing all the time. I just don't think most of those claims are well-founded enough to be reliable.

[Humanoid]

Incidentally, I said "ulterior motives" not "motives", a distinction which is sufficient to explain your drinking fountain example.

That was...after all just an example. The general point is that we on a daily basis attribute all sorts of intentional stances to people we know nothing about, "ulterior motives" are included here. In fact this is what gives a sense of regularity to your day to day life, these fictions have high predictive value. You are free to disagree though

I just don't think most of those claims are well-founded enough to be reliable.

Well, feel free to not make them then. You may want to tell your fellow cheer leader
"subdivisions" about your idea here though. Ironically it only comes up after I make such a claim.....I know surprising huh? Anyhow, I simply disagree with you and therefore will continue to make such judgments about people. But as usual I will keep them to myself and other interested parties.

Excuse what I meant to say was "Your opinion about these claims is duly noted".