Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes.Time and effort.
The majority of vitriolic posts reveal black and white thinking when in reality everything having to do with humans/life is in shades of grey.
I have found that "Conservatives", mature minds, sometimes long-winded posters , tend to discuss issues as much, if not more, with themselves because they do not see absolutes and play devil's advocate with themselves trying to see what their real opinon is.
That's one reason we are conservative....it takes time and effort to consider things and we know nothing is ever simple or necessarily black and white.
I dunno, conservatives call me a liberal as if they were cussing, and liberals call me a conservative as if they were cussing.
I don't believe either party has dibs on intelligence or objectivity. The larger phenomena is a significant % of the American population throughout the political spectrum schooled in persuasion techniques that are dishonest or superficial. The black and white reference is for dramatic effect. Manipulations can be delivered with any frame of reference, be it cerebral, emotive, or intuitive. I tend to define a presentation in terms of objectives and underlying motives.
Do they mean to make authoritative statements to educate others and expect no discourse? What is the purpose of this education? Does the possibility of being wrong exist? Are they sincerely looking for input/ ideas or are they leading like a lawyer? That rather annoys me but I'll challenge the presumption of a framed question.
I think the more intelligent discussions are fostered by an attitude of no preconceived notions, where any answer has the potential to be correct, and ideas either evolve organically, stack together or meld together into an unexpected conclusion. Vitriolic couldn't have the steam it does if there weren't a foregone conclusion in action and a sense of frustration stoking it along.
Weird dynamics happen whenever a group is formed and ego's really do drain the life out of something that started out as viable.
I dunno, conservatives call me a liberal as if they were cussing, and liberals call me a conservative as if they were cussing.
I don't believe either party has dibs on intelligence or objectivity. The larger phenomena is a significant % of the American population throughout the political spectrum schooled in persuasion techniques that are dishonest or superficial. The black and white reference is for dramatic effect. Manipulations can be delivered with any frame of reference, be it cerebral, emotive, or intuitive. I tend to define a presentation in terms of objectives and underlying motives.
Do they mean to make authoritative statements to educate others and expect no discourse? What is the purpose of this education? Does the possibility of being wrong exist? Are they sincerely looking for input/ ideas or are they leading like a lawyer? That rather annoys me but I'll challenge the presumption of a framed question.
I think the more intelligent discussions are fostered by an attitude of no preconceived notions, where any answer has the potential to be correct, and ideas either evolve organically, stack together or meld together into an unexpected conclusion. Vitriolic couldn't have the steam it does if there weren't a foregone conclusion in action and a sense of frustration stoking it along.
Weird dynamics happen whenever a group is formed and ego's really do drain the life out of something that started out as viable.
To the first, I have to then wonder, how much of this is fear of failure? I mean this in the context that those people are vanguards and challenge ideas also have this tendency to not fear failing or being wrong.
Consider for a moment that even in the days of the Brady Bunch era, the show often gave examples of dealing with failure, as did our culture in general. As we move closer to contemporary times, we seem to wish to shield children from this. I give the example of where Florida teaches wanted to do away with the "F" grade because it made children sad that they failed. Like a Tball or soccer game that doesn't keep score. Does it ever occur to anyone that to shield people from the effects of folly is to fill the world of fools? Failure can be a positive thing, a tool to advance oneself, yet we don't seem to view it this way and instead take it more absolutist.
As to the underlined portion, I don't know if it is possible to approach much of anything in life without some preconceived notions. After all, we base much of our actions and approach from what we already know, whether that is true or not.
Somewhere toward the end of last month, this thread went off its original track. Seemingly, it descended into some sort of tussle after which it devolved primarily into discussion of personality. Neither was worthy of the previously existing standard. Perhaps this suggests that a series of intelligent, thought-provoking posts cannot be long maintained. Perhaps the general environment here is simply not conducive to it. Even if that is the case, I would maintain that as little as isolated intelligent and thought-provoking posts continue to have merit and value. Even if left awash in their own moment within a sea of base or conventional thinking, C-D servers faithfully preserve them, and occasionally they will be found by passers-by and recognized and considered and drawn upon. Even if it is the case that this is the most that we can do, it is still the case that this is the least that we can do as well...
To the first, I have to then wonder, how much of this is fear of failure? I mean this in the context that those people are vanguards and challenge ideas also have this tendency to not fear failing or being wrong.
Consider for a moment that even in the days of the Brady Bunch era, the show often gave examples of dealing with failure, as did our culture in general. As we move closer to contemporary times, we seem to wish to shield children from this. I give the example of where Florida teaches wanted to do away with the "F" grade because it made children sad that they failed. Like a Tball or soccer game that doesn't keep score. Does it ever occur to anyone that to shield people from the effects of folly is to fill the world of fools? Failure can be a positive thing, a tool to advance oneself, yet we don't seem to view it this way and instead take it more absolutist.
As to the underlined portion, I don't know if it is possible to approach much of anything in life without some preconceived notions. After all, we base much of our actions and approach from what we already know, whether that is true or not.
You're referencing systemic problems (micro: macro). In a way it's a merge of your other thread re:culture and this thread focused on individuals responding to group dynamics.
I can agree with your observation of fear of failure only to the extent that it's not absolutist. This is where we return to what old cold mentioned- the shades of gray negotiated. Human beings are far more complex even if we do have the ability to make many of them salivate on cue. My theory is that the individual psyche (notably ego 'containers') mimic a path of least resistance like water or electrical forces, the resistance for the psyche being socialized behaviors/ attitudes playing out in secular law and the soft sciences of sociology/ social psychology. That resistance to the individual and their relative strength ratio determines which way that football will bounce so-to-speak.
I'm reminded of the arguments in the field of biology wanting to drop Linnaeus (hierarchal) modeling in favor of Cladistic modeling. Cladistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia What's the point of being beholden to a new & improved rigid mindset only having to face the 'foe' of another scientific approach at some future date when contrary information is discovered? This is a competition? Let's not play to lose here folks!
They can both be correct but the degree of correctness is solved. Genome sequencing is far superior at pinpointing divergence empirically. That information as baseline augmented by anthropology & Linnaeus observations should have assisted taxonomy with evolutionary placement comprehensively. When sciences work together pooling their knowledge and approach a subject with context in mind the more appropriate model comes to the fore. The purpose of creating a model should serve the subject, not the other way around! I had discovered this in art very early on (baseline self awareness- my hand imposing subjective bias on an object) but noted in other academic branches it went lacking. Mathematicians seem less attached to old theories once a new one is proved to debunk the old, unless of course, they authored the original. There's something to that saying we're not intended to outlive our children.
Empirical reality being supreme master of sciences, any theory/ model is beholden to IT. When contrary information rears it's head, shall we suppress it in our term papers, or should we be permitted to explore it further to define the limitations of our original modeling? Proving and disproving have equal value to me personally, but it would appear that in the grander scheme of our culture this is untrue (tyranny of the majority). Another example of cultural interference: Success in scientific endeavors shall be measured by how an applied knowledge can translate to sexy economic rewards? Forget all studies of drosophila in favor of answering the burning questions of Cosmopolitan magazine?
My experiences with academia were contrary to higher learning. We were encouraged to write linear papers utilizing persuasion techniques to support our theory even if the theory itself was half baked 'common sense'. Decorate it with enough pompous terminology catering to your professors political beliefs, you've got a sale? I was not careless in my choice of characterization. I'm of the belief that academics have been undermined for decades by something I'll term 'persuasion culture' values for lack of a better word to describe a common mentality of our era. I believe it's a very dangerous in higher learning institutions because it comes at the expense of and not in service to the truth. Ironic that a libertarian organization would point at systemic problems with political bias in higher education and respond by inserting their own PAC into the stew!
Things get solved by finding the path ABOVE the dysfunctional mentality, not by remaining stooped over when walking erect leads by example.
I'd like for you to read this article below and realize just how much the grander reality of social psychology and civilization affect even the sciences (who are more earnestly committed to 'absolute truth' in purist sense, however, there's a point where the rigidity takes higher precedent than the truth). Science doesn't exist in a discrete bubble any more than academia exists in an ivory tower or the Vatican is impervious to fallibility. Systematics and the Origin of Species: Systematics and the future of biology
See patterns. The use of monolithic architecture and elaborate accessories to project an image that isn't about the subject matter as much as it's about selling the appearance of validity to the masses. A real scientist wears a lab coat and low tech is frowned upon . NASA will invent a multi million $ space pen but it won't occur to them to use a pencil because they all think EXACTLY alike . There comes a point in an organization, no matter how noble their intent, where a transmutation devolving to self preservation occurs. Heck I've seen this go on even at the micro levels of bake sales and PTA meetings. 'Charities' will squander inordinate %'s of it's resources on 'administration'. Commerce example addressing this phenomena directly was Vanguard mutual fund founder John Bogle putting his foot down to egregious administration fees. Mission statements were tangibly emphasized.
"Beware of stars" (as in, star mutual fund managers)~ John Bogle.
Take that same advice and apply it to our larger cultural values and the smallest individual cog. Individual higher resistance to hype (charismatic market share vs tangible merit based values) or herd approval (validation) have yielded the greater advances in civilization. The tools of madison ave have earned more value monetarily in our era; the sole definition of success in capitalist system. When the economic tool is overused (a model forced to serve beyond it's intended useful purpose- Linnaeus defining races by superficial characterizations) other symptoms present themselves from neglect.
I see our persuasion culture as a reenactment of the aristocracy we divorced ourselves from but ultimately remarried because we didn't fully internalize change. Our individual values have limited voice with the blessing/curse of civilizations straight jacket. Statistically diluted our values appear absent when in fact our values have been put aside to answer the question as it was framed. The querent decides the 2 dimensional reality portrait before the question was even asked. Trade tools of artists, lawyers and marketeers.
Saganista- It's too much work to attempt discussion with someone who has presumed too much or is attached to something for reasons undisclosed.
Two things I did want to respond to but presumed you moved on;
In reference to 'depends on what level you want to play'...
Rosa Parks wasn't playing and no prerequisites beyond 'fed up' were necessary. Working where I am within my means is more important to me because efficacy is kitchen tested.
In reference to the speed of the train...
My grandmother took the time to walk at the speed of my toddler mind/ body once upon a time, and now I take the time to walk at the speed of her elderly mind/ body. That's the nature of group efforts respectfully carrying one another along but as an individual I'm free to travel at my own pace on my own dime (unless of course legislature is in session ).
Reads2Much... I posted a thread a while ago that got very little attention. It was about public discourse and how if more people cast aside their individual guards and emotional blocks we could actually find practical solutions to current national, and even local problems. I think you have a very good point. There is a difference between arguing and discussing topics. One leads to an inevitable stalemate due to personal biases emotional output, while the other is more productive in nature. The first step in having this discourse instead of arguing is for individuals to start being honest with themselves... It's hard enough for us to be honest with one another, but once we become honest with the things we believe, we become more comfortable to accepting criticism and other points of view. Maybe when people have started to accept things as they are there will come a time when we don't shun points of view but rather encorporate their positive aspects with ours and come to an agreeable solution.
Reads2Much... I posted a thread a while ago that got very little attention. It was about public discourse and how if more people cast aside their individual guards and emotional blocks we could actually find practical solutions to current national, and even local problems. I think you have a very good point. There is a difference between arguing and discussing topics. One leads to an inevitable stalemate due to personal biases emotional output, while the other is more productive in nature. The first step in having this discourse instead of arguing is for individuals to start being honest with themselves... It's hard enough for us to be honest with one another, but once we become honest with the things we believe, we become more comfortable to accepting criticism and other points of view. Maybe when people have started to accept things as they are there will come a time when we don't shun points of view but rather encorporate their positive aspects with ours and come to an agreeable solution.
Respect goes a long way but not all care to abide or have maturity on their side. There are times on the internet where I find it hard to tell the difference between a troll and someone who's really that oblivious. I often wonder if it's even worth responding.
CD- what would you suggest? Debunk mythology people mean to sell each other or ignore it?
I think it is very difficult to start threads that encourage open discussion instead of mindless debate, but I believe that those of us who recognize the value of the former have an obligation to encourage it in all and do what we can. If that means discussing in small groups then so be it. I believe it is in human nature to learn, and discussing is an incredibly informative way of doing so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, tend to discuss issues as much, if not more, with themselves because they do not see absolutes and play devil's advocate with themselves trying to see what their real opinon is.
Forget all studies of drosophila in favor of answering the burning questions of Cosmopolitan magazine? 
I was not careless in my choice of characterization. I'm of the belief that academics have been undermined for decades by something I'll term 'persuasion culture' values for lack of a better word to describe a common mentality of our era. I believe it's a very dangerous in higher learning institutions because it comes at the expense of and not in service to the truth. Ironic that a libertarian organization would point at systemic problems with political bias in higher education and respond by inserting their own PAC into the stew!
. NASA will invent a multi million $ space pen but it won't occur to them to use a pencil because they all think EXACTLY alike 
. There comes a point in an organization, no matter how noble their intent, where a transmutation devolving to self preservation occurs. Heck I've seen this go on even at the micro levels of bake sales and PTA meetings. 'Charities' will squander inordinate %'s of it's resources on 'administration'. Commerce example addressing this phenomena directly was Vanguard mutual fund founder John Bogle putting his foot down to egregious administration fees. Mission statements were tangibly emphasized. 
).
