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.
cant we all just lighten up and have some fun, this is starting to sound like work! heres a tip that works for me, if I think someone is an idiot or someone posts a stupid, boring, redundant or ignorant thread ! DONT RESPOND! we do have the ignore function dont we?:
I have this little theory that we begin with curiosity, then appreciation, then imitation, and end with creation.
My primary field (though I spend a good deal of time now in planning an orderly retirement from it) is policy analysis, which is distinct from policy planning and development. My thing is to say what sort of new ripples might appear in the pool if we did Thing-X. To do that, you need to understand Thing-X, but you also need a detailed understanding of the pool...to define it in almost organic terms as a dynamic being whose properties and behaviors can best be described by a set of rules or principles. All of those are built on facts, usually lots of facts, and then thinking about what it is that unifies all those things into a related and functioning system. I think that's the part of my own work that might fit into your Creation realm, and to tie it back to the thread topic, I think there are many here who do not see a need for any of that...
What...it's a pool of water. If you fall in it, you're going to get wet. If you were thirsty, you could drink some of it. Maybe you could use some of it to wash your car. What more do you need to know than that?
I don't know which of your levels that sort of thing would fall onto, but I think it qualifies at least as being a different way or mode of thinking about things, and I do see a number of 'poor fits' in terms of posts back and forth where I might attribute at least part of the mismatch to such differing modes of thinking. It isn't necessarily the case that there will be common ground between those who have differing means of identifying objectives and differing means of plotting the paths toward those objectives. One or the other of two parties in such a situation is likely to become frustrated, and if what they started out with could be described as an unstable equilibrium in any case, then such frustration is likely to set things quite askew in quite a hurry.
Anyway, that's one take on the topic for a Tuesday morning...
Very interesting deduction. Most worthy of a discussion. Does one exist in the Education Forum, I wonder; and could it be part of a discussion here that has some direct application to how we debate and discuss any issue, and in particular, P&oC.
It's funny, when I started this thread I could have told you exactly which members would participate. Sure enough, they did (minus three I thought might jump in... where are you guys?)! We're a small pool, and I'm not sure anyone else is interested but us!
cant we all just lighten up and have some fun, this is starting to sound like work! heres a tip that works for me, if I think someone is an idiot or someone posts a stupid, boring, redundant or ignorant thread ! DONT RESPOND! we do have the ignore function dont we?:
heh
Silas, I know what you mean about lightening up and having fun.
And in terms of idiotic, stupid, boring, redundant, ignorant, yeah, I'm with ya, there are *plenty* of threads I leave alone. But IMHO it can be a waste of time to have to even wade through them.
Different people use this forum for different purposes...some people simply want to vent, others want genuine discussion, while still others get a rush from posting adolescent shock-value threads.
Jco, I also think I know what you mean about that Creation theory, sometimes finding out information--getting a decent education--is all about knowing the right questions to ask.
What Saganista says here:
Quote:
I do see a number of 'poor fits' in terms of posts back and forth where I might attribute at least part of the mismatch to such differing modes of thinking. It isn't necessarily the case that there will be common ground between those who have differing means of identifying objectives and differing means of plotting the paths toward those objectives. One or the other of two parties in such a situation is likely to become frustrated, and if what they started out with could be described as an unstable equilibrium in any case, then such frustration is likely to set things quite askew in quite a hurry.
So Saganista, do you mean that trying to elevate the discussion here is hopeless?
I do go to other boards that have stricter debating rules than the TOS here, and people really do build some fascinating, informative threads. I have actually *learned* new things, even changed my mind.
When I say "stricter," all I mean is that some of the more trollish attitudes and accompanying tactics are not allowed. What Anchorless suggests, in terms of using legitimate sources to support your position, etc, is pretty much the rule of thumb.
To me, it's not that hard to get along with folks; it does seem to me that nobody loses their unique attitudes and backgrounds just because they have to kick up their civility a knotch.
My primary field (though I spend a good deal of time now in planning an orderly retirement from it) is policy analysis, which is distinct from policy planning and development. My thing is to say what sort of new ripples might appear in the pool if we did Thing-X. To do that, you need to understand Thing-X, but you also need a detailed understanding of the pool...to define it in almost organic terms as a dynamic being whose properties and behaviors can best be described by a set of rules or principles. All of those are built on facts, usually lots of facts, and then thinking about what it is that unifies all those things into a related and functioning system. I think that's the part of my own work that might fit into your Creation realm, and to tie it back to the thread topic, I think there are many here who do not see a need for any of that...
It seems we're a society pushing for a little understanding in a great deal of material instead of mastery of one or two concepts. I think it's better to know a lot about a little than a little about a lot, personally. This is the only way to get past imitation. I believe what you described is the creation portion. When you're able to throw "Thing - X" in the equation and determine a response, you're creating a new scenario and determining a response. This goes beyond imitation (I still regurgitation is a more accurate word ). In political discussions, I become frustrated over this. I really do believe society as a whole is taught to know only surface information and base decisions on this. It's frustrating to talk to people voting solely on what appeases them for the moment.
Quote:
It isn't necessarily the case that there will be common ground between those who have differing means of identifying objectives and differing means of plotting the paths toward those objectives.
If I'm understanding you correctly, and to use the prior illustration, it's the way we draw conclusions about the "pool" that determines this? We run into conflict of ideas based on the foundation of our beliefs, then?
I understood, saganista, somewhat differently than cil.
Just recently I get into a back and forth with a member and although, neither of us made a great fuss, no deletions, no infractions, we seemed to be speaking different languages. It wasn't language, however, but some undefinable difference(s) in our way of communicating. No bigger, but it does happen in rl too.
So Saganista, do you mean that trying to elevate the discussion here is hopeless?
Apologies for the work interlude, and no, not in the general sense. But however laudible such efforts might be, and for whatever degree of success they might have, I am saying there will be practical constraints upon their reach and effectiveness. At the end of the day, the only way for moderators to ward off spin-outs into the various sorts of brouhaha that we're all familiar with would be to keep certain pairs of people from posting in response to each other. While these may disagree over a given issue, their conflicts are not issue-based at all, but modality-based. They do not see or process the world in the same way, hence further discussion is likely to sharpen rather than to diminish differences, and thus the point of there not necessarily being a common ground between them that every potential combination of discussion participants can work toward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cil
I do go to other boards that have stricter debating rules than the TOS here, and people really do build some fascinating, informative threads. I have actually *learned* new things, even changed my mind. When I say "stricter," all I mean is that some of the more trollish attitudes and accompanying tactics are not allowed. What Anchorless suggests, in terms of using legitimate sources to support your position, etc, is pretty much the rule of thumb.
I have only the abstract of such boards to work with, but the thought that comes to mind from your description is that of segregation. To illustrate, suppose that each C-D poster were required to self-identify, without further clarification, as being either a Tangibilist or an Intangibilist, and that clicking on any discussion link took one only to the group of posts put up on the topic by those in the same group as oneself. I can imagine under those circumstances increases in tone and decorum, as well as in the number of fascinating and informative threads on either side of the divide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cil
To me, it's not that hard to get along with folks; it does seem to me that nobody loses their unique attitudes and backgrounds just because they have to kick up their civility a knotch.
I don't disagree, save as to the universality of the notion. Almost any of us can learn to be more civil, but I am suggesting that what we are collectively unable to unlearn will nevertheless continue to keep us apart.
Hi jco - I think there was a thread about this long ago. I'm glad it came up again though.
As saganista pointed out - and rightly so - we can ALL learn to be more civil. I think that's the key right there. If you don't talk down to someone, they're much more likely to be open to what is being said, and therefore gain a richer understanding of the other's POV.
I think this is much more important than the links that are posted or the reasoning involved. Many people that participate draw from personal experience, and I think that's perfectly valid. You can't discount that. I think we've all seen people attempt to cite a source, and then people start grumbling - even THAT isn't good enough. "Well, that's from Worldnet, or Faux, or CNN, or wikipedia, or it's from two years ago - therefore it isn't valid and your argument is useless."
If people want to see a more academic-style debate, there should be some ground rules adopted (i.e., acceptable sources, point and counter-point, etc.). Further, I think there should be a separate forum exclusively for this type of debate. It can be a lot more work, and I think it would move slower, and fewer would participate if the rules of engagement are strict.
It seems we're a society pushing for a little understanding in a great deal of material instead of mastery of one or two concepts. I think it's better to know a lot about a little than a little about a lot, personally.
The idea goes to many levels. On one, we are forced into specialization by a need for economic survival. Most of us, I would suppose, are expert within the narrow niches that put bread upon the table for us, but such particular expertise is of limited value in a socio-political context. In that realm, I would suggest that it is not so much society as individual vanity that is the principal driver. None of us wishes to be seen as illiterate, uninformed, or uncooperative in such a context, so almost all of us make an effort to be at least minimally conversant across a wide range of issues and topics of the day. Many people, for instance, will pay some attention to the NFL today only for the purpose of being able to say something credible about the day's events tomorrow. But this knowledge will extend to the level of one or two degrees only. Enough perhaps to get us by in water-cooler conversation, but if pressed for more on the matter, we would soon be set to stammering. From a broader but similar perspective, if one stops and looks around, one can only be staggered at the number of media outlets that exist today for no more purpose than the provision, and in some cases reinforcement, of one or two such instant but entirely superficial talking points. This results in what I take to be your complaints over people knowing a little about a lot, where I would see it more as not really knowing anything about a lot.
I would tend myself more toward the idea that to know anything about anything, one needs to know a lot about a lot. In illustration, I would harken on two counts back to the 1970's BBC series Connections by James Burke. First, it demonstrates the premise that ideas and events are not independent of each other and that to understand one, you need to understand those that it may be connected to. And second, in the final 15 minutes or so of the tenth and final episode, Burke provides what I would see as an amazingly prescient take on the potential effects of an increasingly complex technology upon society. He sees an age in which even those with advanced scientific training are unable to keep up with or understand developments in specialities outside of their own, and posits along with that a fate for the common man of being all but completely divorced from hope of understanding his world and why it is affecting him in the ways that it is. He warns on this account of a potential rise in resentful mysticism, rote, and reactionary superstition as people throng toward an artificial world that they can understand in preference to a real world that they cannot. I don't think one can look around at this point and easily claim that this vision from thirty years ago has not in large part become the reality of today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jco
I believe what you described is the creation portion. When you're able to throw "Thing - X" in the equation and determine a response, you're creating a new scenario and determining a response. This goes beyond imitation (I still regurgitation is a more accurate word ). In political discussions, I become frustrated over this. I really do believe society as a whole is taught to know only surface information and base decisions on this. It's frustrating to talk to people voting solely on what appeases them for the moment.
People sometimes don't independently know what stand to take, so they take whatever one they feel they can defend. Learning and teaching, meanwhile, may go hand in hand, but they are two different processes driven by distinctly different actors. What one is taught, one can reject, if one is of a mind to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jco
If I'm understanding you correctly, and to use the prior illustration, it's the way we draw conclusions about the "pool" that determines this? We run into conflict of ideas based on the foundation of our beliefs, then?
More I think on the basis of general predilections than specific beliefs. [Specific beliefs might be taken up as the result of general predilections, but that would be a matter for a different post.] As an example, I might contend (as I didn't earlier) that it is important in and of itself to know more about a pool of water than that you will get wet if you fall in it, or that you could drink it, or use it to wash your car. But I will be opposed in this assertion. It goes to the matter of Tangible versus Intangible that I vaguely raised in the reply to <cil> above. Those terms are somewhat forced to be sure, but they in turn go to the differences in fundamental approach to the idea of thinking at all that I first suggested as underlying various of the crash-and-burn scenarios that crop up in C-D. The reasoning of A is incomplete in the mind of B, and the reasoning of B does not compute in the mind of A. All this can happen without much regard to simple intelligence or education or to sets of professed beliefs. It seems to arise from some other construct.
Last edited by saganista; 10-14-2007 at 12:02 PM..
They should come up with a separate form of rep, that is given out specifically when somebody simply disagrees with you.
I think most folks in the P & OC group would be proud to rack up points there!
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.
