Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science now

Anthropology, History, Psychology, Sociology and other related areas.

Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 12th, 2017, 9:25 pm 

Fine. I'll leave you two to work it out.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby BioWizard on July 12th, 2017, 10:17 pm 

The thread was getting interesting before it devolved into bickering. In all likelihood nobody other than the bickering parties cares who started what when, and you'll probably never agree on that so why not save your breath and time? If a way out of this can be found to get the thread back on track, that would be nice (and appreciated).
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12563
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby someguy1 on July 12th, 2017, 10:18 pm 

BioWizard » July 12th, 2017, 8:17 pm wrote:The thread was getting interesting before it devolved into bickering. In all likelihood nobody other than the bickering parties cares who started what when, and you'll probably never agree on that so why not save your breath and time? If a way out of this can be found to get the thread back on track, that would be nice (and appreciated).


Is defending oneself against flat out factual lies regarded as bickering?

So that I can do better in the future, when someone claims I said things that I demonstrably did not say, and never would have or could have said, how should I respond?
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 520
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby BioWizard on July 12th, 2017, 10:32 pm 

Ok defend yourselves and let us know when you're done. But Serpent won't be mediating and I won't let the thread go on just so two people can insult each other. So options are you work it out or I lock the thread and we all move on. If either of you has already decided they've lost interest in the thread, we may as well get on with our lives right away and turn to something more productive.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12563
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby someguy1 on July 12th, 2017, 10:38 pm 

BioWizard » July 12th, 2017, 8:32 pm wrote:Ok defend yourselves and let us know when you're done. But Serpent won't be mediating and I won't let the thread go on just so two people can insult each other. So options are you work it out or I lock the thread and we all move on. If either of you has already decided they've lost interest in the thread, we may as well get on with our lives right away and turn to something more productive.


I asked a clear question so that I can do better in the future and engage more productively on the site. Do you have an specific suggestions as to how I should handle someone making demonstrably false claims about what I said and what beliefs I hold? My usual reaction is to push back, but I'm open to alternative modes.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 520
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 13th, 2017, 4:29 pm 

someguy1 » July 12th, 2017, 7:01 pm wrote:Garrett, You're a **** liar. Your quotes utterly failed to support your lies. And you appear to be delusional.

ps -- Oh I see I can't say that. You're a farking liar. I think that's from the movie Fargo.

You made two explicit claims: That I equated driver's licenses with totalitarianism; and that I said something about gun rights or gun laws.

Both claims are factually false. You are just embarrassing yourself now.


Now you're moving to personal attacks. My original post was about CONSENSUS efforts at ensuring power is handled by people responsible enough to handle it, which is like a drivers license. Your reply said that was totalitarian. QED my friend, you took my post out of context and can't own it. I agree with biowizard, let's get the conversation on track again.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 13th, 2017, 5:05 pm 

BioWizard » July 12th, 2017, 9:32 pm wrote:Ok defend yourselves and let us know when you're done. But Serpent won't be mediating and I won't let the thread go on just so two people can insult each other. So options are you work it out or I lock the thread and we all move on. If either of you has already decided they've lost interest in the thread, we may as well get on with our lives right away and turn to something more productive.


I'd like to have a productive conversation honestly, without being accused of being a totalitarian. Here's my attempt to get us back on track... What I'm saying here should be something we can all agree on... I'm saying it in a specific way that should be easy to buy into... I'm saying that democratic processes should regulate who has how much power in society, and that we need to agree on whats 'desireable' and 'not desireable' in our society. I think I've put together a good list of common 'desireable attributes' -- in fact I got a Trump supporter to agree to my three most important rules just yesterday... If me and a Trump supporter can agree on anything I think we should come to the conclusion that those premises are good at creating common ground, which is what I want to do.

What I'm also proposing is that as we create laws/rules, that these laws/rules should be done based on a commonly accepted definition of what is considered "desirable" and "not desirable". I'm proposing we plug this gap by creating a definition of "guiding principles" (confusionist philosophy, not legalist), that guide the direction of new laws, rules and regulations. Again, this requires the following:

1. Agree with a democratic consensus on what is "desirable" and "not desirable" - for both individuals and society (my best attempt at this is here: https://goo.gl/kSajGC - I have had good feedback that this list is pretty approachable to people of all political backgrounds, I'd be interested to see if you all agree
2. Have some way of evaluating whether people are doing "desirable" or "not desirable"
3. Have an education system that helps people do "desirable" things (this includes not only soft skills training and emotional psychological training, but also training currently unemployable people so they can add value to society (helping society progress is part of my definition of good, as it was to one of the moderators in another forum).
4. Ensure through democratically powered means that people who do excessive amounts of "undesirable" things do not end up in positions of power (destructive capability)

I changed the words to not use good and evil (just substitute in the google doc, use your imagination), since Serpent is right those are loaded terms.

Can we discuss if this is an approach that makes sense?
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 14th, 2017, 8:33 am 

someguy1 » July 12th, 2017, 9:38 pm wrote:
BioWizard » July 12th, 2017, 8:32 pm wrote:Ok defend yourselves and let us know when you're done. But Serpent won't be mediating and I won't let the thread go on just so two people can insult each other. So options are you work it out or I lock the thread and we all move on. If either of you has already decided they've lost interest in the thread, we may as well get on with our lives right away and turn to something more productive.


I asked a clear question so that I can do better in the future and engage more productively on the site. Do you have an specific suggestions as to how I should handle someone making demonstrably false claims about what I said and what beliefs I hold? My usual reaction is to push back, but I'm open to alternative modes.


How about I give you a friendly suggestion, since I was the one offended by your post. Try understanding someone's post for the spirit it was written in before you call them a totalitarian or extremist. Perhaps they're not being as extreme as you've assumed (we know what assuming does, right?). Read what I wrote again and re-read your response... You made many incorrect assumptions and ignored major parts of my writing in order to justify pegging me as an extremist. That, my friend, is what started the conflict. Hopefully now we can say its at an end, and we'll let those who saw the quotes judge who was right and wrong, and you and I will agree to disagree since you seem vehemently to defend your post without a rational explanation.

And BioWiz, I don't believe I've been calling someguy1 names, I just have pointed out that he took my post out of contact and then incorrectly claimed I lied. I posted proof of my statements, and he still denied it, without any rational explanation or justification for his extreme post and accusations against me... I can lead a horse to water, but drinking is up to the horse.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 14th, 2017, 10:54 am 

thinker4life » July 13th, 2017, 4:05 pm wrote:What I'm also proposing is that as we create laws/rules, that these laws/rules should be done based on a commonly accepted definition of what is considered "desirable" and "not desirable". I'm proposing we plug this gap by creating a definition of "guiding principles" (confusionist philosophy, not legalist), that guide the direction of new laws, rules and regulations. Again, this requires the following:

I don't know what to make of "confusionist" philosophy (aren't Americans confused enough?) or why you'd want to avoid legalism when making laws.

My main question is: Do you propose to wipe out the original documents, dissolve the union and start from scratch with a new constitution?
If so, I would recommend dividing the lower 48 into four regions of +/-12 states each, cut Hawaii and all the protectorates loose and give Alaska back to the natives.
This way, you're far more likely to get popular consensus on desirable and undesirable characters and the functions of governance - there will four quite different constitutions, based on different philosophical approaches to social organization.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 14th, 2017, 6:50 pm 

Serpent » July 14th, 2017, 9:54 am wrote:
thinker4life » July 13th, 2017, 4:05 pm wrote:What I'm also proposing is that as we create laws/rules, that these laws/rules should be done based on a commonly accepted definition of what is considered "desirable" and "not desirable". I'm proposing we plug this gap by creating a definition of "guiding principles" (confusionist philosophy, not legalist), that guide the direction of new laws, rules and regulations. Again, this requires the following:

I don't know what to make of "confusionist" philosophy (aren't Americans confused enough?) or why you'd want to avoid legalism when making laws.

My main question is: Do you propose to wipe out the original documents, dissolve the union and start from scratch with a new constitution?
If so, I would recommend dividing the lower 48 into four regions of +/-12 states each, cut Hawaii and all the protectorates loose and give Alaska back to the natives.
This way, you're far more likely to get popular consensus on desirable and undesirable characters and the functions of governance - there will four quite different constitutions, based on different philosophical approaches to social organization.


lol Serpent you're so cynical. I'm optimistic that I can find common ground even amongst such differing opinions. In fact I got a Trump support to agree to most of the 3 main tenants of my "desireable" behaviors... If me and a Trump supporter can agree on the 3 most important guiding principles of how we should create laws, and given how extensive those 3 things are in what they would indicate regarding the direction of laws, I'd say that's progress. Try reading the google doc before you get so cynical.

I'm not proposing doing away with the current government, and I'm not proposing getting rid of legalist laws... Laws have to be legalist. What I'm proposing is that we establish some confusionist ideals to strive for when we create our legalist laws. When creating laws we can get lost in the forest if we don't have a north star, so I'm proposing we create a north star with democratic consensus, and my google doc is an attempt at doing just that. Try reading it and see what you think, and comments with concerns in there. I know you'll have some with principle #3, but I'm also confident we can talk through them and I can explain there's a lot of wisdom and power in that precept.

Kind regards,
Garrett
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 14th, 2017, 8:02 pm 

Okay, but I hope it's a little less rife with mismatched metaphors.

suggestion: look up tenant and tenet
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Sivad on July 14th, 2017, 8:34 pm 

Serpent » July 14th, 2017, 5:02 pm wrote:Okay, but I hope it's a little less rife with mismatched metaphors.

suggestion: look up tenant and tenet



That's kinda shitty, you could'a just PM'd that.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Sivad on July 14th, 2017, 8:47 pm 

Garrett, you should get a sense of how deeply rooted crazy is before you go any further. Go engage with nationalists, libertarians, religious fundamentalists, conspiracy theorists, establishment debunkers, moonbat liberals, racial supremacists, anarchists, etc. Us people are motivated reasoners, strongly assholic, and dedicated to ingorance and ignorant conflict. You should maybe get a sense of human nature before you embark on a project to reform the human race.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
BioWizard liked this post


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby someguy1 on July 14th, 2017, 10:19 pm 

thinker4life » July 14th, 2017, 4:50 pm wrote: What I'm proposing is that we establish some confusionist ideals ...


Oh Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, give me the strength to resist the urge.
Last edited by someguy1 on July 14th, 2017, 10:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 520
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 14th, 2017, 10:19 pm 

Sivad » July 14th, 2017, 7:34 pm wrote:
Serpent » July 14th, 2017, 5:02 pm wrote:Okay, but I hope it's a little less rife with mismatched metaphors.

suggestion: look up tenant and tenet



That's kinda shitty, you could'a just PM'd that.


True.
Still, if he's about to rebuild the whole US constitution from basic premises, he's already put himself on public display. He must be up for some criticism - and it'll get a lot shittier -than "check your vocabulary."
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Sivad on July 15th, 2017, 12:07 am 

Serpent » July 14th, 2017, 7:19 pm wrote:
Sivad » July 14th, 2017, 7:34 pm wrote:
Serpent » July 14th, 2017, 5:02 pm wrote:Okay, but I hope it's a little less rife with mismatched metaphors.

suggestion: look up tenant and tenet



That's kinda shitty, you could'a just PM'd that.


True.
Still, if he's about to rebuild the whole US constitution from basic premises, he's already put himself on public display. He must be up for some criticism - and it'll get a lot shittier -than "check your vocabulary."


Yeah, I've benefited from harsh treatment in ways that I think could've really only come from it, but still, I'm pretty sure most those ***** weren't doing it for my benefit.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 15th, 2017, 10:35 am 

Sivad -- Yeah, I've benefited from harsh treatment in ways that I think could've really only come from it, but still, I'm pretty sure most those ***** weren't doing it for my benefit.


I was, actually.
My guess is that Thinker isn't quite ready to go forth and change the world; that he needs to mull the project over a little longer, perhaps break it down into more manageable phases and definitely fine-tune the language.
Whispering behind the curtain gives little indication of what it's like to be criticized in public. I would rather he got this advice from a well-wisher in this relatively sheltered space, than from detractors out on the tundra. Securing one Trump supporter's approval won't protect him from very much harsher reactions, and he doesn't seem fully aware of his vulnerable points.

But maybe it's not our job to protect him - even from each other.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby BioWizard on July 15th, 2017, 11:59 am 

Serpent » 15 Jul 2017 09:35 am wrote:But maybe it's not our job to protect him - even from each other.


It probably isn't. Which is why it makes me happy (and proud) to see this kind of approach/culture set by the forum's members. I hope T4L appreciates what you guys have done/are doing for him.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12563
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 15th, 2017, 4:58 pm 

Sivad » July 14th, 2017, 7:47 pm wrote:Garrett, you should get a sense of how deeply rooted crazy is before you go any further. Go engage with nationalists, libertarians, religious fundamentalists, conspiracy theorists, establishment debunkers, moonbat liberals, racial supremacists, anarchists, etc. Us people are motivated reasoners, strongly assholic, and dedicated to ingorance and ignorant conflict. You should maybe get a sense of human nature before you embark on a project to reform the human race.


I interact with all of them on a regular basis on another chat site, and I don't disagree there are many unreasonable people out there. What I want to do is get a consensus from people I think are reasonable thinkers... As I said I got a Trump supporter in another forum to agree with my 3 most important ideals, which I call a win...

I'm quite familiar with human nature, but I haven't given up on humans yet... sounds like perhaps you have.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 15th, 2017, 5:04 pm 

Serpent » July 14th, 2017, 9:19 pm wrote:
Sivad » July 14th, 2017, 7:34 pm wrote:
Serpent » July 14th, 2017, 5:02 pm wrote:Okay, but I hope it's a little less rife with mismatched metaphors.

suggestion: look up tenant and tenet



That's kinda shitty, you could'a just PM'd that.


True.
Still, if he's about to rebuild the whole US constitution from basic premises, he's already put himself on public display. He must be up for some criticism - and it'll get a lot shittier -than "check your vocabulary."


As I said, and I'll repeat it for you again since you didn't see it the first time, my idea is not to rebuild the US constitution, its to find some common ground amongst our divided nation... apparently nobody bothered to read my document which is intending to find the common ground though, so its a little hard to judge your feedback when you've done nothing but mis-represent what I'm saying.

I prefer interacting with people who don't intentionally mis-represent what they're reading, and aren't absolute cynics. You started off doing that Serpent but you digressed to spelling errors, which is quite frankly a waste of your time and mine. I'm not offended, but I think you should value your time more than being a nit picker.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 15th, 2017, 8:50 pm 

I'm sorry to disappoint you. I didn't read the whole thing, as I generally don't read lengthy essays by other posters - there simply isn't that much unstructured time in my day. I did sample it and had some issues with the language. That's not a spelling error; it's a completely different word, as are confusion and Confucian. These are not nits; they are bloody great beetles.
On that inadequate basis, I consider your project not quite yet ready for launch, and you not quite ready to fix the world. All the same, I wish you luck.

And, yes, I am pessimistic. (Not cynical; that means something else in the old dictionary.)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Forest_Dump on July 15th, 2017, 9:55 pm 

I too only gave it a brief glance. We do get a lot of these manifestos and epistles that all promise to be able to change the world in one way or another. However, I find I have only so much time and if I am going to devote a significant chuck to something like this I want to be able to quickly assess whether or not it will be worth my while. So, when I see poor writing skills, bad grammar, bad spelling, etc., I quickly conclude that either the writer is not very educated and is therefore unlikely to have anything new to say or the writer hasn't devoted enough thought and attention to it yet to clean it up for broader consumption. I publish quite a bit and I read everything over many times before I would consider letting any editor see it and manage to catch most of those "nit-picking" errors. Therefore I can only conclude the author of this hasn't and so it is not ready for my reading.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8708
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 16th, 2017, 1:48 pm 

Forest_Dump » July 15th, 2017, 8:55 pm wrote:I too only gave it a brief glance. We do get a lot of these manifestos and epistles that all promise to be able to change the world in one way or another. However, I find I have only so much time and if I am going to devote a significant chuck to something like this I want to be able to quickly assess whether or not it will be worth my while. So, when I see poor writing skills, bad grammar, bad spelling, etc., I quickly conclude that either the writer is not very educated and is therefore unlikely to have anything new to say or the writer hasn't devoted enough thought and attention to it yet to clean it up for broader consumption. I publish quite a bit and I read everything over many times before I would consider letting any editor see it and manage to catch most of those "nit-picking" errors. Therefore I can only conclude the author of this hasn't and so it is not ready for my reading.


The typo was in my post on the board, not in my doc. My doc is pretty solid, but if you feel that based on typos in the board its not worth your time I won't try to convince you otherwise.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 16th, 2017, 1:50 pm 

Serpent » July 15th, 2017, 7:50 pm wrote:I'm sorry to disappoint you. I didn't read the whole thing, as I generally don't read lengthy essays by other posters - there simply isn't that much unstructured time in my day. I did sample it and had some issues with the language. That's not a spelling error; it's a completely different word, as are confusion and Confucian. These are not nits; they are bloody great beetles.
On that inadequate basis, I consider your project not quite yet ready for launch, and you not quite ready to fix the world. All the same, I wish you luck.

And, yes, I am pessimistic. (Not cynical; that means something else in the old dictionary.)


Christian monks made typos when transcribing the bibles, does that mean the bible is less valuable?

If the meaning and intent is clear in writing, that's the important part to me. I happened to be educated at a top university, but functioning on very little sleep due to having young children. Perhaps you should consider that other people's life circumstances may impact their ability to type without errors, and be a little less critical in your reading, trying to look at the writer's intent rather than trying to find any fault you can -- you started off this way, so I know you're capable of it. We may have a more productive conversation that way, rather than getting distracted on what are clearly clerical errors.
Last edited by thinker4life on July 16th, 2017, 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 16th, 2017, 1:55 pm 

Forest_Dump » July 15th, 2017, 8:55 pm wrote:I too only gave it a brief glance. We do get a lot of these manifestos and epistles that all promise to be able to change the world in one way or another. However, I find I have only so much time and if I am going to devote a significant chuck to something like this I want to be able to quickly assess whether or not it will be worth my while. So, when I see poor writing skills, bad grammar, bad spelling, etc., I quickly conclude that either the writer is not very educated and is therefore unlikely to have anything new to say or the writer hasn't devoted enough thought and attention to it yet to clean it up for broader consumption. I publish quite a bit and I read everything over many times before I would consider letting any editor see it and manage to catch most of those "nit-picking" errors. Therefore I can only conclude the author of this hasn't and so it is not ready for my reading.


Can you point me to how I can find some of the other manifestos of other people on this site? I'd like to read them and see if they have merit. At least they are written by people who have enough vision and motivation to try to make a difference in the world.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby BioWizard on July 16th, 2017, 2:30 pm 

T4L,

You say you haven't given up on humans, and that you have a lot of insight into human nature. Presumably, then, you should know that visionaries constitute less than 5% of the population. That leaves you with 95% that you have to figure out how to appeal to using some other selling point, presumably each in a way that appeals to their personality type (let alone their cultural and educational background). If you're really savvy, you may be able to adapt your style on the fly without much prior planning - reading your audience quickly and knowing how to sell yourself and your idea to them.

"people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do." -- Steve Jobs

With the exception of visionaries, most people don't like change and will "reason" themselves out of it.

Now consider that you're on a forum where the readership is likely to have above average IQ and a skeptical bend. People will want to push you a little even if they agree with your general premise, simply because 1- that's their nature (which you said you understand well, yes?) and 2- they want to know that you're worth your salt and their time. It doesn't mean that they're merely trying to mischaracterize you.

Being sensitive to criticism isn't necessarily a bad thing (in fact it may suggest you're not a psycopath). However, letting it dictate your reactions can be counterproductive. Implying that people who don't readily agree with you have ill intentions or lack vision is counterproductive. Telling people that you know them more than they know themselves is counterproductive. Acting passive aggressively is counterproductive.

In fact, this kind of reactive behavior might give a bystander the impression that you don't have much insight into human nature, and that you haven't put enough thought into your approach and ideas. It gives the impression that you're a bad listener and the kind of person who would rather beat their logic onto others instead of taking the time to figure out how to appeal to them. Which, unfortunately, reinforces the totalitarian taint that you've been working hard to shake off.

Just sayin...
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12563
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)
Braininvat liked this post


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 16th, 2017, 6:42 pm 

BioWizard » July 16th, 2017, 1:30 pm wrote:T4L,

You say you haven't given up on humans, and that you have a lot of insight into human nature. Presumably, then, you should know that visionaries constitute less than 5% of the population. That leaves you with 95% that you have to figure out how to appeal to using some other selling point, presumably each in a way that appeals to their personality type (let alone their cultural and educational background). If you're really savvy, you may be able to adapt your style on the fly without much prior planning - reading your audience quickly and knowing how to sell yourself and your idea to them.

"people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do." -- Steve Jobs

With the exception of visionaries, most people don't like change and will "reason" themselves out of it.

Now consider that you're on a forum where the readership is likely to have above average IQ and a skeptical bend. People will want to push you a little even if they agree with your general premise, simply because 1- that's their nature (which you said you understand well, yes?) and 2- they want to know that you're worth your salt and their time. It doesn't mean that they're merely trying to mischaracterize you.

Being sensitive to criticism isn't necessarily a bad thing (in fact it may suggest you're not a psycopath). However, letting it dictate your reactions can be counterproductive. Implying that people who don't readily agree with you have ill intentions or lack vision is counterproductive. Telling people that you know them more than they know themselves is counterproductive. Acting passive aggressively is counterproductive.

In fact, this kind of reactive behavior might give a bystander the impression that you don't have much insight into human nature, and that you haven't put enough thought into your approach and ideas. It gives the impression that you're a bad listener and the kind of person who would rather beat their logic onto others instead of taking the time to figure out how to appeal to them. Which, unfortunately, reinforces the totalitarian taint that you've been working hard to shake off.

Just sayin...


I haven't called anyone names, and haven't forced any ideas down anyone's throats... All I've done is ask people to consider what I've written without mis-interpreting intentionally my intent... It's pretty clear that someguy1 did...

Then Serpent points out my spelling errors instead of focusing on the main point of what I wrote... If this is what your forum is about, I highly doubt that the people here are above average IQ... Seems to be they can't stick to the main point of a subject... I've tried several times to steer it back in polite and friendly ways. The fact that you're calling me a totalitarian when I've been nothing but unjustly criticized on your forum, when initially you were objective and on point, sends mixed messages about what your goals are.

In what way did I try to force any ideas down anyones throats? All I asked for was an opinion and reflection on the original point of my post. We've spent a lot of time on a lot of tangents, but nobody but Serpent has actually replied to the initial question.

I'm curious what about my behavior you think was so bad... I feel a bit like I'm being attacked from all sides here... If your intention is to say I'm not welcome here I'm happy to leave, I'm looking for a forum of intellectual peers not people who like to gang up on newcomers.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 16th, 2017, 6:57 pm 

BioWizard » July 16th, 2017, 1:30 pm wrote:T4L,

You say you haven't given up on humans, and that you have a lot of insight into human nature. Presumably, then, you should know that visionaries constitute less than 5% of the population. That leaves you with 95% that you have to figure out how to appeal to using some other selling point, presumably each in a way that appeals to their personality type (let alone their cultural and educational background). If you're really savvy, you may be able to adapt your style on the fly without much prior planning - reading your audience quickly and knowing how to sell yourself and your idea to them.

"people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do." -- Steve Jobs

With the exception of visionaries, most people don't like change and will "reason" themselves out of it.

Now consider that you're on a forum where the readership is likely to have above average IQ and a skeptical bend. People will want to push you a little even if they agree with your general premise, simply because 1- that's their nature (which you said you understand well, yes?) and 2- they want to know that you're worth your salt and their time. It doesn't mean that they're merely trying to mischaracterize you.

Being sensitive to criticism isn't necessarily a bad thing (in fact it may suggest you're not a psycopath). However, letting it dictate your reactions can be counterproductive. Implying that people who don't readily agree with you have ill intentions or lack vision is counterproductive. Telling people that you know them more than they know themselves is counterproductive. Acting passive aggressively is counterproductive.

In fact, this kind of reactive behavior might give a bystander the impression that you don't have much insight into human nature, and that you haven't put enough thought into your approach and ideas. It gives the impression that you're a bad listener and the kind of person who would rather beat their logic onto others instead of taking the time to figure out how to appeal to them. Which, unfortunately, reinforces the totalitarian taint that you've been working hard to shake off.

Just sayin...


I'm curious to know what I said that was so bad, so far I feel like all I've done is defend myself from accusations across the board... None of it was intelligent conversation, or even useful, it was me defending myself from personal attacks and mischaracterizations. I never claimed I'm Ghandi or Jesus, or that I can quickly understand the psychology of a person through a message board...

I can say that I've vetted my list with dozens of people and gotten actual intellectual feedback which made the list better at philosophy discussion groups I host... The conversations were meaningful, thoughtful, and constructive. My experience on this forum has been quite the opposite... all mischaracterization and when I try to correct the mischaracterization I'm told I don't understand people. I find it interesting that you who were objective at first, are now attacking me... I'm not sure what I said that made you feel that way about me, but I'd like to understand it so I don't do it in the future. My intent is to have a pleasant intellectual discussion with people to help educate each other of different perspectives, and ideally come up with some common ground that we can agree on to help bridge gaps/divides in current belief systems. I don't feel like anyone but Serpent in the beginning even made an attempt to do that...

Garrett
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby BioWizard on July 16th, 2017, 6:59 pm 

T4L,

If you've already established that your failure to get/keep anyone here positively engaged is the fault of everyone else but you, then I strongly encourage you to move on to a better forum. You certainly don't need a mob of low IQ bullies wasting your time. Good luck.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12563
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Forest_Dump on July 16th, 2017, 7:15 pm 

For myself, I have a Ph.D. in one of the softer (i.e. social) sciences so you can safely assume I am already strongly biased FOR the point made in the thread's title. And I think you can also safely assume I have read a fair amount and am highly disposed to read lots more (and commonly do even on weekends). So you have to think I should be an easy sell. Maybe give some thought as to why not.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8708
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests