Deep Concerns and Shallow Thinking

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  2794
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
01 June 2018 06:52
 

There’s a lot going on in the world right now and instead of critically dissecting and discussing the issues people seem to want to retreat into comfortable places and focus on themselves.  This only complicates an already complicated world.  When it comes to critical thinking you have to examine things from every direction and allow your personal biases to fall away enough to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.  In order to optimize the view.  This is paramount when entertaining abstract ideas.  When people compare everything to something from their own repertoire of personal experiences it causes them to drift further afield of understanding the concepts being conveyed.  This fosters the habit of making loose associations pieced together by a series of assumptions that merely plays back a movie of their own life.  And this is what contributes to the way people talk past each other and only hear what they want to hear and read into things material that isn’t there.  It’s like entering a forest without a compass at a familiar section of the road.  You think you’re sure of the direction you’re going and fail to notice the extent of your meandering.  And when you exit the forest way down the road you can’t figure out how your perception led you astray.  And rather than appreciating this new vantage point–you just want to be back where you started.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  2084
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
01 June 2018 10:33
 
LadyJane - 01 June 2018 06:52 AM

There’s a lot going on in the world right now and instead of critically dissecting and discussing the issues people seem to want to retreat into comfortable places and focus on themselves.  This only complicates an already complicated world.  When it comes to critical thinking you have to examine things from every direction and allow your personal biases to fall away enough to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.  In order to optimize the view.  This is paramount when entertaining abstract ideas.  When people compare everything to something from their own repertoire of personal experiences it causes them to drift further afield of understanding the concepts being conveyed.  This fosters the habit of making loose associations pieced together by a series of assumptions that merely plays back a movie of their own life.  And this is what contributes to the way people talk past each other and only hear what they want to hear and read into things material that isn’t there.  It’s like entering a forest without a compass at a familiar section of the road.  You think you’re sure of the direction you’re going and fail to notice the extent of your meandering.  And when you exit the forest way down the road you can’t figure out how your perception led you astray.  And rather than appreciating this new vantage point–you just want to be back where you started.

Yes, it is important to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes.  Not just to imagine what we would do in a the same situation, but to try to imagine what it is like for that other person(s), from their perspective, taking everything possible into account.  As you say, to “examine things from every direction”.  To put our self aside, as best we can.  This requires true empathy, which is part of the critical thinking process.

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  2794
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
01 June 2018 13:23
 
Jan_CAN - 01 June 2018 10:33 AM

Yes, it is important to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes.  Not just to imagine what we would do in a the same situation, but to try to imagine what it is like for that other person(s), from their perspective, taking everything possible into account.  As you say, to “examine things from every direction”.  To put our self aside, as best we can.  This requires true empathy, which is part of the critical thinking process.

Yes true empathy.  I think that word gets overused sometimes and manipulated to mean something else.  Whenever it’s used as a self descriptor it tends to raise suspicion, for instance.  It shifts from understanding to wishful thinking and ends up being the opposite thing.  The more we project the more we’re left empathising with ourselves.  We can’t objectively determine how empathetic we are any more than we can determine how racist we are.  I think the honest feedback we receive for our active behaviour is more accurately measuring these traits than simply claiming to be, or not to be, these things and calling it a day.  The human brain is a deceptive little monster.  And a little humility can smoothen the edges of our rigid thinking while paving the way for the natural instinct to govern the ride.  Relying mostly on instinct.  Which is where I think true empathy tends to reside.  Learning and developing our critical thinking skills allows us to accentuate or override this trait depending on the circumstances.

 
 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  361
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
01 June 2018 15:09
 
LadyJane - 01 June 2018 06:52 AM

When people compare everything to something from their own repertoire of personal experiences it causes them to drift further afield of understanding the concepts being conveyed.  This fosters the habit of making loose associations pieced together by a series of assumptions that merely plays back a movie of their own life.

But are we capable of doing anything else?

Do you understand the exact reasons why you believe what you believe?  Can you not tie every single ideological belief you have to experiences you had, if you try hard enough?  We’re not talking about math here, which is objective reality.

This is why I have recently begun to favor putting personal history into conversations about complex political issues…..the more I live the more I see that people are not actually capable of doing what you’re saying (even intelligent people).  Intelligent people probably have even more complex ideological structures than others, and so if they’re not willing to put that ideological structure to the test and risk it being disintegrated (and deal with the cognitive dissonance which results) they are probably the most rigid ideologues of all. 

The only difference intelligence makes (I think) is the ability to more accurately express how one’s emotional state may be influenced by events in their life and to better draw connections between analogous situations.  Drawing connections between analogous situations I would assume is necessary but not sufficient for empathy and sympathy.

__________________________________________________________________________________

SO WHAT NOW?

The only two ways I see to manage this problem RIGHT NOW are to make political decisions in society which increase the likelihood individual X can relate to the experiences of individual Y AND/OR encourage people to take a more personal approach to political issues, so that they’re not arguing about their emotional experiences while pretending it is something else.

The former can most easily and efficiently be accomplished with a much more conservative immigration policy (which I am a huge advocate of).  The latter can be accomplished with people being willing to make themselves emotionally vulnerable in a political conversation - lately I have been trying to lead by example in this front, though it definitely doesn’t come naturally to me (or most people apparently).

As I don’t expect a policy solution on immigration which helps accomplish this end, this is my only strategy.  I would suggest that all anyone can do is figure out what their personal strategy is for dealing with the irrationality of humans - in that case I am an advocate of people “retreat into comfortable places and focus on themselves,” though I would argue to do that is oftentimes more uncomfortable than engaging in emotionally charged political debate or arguments.  From this standpoint, I am a big fan of Jordan Peterson’s rhetoric on this topic.

I’ll also add that if one doesn’t have any policies to suggest which help manage the already existing difficulties with individual X’s ability to relate to individual Y, the burden is even stronger on them to tie their life experiences into debates about complex political issues IF they are complaining about people talking past one another.  If you have no political strategy and no personal strategy, then what is the point of complaining?  If you can’t get your political strategy accomplished then what is your alternative to adopting a personal strategy?

(I’m using “you” in a generic sense of course) 

LadyJane - 01 June 2018 06:52 AM

And this is what contributes to the way people talk past each other and only hear what they want to hear and read into things material that isn’t there.

I caught myself doing this with the recent Tommy Robinson arrest.  I felt emotionally disturbed by it, and I was about to post on the thread forum and make the very mistake you’ve referenced here. After reading Douglas Murray’s article, I became conscious of the emotional underpinnings of why I was disturbed by his arrest (and it had nothing to do with the facts of the case).  It had to do with my beliefs about whether or not he has overall been a force for good in his pursuit of spreading the word about the dangers of Islam and my beliefs about the priorities of the UK government (I think they are headed down a dark path which will either lead to severe political destabilization or a massive reduction in rights within my lifetime).

I think it CAN help to have face-to-face conversations about politics as the anonymity of the internet may make the emotional disconnection from the other party worse.  On the other hand, I think the best possible versions of my arguments have always been in text form - because you don’t have the time pressure of making a timely response.  I do think that people who never have face-to-face conversations about politics and only engage in online dialogue are probably more likely to be callous and rigidly ideological than if they were regularly engaging with human beings in the flesh.

[ Edited: 01 June 2018 15:15 by Quadrewple]
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  133
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
01 June 2018 16:08
 
LadyJane - 01 June 2018 06:52 AM

There’s a lot going on in the world right now and instead of critically dissecting and discussing the issues people seem to want to retreat into comfortable places and focus on themselves.  This only complicates an already complicated world.  When it comes to critical thinking you have to examine things from every direction and allow your personal biases to fall away enough to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.  In order to optimize the view.  This is paramount when entertaining abstract ideas.  When people compare everything to something from their own repertoire of personal experiences it causes them to drift further afield of understanding the concepts being conveyed.  This fosters the habit of making loose associations pieced together by a series of assumptions that merely plays back a movie of their own life.  And this is what contributes to the way people talk past each other and only hear what they want to hear and read into things material that isn’t there.  It’s like entering a forest without a compass at a familiar section of the road.  You think you’re sure of the direction you’re going and fail to notice the extent of your meandering.  And when you exit the forest way down the road you can’t figure out how your perception led you astray.  And rather than appreciating this new vantage point–you just want to be back where you started.

“The process involved in the work of analyzing and reordering accepted material cannot, it seems to me, be any different from those involved in any strictly existential inquiry [i.e. solving a problem].  Thorough familiarity with material, sagacity in discrimination, acuteness in detection of leads or clews, persistence and thoroughness in following them through, cherishing and developing suggestions that arise, are required in one as in the other.  There are no set rules to be followed.  The only ‘rule,’ it might be said, is to be as intelligent and honest as lies within one’s power.”

—Dewey, Logic: Theory of Inquiry

It seems to me that people afflicted by a common problem who in good faith play their part in finding a solution will naturally be more prone to practicing the above and to avoiding what you describe than our public intellectuals with their circumscribed turf wars over positions “on the issues”, positions which seem increasingly detached from posing questions intelligently as a means toward sensible resolution. To borrow from our host, it’s one thing to take a stance on the epistemology of belief and argue that religious believers are by this standard deluded fools.  It’s quite another to realize that religion answers an enduring need, yet in certain forms poses bona fide problems, thus some reconciliation between this need and more enduring forms of belief is desirable.  Increasingly I think public intellectuals are as much a symptom of the disease and a part of the problem as the diseases and problems themselves.  At least among them I don’t see serious thinkers comparable to the thoughtful men and women working ‘behind the scenes’ to understand and on the basis of that understanding, propose solutions.  Instead it’s arguing past one another in a constant jockeying for position, like you say,  perhaps, only hearing what they want to hear and reading into things material that isn’t there.  I see it over and over again, and as a consumer I find it alternatively infuriating and amusing.  Does the noise they make even make a difference one way or the other?  Hinder or no difference at all? I thought the academy I left behind was bad enough, but this stuff—yeesh.  And at $100 a seat no less.  Eventually that adds up to more than tenure without any of the collateral benefits or internal checks.  Who benefits from this?  I honestly can’t tell.

Anyway, sorry if this brings my bailiwick to your thread, but I could have had yours in the back of my mind as I wrote my last one, had I read it first.

 

[ Edited: 01 June 2018 18:43 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  2794
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
01 June 2018 18:05
 
Quadrewple - 01 June 2018 03:09 PM

But are we capable of doing anything else?

Do you understand the exact reasons why you believe what you believe?  Can you not tie every single ideological belief you have to experiences you had, if you try hard enough?  We’re not talking about math here, which is objective reality.

This is why I have recently begun to favor putting personal history into conversations about complex political issues…..the more I live the more I see that people are not actually capable of doing what you’re saying (even intelligent people).  Intelligent people probably have even more complex ideological structures than others, and so if they’re not willing to put that ideological structure to the test and risk it being disintegrated (and deal with the cognitive dissonance which results) they are probably the most rigid ideologues of all.

Of course we’re capable.  The word believe comes with its own set of luggage.  Beliefs are not facts nor opinions so they only make sense in the ideological houses of their inhabitants.  It’s wavering indecisiveness renders it fairly useless and, as a result, I’ve almost completely removed it from the lineup. 

Theoretically, I have no problem with the concept of injecting personal history into a conversation to make a point.  Realistically, it often gets in the way of political discussions and the personal information becomes the focus of the topic rather than the anecdote.  Plus, it sets the stage to claim ad hominem attacks when comments arrive that stem from the information provided.  Even though it was volunteered.

The only two ways I see to manage this problem RIGHT NOW are to make political decisions in society which increase the likelihood individual X can relate to the experiences of individual Y AND/OR encourage people to take a more personal approach to political issues, so that they’re not arguing about their emotional experiences while pretending it is something else.

The former can most easily and efficiently be accomplished with a much more conservative immigration policy (which I am a huge advocate of).  The latter can be accomplished with people being willing to make themselves emotionally vulnerable in a political conversation - lately I have been trying to lead by example in this front, though it definitely doesn’t come naturally to me (or most people apparently).

This seems regional and we don’t all live in the same regions.  Immigration policy is going to differ from person to person and place to place.  And specific details regarding policy are not something we can relate to necessarily without the sort of thorough examination you describe.  Like any other political stance.

I’ll also add that if one doesn’t have any policies to suggest which help manage the already existing difficulties with individual X’s ability to relate to individual Y, the burden is even stronger on them to tie their life experiences into debates about complex political issues IF they are complaining about people talking past one another.  If you have no political strategy and no personal strategy, then what is the point of complaining?  If you can’t get your political strategy accomplished then what is your alternative to adopting a personal strategy?

I think it CAN help to have face-to-face conversations about politics as the anonymity of the internet may make the emotional disconnection from the other party worse.  On the other hand, I think the best possible versions of my arguments have always been in text form - because you don’t have the time pressure of making a timely response.  I do think that people who never have face-to-face conversations about politics and only engage in online dialogue are probably more likely to be callous and rigidly ideological than if they were regularly engaging with human beings in the flesh.

Relating to the experiences of fellow patrons isn’t difficult when it’s an honest exchange.  It is considerably more difficult when the fine art of listening fails to be reciprocal.  Or, when you are dealing with someone who is ignorant about the subject matter and insists on participating anyway.  Or, when there’s a pattern of lying.  I don’t wanna relate to that.  What leads to talking past one another on the internet is mostly sketchy reading and hasty retorts.  We don’t have the pressure of limited time, as you say, although you wouldn’t know it by some of the knee jerks.
     
When people hunker down and retreat from the noise it leaves them alone with their thoughts.  And I think it should be encouraged.  When they aren’t yet comfortable alone with their thoughts they shouldn’t burden others with them until they’re ready.  Otherwise we’re all bombarded with unpleasant thoughts no one can relate to and it becomes a frivolous waste of time.  Depending on your definition of frivolous, I guess.

 
 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  361
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
01 June 2018 23:43
 
LadyJane - 01 June 2018 06:05 PM

Of course we’re capable.  The word believe comes with its own set of luggage.  Beliefs are not facts nor opinions so they only make sense in the ideological houses of their inhabitants.  It’s wavering indecisiveness renders it fairly useless and, as a result, I’ve almost completely removed it from the lineup.

Arguing that Fact X is more important than Fact Y when it comes to achieving a certain end is a belief and people make all kinds of statements that have not been peer reviewed.  Anything in that category can be considered a belief.  Arguing about which end is the most desirable is a belief (i.e. equality vs equity, adaptability vs stability, diversity vs cohesiveness, etc).  I think beliefs actually cover a lot of what people are discussing in terms of politics.

LadyJane - 01 June 2018 06:05 PM

Theoretically, I have no problem with the concept of injecting personal history into a conversation to make a point.  Realistically, it often gets in the way of political discussions and the personal information becomes the focus of the topic rather than the anecdote.  Plus, it sets the stage to claim ad hominem attacks when comments arrive that stem from the information provided.  Even though it was volunteered.

I think it only gets in the way if you’re being dogmatic and speaking in absolutes.  Otherwise you are simply giving context to your beliefs and giving the other person the opportunity to do the same.  It may set the stage for the other person to claim ad hominem attacks, but it won’t be acted on unless the person was never interested in learning anything in the first place, in which case you just realized that sooner.

If things aren’t getting anywhere on a purely philosophical level, that is when this strategy might be most useful - but I don’t see anything wrong with starting out a conversation with it either.

LadyJane - 01 June 2018 06:05 PM

This seems regional and we don’t all live in the same regions.  Immigration policy is going to differ from person to person and place to place.  And specific details regarding policy are not something we can relate to necessarily without the sort of thorough examination you describe.  Like any other political stance.

I agree - we must flesh out the issues (this is more of a general thread I thought), but what does the shallow thinking of people in other countries fundamentally matter to me?  They’re not making the laws I live under and they’re not sailing on the same political ship as me.  As much as I would prefer they weren’t shallow thinkers, I can simply stop engaging with them at any time without personal consequence.  That is why I brought up the categories of political strategies and personal strategies for dealing with the original thread topic.

LadyJane - 01 June 2018 06:05 PM

Relating to the experiences of fellow patrons isn’t difficult when it’s an honest exchange.  It is considerably more difficult when the fine art of listening fails to be reciprocal.  Or, when you are dealing with someone who is ignorant about the subject matter and insists on participating anyway.  Or, when there’s a pattern of lying.  I don’t wanna relate to that.  What leads to talking past one another on the internet is mostly sketchy reading and hasty retorts.  We don’t have the pressure of limited time, as you say, although you wouldn’t know it by some of the knee jerks.

You raise some good points, though I would never advocate anyone try to converse with liars or people who simply toxic and not interested in learning anything.  In fact, the more people ignore and/or treat the toxic people the way they deserve to be treated (as an individual with emotional problems), the less reward those toxic people get for acting out.

LadyJane - 01 June 2018 06:05 PM

When people hunker down and retreat from the noise it leaves them alone with their thoughts.  And I think it should be encouraged.  When they aren’t yet comfortable alone with their thoughts they shouldn’t burden others with them until they’re ready.  Otherwise we’re all bombarded with unpleasant thoughts no one can relate to and it becomes a frivolous waste of time.  Depending on your definition of frivolous, I guess.

Well said - the ability to communicate ideas has never been greater, but it doesn’t mean more people necessarily have value to provide to those types of conversations.

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  2794
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
02 June 2018 10:19
 
Quadrewple - 01 June 2018 11:43 PM

Arguing that Fact X is more important than Fact Y when it comes to achieving a certain end is a belief and people make all kinds of statements that have not been peer reviewed.  Anything in that category can be considered a belief.  Arguing about which end is the most desirable is a belief (i.e. equality vs equity, adaptability vs stability, diversity vs cohesiveness, etc).  I think beliefs actually cover a lot of what people are discussing in terms of politics.

I’m still not on board with your take on beliefs.  I look at those examples as preferences and opinions.  States that will exist whether you believe in them or not.  People often come to those through a belief system which hardly speaks to their validity.  When you believe something it is usually based on articles of faith instead of fact.  Most of our beliefs are handed down from our predecessors.  It is only when we question the things we believe that we realize it’s mostly superstitious hokum gobbledygook.  Then we have to admit to ourselves that beliefs are merely paper tigers–all the way down. 

I think it only gets in the way if you’re being dogmatic and speaking in absolutes.  Otherwise you are simply giving context to your beliefs and giving the other person the opportunity to do the same.  It may set the stage for the other person to claim ad hominem attacks, but it won’t be acted on unless the person was never interested in learning anything in the first place, in which case you just realized that sooner.

A reasonable substitution for the word ‘believe’ is the word ‘think.’  A belief dangles out there for the picking where the thought may have travelled through the reasoning process.  Then the onus is on the person to back up a belief as something more than the article of faith that supports it.  Logic kind of sells itself.  Remaining attached to archaic beliefs narrows the view while it’s slamming the door.  And when people settle into these myopic prisons it provides no other context than the version of reality they already know.  This only happens when you allow beliefs to override your ability to reason.  And while I’m not interested in what people believe–I still want to hear what they think. 

I agree - we must flesh out the issues (this is more of a general thread I thought), but what does the shallow thinking of people in other countries fundamentally matter to me?  They’re not making the laws I live under and they’re not sailing on the same political ship as me.  As much as I would prefer they weren’t shallow thinkers, I can simply stop engaging with them at any time without personal consequence.  That is why I brought up the categories of political strategies and personal strategies for dealing with the original thread topic.

We all live in different countries so it’s all relative really.  What immigration policies mean to each of us has more to do with where we live and less to do with who we are.  And when we’re on different ships politically we’re crossing paths on the same ocean.  And when we find ourselves in the same boat it works to our favour to navigate choppy waters when things get deep.  We often share the same enemies–which forces us to put our differences aside. 

And winter is coming…

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5968
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
03 June 2018 04:49
 
LadyJane - 01 June 2018 06:52 AM

There’s a lot going on in the world right now and instead of critically dissecting and discussing the issues people seem to want to retreat into comfortable places and focus on themselves.  This only complicates an already complicated world.  When it comes to critical thinking you have to examine things from every direction and allow your personal biases to fall away enough to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.  In order to optimize the view.  This is paramount when entertaining abstract ideas.  When people compare everything to something from their own repertoire of personal experiences it causes them to drift further afield of understanding the concepts being conveyed.  This fosters the habit of making loose associations pieced together by a series of assumptions that merely plays back a movie of their own life.  And this is what contributes to the way people talk past each other and only hear what they want to hear and read into things material that isn’t there.  It’s like entering a forest without a compass at a familiar section of the road.  You think you’re sure of the direction you’re going and fail to notice the extent of your meandering.  And when you exit the forest way down the road you can’t figure out how your perception led you astray.  And rather than appreciating this new vantage point–you just want to be back where you started.

Don’t be that guy.

Plus nothing helps an ignorant person prioritize and issue spot like you being comfortable when they’re panicking.

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  2794
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
04 June 2018 06:40
 
Jb8989 - 03 June 2018 04:49 AM
LadyJane - 01 June 2018 06:52 AM

There’s a lot going on in the world right now and instead of critically dissecting and discussing the issues people seem to want to retreat into comfortable places and focus on themselves.  This only complicates an already complicated world.  When it comes to critical thinking you have to examine things from every direction and allow your personal biases to fall away enough to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.  In order to optimize the view.  This is paramount when entertaining abstract ideas.  When people compare everything to something from their own repertoire of personal experiences it causes them to drift further afield of understanding the concepts being conveyed.  This fosters the habit of making loose associations pieced together by a series of assumptions that merely plays back a movie of their own life.  And this is what contributes to the way people talk past each other and only hear what they want to hear and read into things material that isn’t there.  It’s like entering a forest without a compass at a familiar section of the road.  You think you’re sure of the direction you’re going and fail to notice the extent of your meandering.  And when you exit the forest way down the road you can’t figure out how your perception led you astray.  And rather than appreciating this new vantage point–you just want to be back where you started.

Don’t be that guy.

Plus nothing helps an ignorant person prioritize and issue spot like you being comfortable when they’re panicking.

Who exactly do you expect me to be?

You seem to lack the empathy to understand where I’m coming from, sir.  And this is kind of the problem we’re all facing in society.  It’s what keeps people huddled together in ignorance instead of venturing out to cover more ground.  It is my contention that when people feel panicked they often freeze and double down on a lie that they know before seeking a truth that they don’t understand.  A congregation happily following blindly.  That is where they find comfort.  Trailing someone already in a panic.  When sheep do this they either all live or they all die.  Goats have a greater chance of survival as individuals.

When we find ourselves in a panic we are likely unable to think rationally and the best course of action is to follow someone who is not in a panic.  A leader who possesses the ability to reason is able to direct anyone ill-equipped to deal with the situation.  And that requires separating the helpful from the detrimental thinking.  Humans are more than capable of assessing their own thoughts as well as the thoughts of those around them when they focus. 

Intellectual triage.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5968
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
04 June 2018 07:25
 
LadyJane - 04 June 2018 06:40 AM
Jb8989 - 03 June 2018 04:49 AM
LadyJane - 01 June 2018 06:52 AM

There’s a lot going on in the world right now and instead of critically dissecting and discussing the issues people seem to want to retreat into comfortable places and focus on themselves.  This only complicates an already complicated world.  When it comes to critical thinking you have to examine things from every direction and allow your personal biases to fall away enough to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.  In order to optimize the view.  This is paramount when entertaining abstract ideas.  When people compare everything to something from their own repertoire of personal experiences it causes them to drift further afield of understanding the concepts being conveyed.  This fosters the habit of making loose associations pieced together by a series of assumptions that merely plays back a movie of their own life.  And this is what contributes to the way people talk past each other and only hear what they want to hear and read into things material that isn’t there.  It’s like entering a forest without a compass at a familiar section of the road.  You think you’re sure of the direction you’re going and fail to notice the extent of your meandering.  And when you exit the forest way down the road you can’t figure out how your perception led you astray.  And rather than appreciating this new vantage point–you just want to be back where you started.

Don’t be that guy.

Plus nothing helps an ignorant person prioritize and issue spot like you being comfortable when they’re panicking.

Who exactly do you expect me to be?

You seem to lack the empathy to understand where I’m coming from, sir.  And this is kind of the problem we’re all facing in society.  It’s what keeps people huddled together in ignorance instead of venturing out to cover more ground.  It is my contention that when people feel panicked they often freeze and double down on a lie that they know before seeking a truth that they don’t understand.  A congregation happily following blindly.  That is where they find comfort.  Trailing someone already in a panic.  When sheep do this they either all live or they all die.  Goats have a greater chance of survival as individuals.

When we find ourselves in a panic we are likely unable to think rationally and the best course of action is to follow someone who is not in a panic.  A leader who possesses the ability to reason is able to direct anyone ill-equipped to deal with the situation.  And that requires separating the helpful from the detrimental thinking.  Humans are more than capable of assessing their own thoughts as well as the thoughts of those around them when they focus. 

Intellectual triage.

I wouldn’t say that I lack the empathy to understand where you’re coming from. I actually just don’t agree with the ignorant sheep view of society, or how you’re espousing to deal with them.

Anyway, I’m not talking about inducing a full blown panic attack. I’m talking about making quality points and sticking to them generally - and even still in the era of fake news - makes for the most persuasive arguments. The more ignorant your debatee’s points, the more likely that sticking to the merits of the issue and the elements of your argument will cause an anxious reaction in him or her. It’s a result from people not wanting to change their points of view. Unfortunately you’ll need to take them out of their comfort zone to do so, but that IMO works best if both of you don’t go full monty.

 

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  2794
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
04 June 2018 13:06
 
Jb8989 - 04 June 2018 07:25 AM

I wouldn’t say that I lack the empathy to understand where you’re coming from. I actually just don’t agree with the ignorant sheep view of society, or how you’re espousing to deal with them.

Anyway, I’m not talking about inducing a full blown panic attack. I’m talking about making quality points and sticking to them generally - and even still in the era of fake news - makes for the most persuasive arguments. The more ignorant your debatee’s points, the more likely that sticking to the merits of the issue and the elements of your argument will cause an anxious reaction in him or her. It’s a result from people not wanting to change their points of view. Unfortunately you’ll need to take them out of their comfort zone to do so, but that IMO works best if both of you don’t go full monty.

I’m pretty sure you still don’t understand where I’m coming from. 

We are intrinsically sheep like.  That isn’t meant as an insult it is genetically ingrained in our very nature.  It is only with the vigilant application of reason from individual to individual, from generation to generation, from century to century, from millennia to millennia that we find ourselves here, on the shoulders of giants, and still haven’t a clue about a lot of things.  Everything we do is based on what came before and until we acknowledge this simple fact of life, fake news will rain down, as it always has, and we will form a human umbrella to shelter us from it.  Depending on who we’re willing to bring into the fold.

Look no further than this forum for tribalism in action.  Watch what happens when a new member arrives and the assumption machine kicks into overdrive.  Some regulars talk about themselves as though they’re the ones standing on the welcome mat, occupying that space, while comparing everything the newbie says to something they’ve experienced.  Are these expressions some sort of watered down version of empathy?  I think it’s exceedingly selfish.  They may assume the patron is female and maybe they are.  Then again maybe they’re not.  They don’t wait for that though–no time–no time–must know enough to pick a tone.  This frenetic energy driving everyone to force information out of people instead of allowing them to set the tempo of their own posting is hardly showcasing what would even loosely be described as empathetic.  Is there a place for cogent argument between the drizzle?

There is no reasonable way to focus on the thoughts presented in the post boxes when we’re distracted by creating an image of the poster behind them.  When we shut up and listen we put our own feelings aside.  And that is where the merits of arguments are found.  And when people get in the way of that, allowing their own insecurities to become territorial, newbies bugger off and we’re left with the same fearful regulars telling the same stupid stories.  I guess it’s easier to be rude and condescending to people you refuse to get to know. 

You think that facts and evidence and well orchestrated arguments are all we need to carry on as though people have the wherewithal to set aside their biases and maintain attention long enough to allow those ideas to seep in.  Persuasive argument only works over the long term.  Sound bitey bandwagons attract the average person and the conversations leave us wading in shallow end.  You were lied to.  You were lied to and I watched as you chose to return to the familiar and get lied to some more.  Why would you hitch your wagon to a liar?  And what would make you think I’d wanna hitch my wagon to someone willing to knuckle under like that?

The world is chock full of sellouts.  And nobody knows where anybody is coming from–so they pretend.  Sheepishly.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5968
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
04 June 2018 13:43
 
LadyJane - 04 June 2018 01:06 PM
Jb8989 - 04 June 2018 07:25 AM

I wouldn’t say that I lack the empathy to understand where you’re coming from. I actually just don’t agree with the ignorant sheep view of society, or how you’re espousing to deal with them.

Anyway, I’m not talking about inducing a full blown panic attack. I’m talking about making quality points and sticking to them generally - and even still in the era of fake news - makes for the most persuasive arguments. The more ignorant your debatee’s points, the more likely that sticking to the merits of the issue and the elements of your argument will cause an anxious reaction in him or her. It’s a result from people not wanting to change their points of view. Unfortunately you’ll need to take them out of their comfort zone to do so, but that IMO works best if both of you don’t go full monty.

I’m pretty sure you still don’t understand where I’m coming from. 

We are intrinsically sheep like.  That isn’t meant as an insult it is genetically ingrained in our very nature.  It is only with the vigilant application of reason from individual to individual, from generation to generation, from century to century, from millennia to millennia that we find ourselves here, on the shoulders of giants, and still haven’t a clue about a lot of things.  Everything we do is based on what came before and until we acknowledge this simple fact of life, fake news will rain down, as it always has, and we will form a human umbrella to shelter us from it.  Depending on who we’re willing to bring into the fold.

Look no further than this forum for tribalism in action.  Watch what happens when a new member arrives and the assumption machine kicks into overdrive.  Some regulars talk about themselves as though they’re the ones standing on the welcome mat, occupying that space, while comparing everything the newbie says to something they’ve experienced.  Are these expressions some sort of watered down version of empathy?  I think it’s exceedingly selfish.  They may assume the patron is female and maybe they are.  Then again maybe they’re not.  They don’t wait for that though–no time–no time–must know enough to pick a tone.  This frenetic energy driving everyone to force information out of people instead of allowing them to set the tempo of their own posting is hardly showcasing what would even loosely be described as empathetic.  Is there a place for cogent argument between the drizzle?

There is no reasonable way to focus on the thoughts presented in the post boxes when we’re distracted by creating an image of the poster behind them.  When we shut up and listen we put our own feelings aside.  And that is where the merits of arguments are found.  And when people get in the way of that, allowing their own insecurities to become territorial, newbies bugger off and we’re left with the same fearful regulars telling the same stupid stories.  I guess it’s easier to be rude and condescending to people you refuse to get to know. 

You think that facts and evidence and well orchestrated arguments are all we need to carry on as though people have the wherewithal to set aside their biases and maintain attention long enough to allow those ideas to seep in.  Persuasive argument only works over the long term.  Sound bitey bandwagons attract the average person and the conversations leave us wading in shallow end.  You were lied to.  You were lied to and I watched as you chose to return to the familiar and get lied to some more.  Why would you hitch your wagon to a liar?  And what would make you think I’d wanna hitch my wagon to someone willing to knuckle under like that?

The world is chock full of sellouts.  And nobody knows where anybody is coming from–so they pretend.  Sheepishly.

Yeah. I guess I’m guilty of impulsive posting. So far be it of me to throw stones. Nontheless I appreciate the breakdown of why more intellectually well-rounded nubes haven’t stuck around, and I agree in large part. It reminds me that we all want attention in some way shape or form. And for the most part - even despite all the killjoy - the level of discourse here is still high. Maybe if we dropped some sheninangans it would be a cut above, but who has the heart to tell Sally Sue and Jimmy Dean that they’re not as pretty as their mom’s and dad’s told them? Surely Nhoj has verbalized it eloquently in more than ninety different ways.