< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

When?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 June 2019 07:45
 
bbearren - 07 June 2019 03:02 PM
Nhoj Morley - 07 June 2019 01:16 PM

In order for a witty response to have some bite, it must have some sense of the ongoing context in an unfolding conversation. It does not look like you know where the towel is. But it wasn’t a reference to a hoopy frood anyway. Hard to tell.

I don’t do Freud either but like millions of folks who never read his stuff, I used the popular vernacular meaning of ego. Oh, and monsters is a vernacular too, just in case you are looking at wiki again.

You are a friendly and kind-heart-ed guy but no one seems more consumed with their own reputation than yourself, which is saying a lot ‘round here. The stardust thing is cute but hard to take as humility.

“The stardust thing” is born out in hard scientific evidence, as is the genetic thing; hard scientific evidence.  That I am the confluence of genetics and experience is as real as it gets, scientific evidence-wise.  That I embrace this fact-based reality is the only “reputation” to which I aspire.  As for “consumed”, allow me to quote LadyJane from this post in “The Tidal Wave Of Change” thread:

LadyJane - 29 May 2019 12:04 PM

... I’ve been down this hall before.  The one where you are immediately faced with ridiculous spin on what you wrote and asked define it.  To define things you didn’t say.  This means untangling a mess of someone else’s making while everyone is forced to wait.  Stuck in traffic until they manage to find the nearest exit.  All because someone couldn’t just take the time to read carefully and mask their seething contempt for the poster.  You can’t have conversations with people who are reacting to your presence alone.  One has to wonder why a patron who finds someone’s posts so “ambiguous” and “cowardly” or admittedly finds the person “insufferable” wouldn’t simply opt to steer clear and leave well enough alone.  Life is short.  I have no trouble at all ignoring people.  Even the ones following me around like lost puppies.  Flailing wildly, seemingly unaware of their projections, refusing to embark until they get their bearings by shoving people aside so they can show us all the way. ...

Not that I compare myself to LadyJane in any way, but she does explain that aspect quite well indeed.

So on the one hand you’re promoting critical thinking, but the next thing we know, you’re defending ambiguity and a lack of willingness to engage in clear communications?

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6722
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
08 June 2019 07:48
 
bbearren - 06 June 2019 09:11 PM

Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment.  The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence.  Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.  It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.”

I’m still waiting to see some evidence of this stuff here on these forums.

By “evidence of critical thinking” do you mean something like repeating the same, irrelevant claim a dozen times in giant blue font?

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 June 2019 08:39
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 08 June 2019 07:48 AM
bbearren - 06 June 2019 09:11 PM

Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment.  The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence.  Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.  It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.”

I’m still waiting to see some evidence of this stuff here on these forums.

By “evidence of critical thinking” do you mean something like repeating the same, irrelevant claim a dozen times in giant blue font?

I read the OP three times, but I can’t find the quote “evidence of critical thinking” in it.

“This stuff” references the entire quoted excerpt from the Widipedia article.  I’ll rephrase it for you.

I’m still waiting to see evidence of “Critical thinking—the analysis of facts to form a judgment.  The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence.  Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.  It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.” here on these forums.

Is your question, “By “evidence of critical thinking” do you mean something like repeating the same, irrelevant claim a dozen times in giant blue font?” an example of critical thinking?  Or is it more along the line of a “ridiculous spin on what {I} wrote and [being] asked define it.”

[ Edited: 08 June 2019 08:50 by bbearren]
 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 June 2019 08:48
 
icehorse - 08 June 2019 07:45 AM

... you’re defending ambiguity and a lack of willingness to engage in clear communications?

It’s more like I’m rejecting the concept of “this rephrasing is my understanding of your OP.  Please re-write my understanding of your OP using my grammatical style, then defend my understanding of your OP so that we can discuss it strictly and only on my terms.”

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 June 2019 09:20
 
bbearren - 08 June 2019 08:48 AM
icehorse - 08 June 2019 07:45 AM

... you’re defending ambiguity and a lack of willingness to engage in clear communications?

It’s more like I’m rejecting the concept of “this rephrasing is my understanding of your OP.  Please re-write my understanding of your OP using my grammatical style, then defend my understanding of your OP so that we can discuss it strictly and only on my terms.”

Despite repeated, unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, it’s not about my style or my terms. We have all volunteered to visit a forum dedicated to critical thinking and debate, in which English is the agreed to language.

There are many ways to be unambiguous, there is no “style” I’ve ever advocated, merely requests to disambiguate.

What I honestly don’t understand is why some posters get butt hurt when asked to clarify their posts?

 
 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  509
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
08 June 2019 09:34
 

I’m still waiting to see evidence of “Critical thinking—the analysis of facts to form a judgment.  The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence.  Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.  It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.” here on these forums.

If your ideal of critical thinking is so stringent that no one here meets it then the problem is with your ideal, not the posters on this forum. Why not accept that we are all humans doing our best (including you) as the foundation of discussion rather than imposing an impossible ideal on everyone?

Either relax your ideal or apply it consistently like Roger Williams did. If you apply it consistently you will see that a failure to meet your ideal applies to you as well as the posters on this forum and you will either have to give up discussion as hopeless or accept that there is no such thing as pure critical thinking with an absence of bias, egocentrism, sociocentrism, etc. and yet it is still possible to have fruitful discussions and advance knowledge (not that I think we are advancing knowledge on this forum, that is not its purpose).

Rationality is socially emergent. It arises from lots of imperfect individuals engaging in discussion and intellectual inquiry and correcting each other’s biases and mistakes. Holding everyone to some impossible ideal just gets in the way of that. It does not advance rationality. No one has ever increased our knowledge or understanding of any topic by walking into a room and simply declaring that everyone in it fails to meet some impossible ideal of critical thinking.

So what is the point of doing that?

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
08 June 2019 09:49
 
bbearren - 08 June 2019 08:39 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 08 June 2019 07:48 AM
bbearren - 06 June 2019 09:11 PM

Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment.  The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence.  Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.  It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.”

I’m still waiting to see some evidence of this stuff here on these forums.

By “evidence of critical thinking” do you mean something like repeating the same, irrelevant claim a dozen times in giant blue font?

I read the OP three times, but I can’t find the quote “evidence of critical thinking” in it.

“This stuff” references the entire quoted excerpt from the Widipedia article.  I’ll rephrase it for you.

I’m still waiting to see evidence of “Critical thinking—the analysis of facts to form a judgment.  The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence.  Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.  It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.” here on these forums.

Is your question, “By “evidence of critical thinking” do you mean something like repeating the same, irrelevant claim a dozen times in giant blue font?” an example of critical thinking?  Or is it more along the line of a “ridiculous spin on what {I} wrote and [being] asked define it.”

John asks a simple question regarding your intended message in the OP, but the question isn’t answerable due to how it was presented within quotes, so you “can’t find the [flippin’] quote.”

Next, we have your above quote which I’ve bold-faced for clarity. So John wasn’t so far off, right? Good Lord, man.

 

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
08 June 2019 09:54
 
bbearren - 08 June 2019 08:48 AM
icehorse - 08 June 2019 07:45 AM

... you’re defending ambiguity and a lack of willingness to engage in clear communications?

It’s more like I’m rejecting the concept of “this rephrasing is my understanding of your OP.  Please re-write my understanding of your OP using my grammatical style, then defend my understanding of your OP so that we can discuss it strictly and only on my terms.”

Please note the word “still” which appears in your amazing Reply #18.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7081
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
08 June 2019 10:12
 
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 09:54 AM
bbearren - 08 June 2019 08:48 AM
icehorse - 08 June 2019 07:45 AM

... you’re defending ambiguity and a lack of willingness to engage in clear communications?

It’s more like I’m rejecting the concept of “this rephrasing is my understanding of your OP.  Please re-write my understanding of your OP using my grammatical style, then defend my understanding of your OP so that we can discuss it strictly and only on my terms.”

Please note the word “still” which appears in your amazing Reply #18.

Maybe he just expects ‘critical thinkers that meet his requirements’ to be able to tease out his (sometimes obscure) meaning(s) without asking for clarification or greater context.

 

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 June 2019 10:51
 
icehorse - 08 June 2019 09:20 AM

There are many ways to be unambiguous ...

Not very many that meet your criteria for unambiguous, as evidenced by numerous threads on these forums in which you are a participant.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
08 June 2019 10:55
 
Jefe - 08 June 2019 10:12 AM
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 09:54 AM
bbearren - 08 June 2019 08:48 AM
icehorse - 08 June 2019 07:45 AM

... you’re defending ambiguity and a lack of willingness to engage in clear communications?

It’s more like I’m rejecting the concept of “this rephrasing is my understanding of your OP.  Please re-write my understanding of your OP using my grammatical style, then defend my understanding of your OP so that we can discuss it strictly and only on my terms.”

Please note the word “still” which appears in your amazing Reply #18.

Maybe he just expects ‘critical thinkers that meet his requirements’ to be able to tease out his (sometimes obscure) meaning(s) without asking for clarification or greater context.

That is his habit, well summarized.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 June 2019 10:57
 
bbearren - 08 June 2019 10:51 AM
icehorse - 08 June 2019 09:20 AM

There are many ways to be unambiguous ...

Not very many that meet your criteria for unambiguous, as evidenced by numerous threads on these forums in which you are a participant.

Once again, it has nothing to do with me having criteria I’m trying to impose on anyone.

What it has to do with, is engaging in conversation and/or debate and asking for clarification when I find a post ambiguous. I’ve had many long, complex, nuanced debates and discussions with posters on this forum and it’s not at all unusual - at any given moment - to ask for clarification. Why is that such a huge friggin’ deal?

On the flip side, I can tell you that I’m happy to respond to requests for clarification - it comes with the territory.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 June 2019 10:58
 
no_profundia - 08 June 2019 09:34 AM

I’m still waiting to see evidence of “Critical thinking—the analysis of facts to form a judgment.  The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence.  Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.  It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.” here on these forums.

If your ideal of critical thinking is so stringent that no one here meets it then the problem is with your ideal, not the posters on this forum. Why not accept that we are all humans doing our best (including you) as the foundation of discussion rather than imposing an impossible ideal on everyone?

Either relax your ideal or apply it consistently like Roger Williams did. If you apply it consistently you will see that a failure to meet your ideal applies to you as well as the posters on this forum and you will either have to give up discussion as hopeless or accept that there is no such thing as pure critical thinking with an absence of bias, egocentrism, sociocentrism, etc. and yet it is still possible to have fruitful discussions and advance knowledge (not that I think we are advancing knowledge on this forum, that is not its purpose).

Rationality is socially emergent. It arises from lots of imperfect individuals engaging in discussion and intellectual inquiry and correcting each other’s biases and mistakes. Holding everyone to some impossible ideal just gets in the way of that. It does not advance rationality. No one has ever increased our knowledge or understanding of any topic by walking into a room and simply declaring that everyone in it fails to meet some impossible ideal of critical thinking.

So what is the point of doing that?

I’m ahead of you on the Roger Williams analogy.  I have never professed to be a “critical thinker” or a proponent for strict adherence to “critical thinking”

A site search for “critical thinking” yields 16 pages of results.  The term gets slung around a good bit.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
08 June 2019 11:08
 
bbearren - 08 June 2019 10:58 AM
no_profundia - 08 June 2019 09:34 AM

I’m still waiting to see evidence of “Critical thinking—the analysis of facts to form a judgment.  The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence.  Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.  It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.” here on these forums.

If your ideal of critical thinking is so stringent that no one here meets it then the problem is with your ideal, not the posters on this forum. Why not accept that we are all humans doing our best (including you) as the foundation of discussion rather than imposing an impossible ideal on everyone?

Either relax your ideal or apply it consistently like Roger Williams did. If you apply it consistently you will see that a failure to meet your ideal applies to you as well as the posters on this forum and you will either have to give up discussion as hopeless or accept that there is no such thing as pure critical thinking with an absence of bias, egocentrism, sociocentrism, etc. and yet it is still possible to have fruitful discussions and advance knowledge (not that I think we are advancing knowledge on this forum, that is not its purpose).

Rationality is socially emergent. It arises from lots of imperfect individuals engaging in discussion and intellectual inquiry and correcting each other’s biases and mistakes. Holding everyone to some impossible ideal just gets in the way of that. It does not advance rationality. No one has ever increased our knowledge or understanding of any topic by walking into a room and simply declaring that everyone in it fails to meet some impossible ideal of critical thinking.

So what is the point of doing that?

I’m ahead of you on the Roger Williams analogy.  I have never professed to be a “critical thinker” or a proponent for strict adherence to “critical thinking”

A site search for “critical thinking” yields 16 pages of results.  The term gets slung around a good bit.

How do you feel about people who strive to adhere to “critical thinking,” or are such people on a misguided path, perhaps? You do know that words can only rarely reflect mathematical equations, right?

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 June 2019 11:09
 
nonverbal - 08 June 2019 09:49 AM

John asks a simple question regarding your intended message in the OP, but the question isn’t answerable due to how it was presented within quotes, so you “can’t find the [flippin’] quote.”

Next, we have your above quote which I’ve bold-faced for clarity. So John wasn’t so far off, right? Good Lord, man.

Do you mean that John wasn’t too far off by asking me to clarify what i neither said nor implied, “... do you mean something like repeating the same, irrelevant claim a dozen times in giant blue font?”

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›