View Full Version : A Common Pattern: Obscessive Compusive Rational Thinking
TruthSeeker
04-21-02, 01:12 AM
Let's analize a common Psychological disorder that we have in our modern Society: The Obscessive Compulsive Rational Thinking Pattern.
The Obscessive Compulsive Rational Thinking Pattern
We live in an Universe where most of it is unknown to us. We try to explain it rationally, but even our vocabulary is limited to our knowledge, as when we discover something "new", we have to name it and make it rationally discussable.
What our society nowdays is creating is people that can't let go ideas, as they base their entire life in their rational beliefs. When a Theory falls and other come we can see a huge makority of people against it and a little group of people in favor. That's because most of people are used and familiar with the old ideas.
That's the pattern of the scared child. It's a pattern of behaviour created by our need of a solid base to our reality. We nurture this base and defend it against other people, other beliefs. This reality is completly necessary to give a sense of comfort and peace of mind and spirit.
When you show to someone who has this pattern a new idea, they attack you in order to defend their reality. For if they lose it, they lose their peace, their comfort. The way they do this is our modern society is by Obscessive Compulsive Rational Thinking. That's because in this way they can always "see what's around". They have a base that they can easily experience to their beliefs. That's the base of reason and rational thinking: Immediate proof.
Then, they get scared to explore the unknow. They don't give up on their ideas, as they are really comfortable with it.
We can see this pattern everywhere. People nowdays need to see to believe because they are afraid of being harmed. Where does this fear come from? It possibly comes from other patterns generated long time ago in their families and passed to each other. Another possibility is that it comes from our consumist society, where material things are more important. It's a very common pattern in our society.
Love,
Nelson
James R
04-21-02, 11:02 AM
Let's analyse a common mode of thinking common to pseudoscientists, new agers, hippy UFO freaks and charlatans the world over: irrational, muddy thinking.
The "Hope Springs Eternal" irrational, muddy thinking pattern:
We live in a universe which is big and scary. A lot of stuff we don't know, and are only just starting to get a handle on thanks to a wonderful mode of thinking called the scientific method.
Our modern society contains people that have bravely dispensed with the superstitious beliefs of the past and embraced the scientific method as perhaps the only reliable method for gaining real knowledge. On the other hand, there are those who are afraid to look at reality. Instead, they prefer to live in a fantasy land, usually with themselves as the most important feature. They think humans are different from animals - special. They think (some) humans have mystical powers, or a direct line to God. It makes them feel important. It absolves them from taking responsibility for their own actions. It is a comfort to believe that there is nothing out there truly bigger than oneself.
Unfortunately, that is a delusion. It's the pattern of the scared child. It's a pattern of behaviour created by the human need to feel special and be loved. Thus, beliefs are defended even when repeatedly shown to have no rational basis. They are necessary (for these people) to give a sense of comfort and peace of mind.
When you show to someone who has this pattern a new idea, they attack you in order to defend their reality. For if they lose it, they lose their peace, their comfort. The way they do this in our modern society is by clinging to irrationality like a sailor cluching at the last beam of a sinking ship. They have a base that they can easily experience to their beliefs. The base is: Immediate absolute knowledge - you just know the truth from within - because you're convinced you're special.
These people are scared to face reality. They don't give up on their ideas, as they are really comfortable with them.
Unfortunately, we can see this pattern everywhere. People nowdays (as always) want to believe because they are afraid of being harmed. Where does this fear come from? It possibly comes from other patterns generated long time ago in their families and passed to each other as superstitions usually are.
The solution to this is education. We must educate our children to think critically and rationally about all ideas. They should demand evidence before an idea is accepted as fact. They should be taught to be wary of things which we as humans would so like to be true but which may not be.
Ah, I looove the smell of flame-bait in the morning!
Nelson, I'm dissapointed. Are your beliefs really that weak that you need to resort to ad hominem and posting flame-bait? Come on, boy, you can do better.
I dare you to read this:
Judging the Credibility of Extraordinary Claims
The following principles and questions are helpful when judging the credibility of extraordinary claims, or when thinking objectively about one's own arguments and conclusions:
Actual existence of a phenomenon: Is it possible to scientifically prove or make probable that the purported phenomenon actually exists? Remember: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Testability: Is the claim testable at all? If not, the claim is probably mere speculation or fantasy. (An exception to this could be, say, a UFO encounter. The lack of testability does not necessarily imply that the claim is unfounded.) Furthermore, if the claim is testable, is it actually tested? And if it is tested, which methods were used? Are the results reproducible in a way that makes them statistically significant? Is there a complete (i.e. trustworthy) documentation available to the public?
The burden of proof lies upon the claimant, whereas the doubter has no obligation to disprove anything. Not only should the claimant attempt to prove his or her hypothesis. Supposing (s)he wants to achieve just respectablility, (s)he also has the obligation to try to disprove the hypothesis. This is one of the scientist's primary tasks; to try to falsify his or her hypotheses. How else would (s)he rightly rule out alternative explanations?
Occams razor: of two logical explanations, the one based on the least number of unfounded presumptions is to prefer - until, perhaps, further evidence changes the premises. Occam's razor doesn't posit that the simplest explanation is to prefer, which is a misunderstanding sometimes used by naive creationists to say that genesis is superior to evolution due to the former's simplicity alone. Note also that an explanation, however logical, can be totally worthless if the premises are false or unfounded.
B happened after A, hence A caused B. This kind of reasoning is called post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning. An illustrative example is the following arguments: "I ate sushi yesterday and today I'm sick!", or "Before this party seized the nation's political power, there was no poverty and the economy prospered!". I have omitted the conclusions, since they are often understated in such claims. The obvious conclusions are, however, logically false. Conclusions such as if A implies B and B is true, then A is true, is a common variety of the above. Implication is not equivalent to equivalence. If this medicine helps me, then I will get healed. I am healed. Thus it was the medicine that helped! (Not to speak about explanations of miracles...) The following paragraph describes a similar misunderstanding of causality.
Causation and correlation are not equivalent! There may be a nearly perfect correlation between human natality and the arrival of storks in the spring, but, of course, that doesn't make storks the actual cause of increases in birth rates! However obvious this may seem, the difference between causation and correlation is often neglected. For example, Trancendental Meditation advocates argue that their activities reduce crime rates in whole cities by telepathically inducing positive vibrations/energies in the rest of the population. Supposing there actually is a significant correlation supporting their claims, other causes may still be responsible for the effects. Could it even be that the TM:ers themselves were the ones who caused high crime rates, before they became preoccupied with meditation and levitation? Probably not, but the question should make obvious that a good correlation alone means very little, especially when it comes to extraordinary claims. (In the TM case, the alledged positive correlations themselves have lacked support by official statistics, but that's another matter!) In instances of highly questionable nature, the best a good correlation can accomplish is to awaken interest and goad further investigation.
"I believe in X because it is not disproved!" Really? Then you should believe in Santa Claus, too. And dragons, and ghosts, and time-travelling machines... They're not disproved either.
http://www.lysator.liu.se/~rasmus/skepticism/skeptic.html
Do you think you can subject your beliefs to these criteria? I know you can, it is simply a matter of being willing to take the chance that your ideas are wrong.
Who is scared, Nelson?
Sushi!,
Xev
Um....Nelson......
you just described religion.
Tyler:
Er, except for the 'rational' part, yeah.
TruthSeeker
04-22-02, 12:32 AM
Posted by James R:
The solution to this is education. We must educate our children to think critically and rationally about all ideas. They should demand evidence before an idea is accepted as fact. They should be taught to be wary of things which we as humans would so like to be true but which may not be.
This would ultimatly result in the destruction of humanity... :eek: :bugeye:
Xev,
Who is scared, Nelson?
Do you think I'm scared...?
...hehehe!!! :D:D:D
Tyler,
you just described religion.
No. I described what happen in a society that worship the brain instead of the Heart... :eek: :bugeye: :eek: :bugeye:
Love,
Nelson
James R
04-22-02, 01:20 AM
Dare I ask why, Truthseeker?
TruthSeeker
04-22-02, 10:19 PM
James R,
Excess ultimatly causes destruction...
Love,
Nelson
Excess ultimatly causes destruction...
What does excess have to do with education? That said, why are you in school?
Welcome to the club of obsessive-compulsive rationalists, Q.
There's brandy, vodka, rum and tequila in the cupbord and daquiri mix in the blender. Hope you brought swim trunks, but please no cannonballs into the pool when the Playboy bunnies are frolicking. We'll be sacrificing a virgin* in Dr.Sagan's honor about midnight...:cool:
*One we caught talking on their cell-phone while driving an SUV, so it's not like it's unethical.
TruthSeeker
04-22-02, 11:17 PM
What does excess have to do with education? That said, why are you in school?
Oh God...
I was talking about RATIONALISM!!!!!! :bugeye: :eek: :bugeye:
Swim trunks and frolicking Playboy bunnies should never be used in the same sentence.
Make mine a scotch.
OK, what does rationalism have to do with excess?
Why are you in school? This question is mandatory.
*Hands the Q a scotch*
Nelson, what are you doing here?! You are not a rationalist!
Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason
with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to
dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they
must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.
[Ethan Allen] (1738-1789)
And stay away from the Bunnies! Shoo! Shoo!
*Wanders off to make a daquiri and hit on other obsessive-compulsive rationalists*
*Hands the Q a scotch*
Sooooooo Xev, what's a nice place like this doing to a girl like you?
Utterly corrupting my sweet, innocent nature. And helping me relax before finals.
Utterly corrupting my sweet, innocent nature.
Ahhhhh, a girl after my own heart.
btw - are you one of the bunnys?
TruthSeeker
04-22-02, 11:48 PM
(Q),
Swim trunks and frolicking Playboy bunnies should never be used in the same sentence.
Why...? It seems interesting... :D:D:D
OK, what does rationalism have to do with excess?
Why are you in school? This question is mandatory.
Rationalism can create excessive thinking detroying the peace of mind and ultimatly making someone go mad... :bugeye:
For rationalists... thirsty for some EVIDENCE (http://www.sciforums.com/t7051/s/thread.html)...
Love,
Nelson
Rationalism can create excessive thinking detroying the peace of mind and ultimatly making someone go mad...
I suppose thinking could look like a daunting task to those not familiar. Going "mad" is simply a state of mind for the rational that take the irrational too seriously.
Why are you in school? Stop avoiding the question.
For rationalists... thirsty for some EVIDENCE
Yes, thank you, we've all seen your new thread. Bravo ! :rolleyes:
Which, by the way, contradicts your other thread where stated you weren't going to post more threads because you couldn't keep up and only had one hour of posting per day. Really pathetic. Your insatiable need for negative attention grows by the minute.... hour.... day.... ???
Q: Sadly, tragically, no. Xev looks rather like 'Velma' from 'Scooby-Doo'.
This does not stop her from shedding the sweater for the evening to cavort about in a cocktail dress.
Nelson:
Rationalism can create excessive thinking detroying the peace of mind and ultimatly making someone go mad...
Oh dear, will rationalism give us hairy palms too?
How can thinking be excessive?
TruthSeeker
04-23-02, 12:06 AM
(Q),
Why are you in school? Stop avoiding the question.
Sorry... I forgot... :D
I go to school because that's how the society works nowdays...
I don't have option...
Besides that, I like rationalism, but not in excess as you do...
Which, by the way, contradicts your other thread where stated you weren't going to post more threads because you couldn't keep up and only had one hour of posting per day. Really pathetic. Your insatiable need for negative attention grows by the minute.... hour.... day.... ???
My homestay parents reconsidered because they discovered that I'm just training my English...
They did that because my homestay brothers were spending hours in the computer playing "maningless" computer games...
Xev,
How can thinking be excessive?
If you think without stopping for hours and hours... it actually can be defined as an obcession...
Love,
Nelson
'Velma' from 'Scooby-Doo'.
?????
Very well, I look like a cross between Xev
http://www.plutonianshore.pair.com/graphics/lexx/zev_790.jpg
and Velma
http://outland.purvision.com/piccies_shite/scooby_velma.gif
*Chuckles*
Nelson:
If you think without stopping for hours and hours... it actually can be defined as an obcession...
What?! We think every second that we exist!
I reiterate my offer to trade books.
I go to school because that's how the society works nowdays...
I don't have option...
Baloney ! You can do whatever you want. No one is forcing you to do anything.
Besides that, I like rationalism, but not in excess as you do...
There is no magintude to rationalism. You either are or are not rational. One cannot exceed rationalism.
My homestay parents reconsidered because they discovered that I'm just training my English...
They did that because my homestay brothers were spending hours in the computer playing "maningless" computer games...
You've missed the point, again. You've created more worthless threads when you said you wouldn't. You said you were limited to one hour and you've posted beyond one hour. You are a plethora of contradiction.
If you think without stopping for hours and hours... it actually can be defined as an obcession...
Brains do not have on/off switches. They continue to function all the time. We think, always. It's rather nice, you should try it sometimes.
Very well, I look like a cross between Xev and Velma
They look rather interchangeable, but its hard to tell with animation. ;)
I tend to seek quality and substance. Xev appears to exhibit both.
The Q is often mistaken for Arnold Schwarzenegger. :D
I'll be back.
Is anyone else feeling a little bit pissed off at truthseeker's continuous idiotic rantings?
He is now beginning to significantly dominate numerous threads in multiple forums with low quality childish irrelevancies.
His announcement that he was to be restricted to 1 hour per day seemed like good news but that seems to have been conveniantly ignored, bypassed, or rescinded.
His nonsense is easy pickings but hardly challenging, I'd like to move on but I don't see that truthseeker is about to learn anything reasonable for some years yet, if ever.
Is anyone else feeling the same or are you content to continue to play with him for a while longer?
Not that I can do anything to change things but I'm curious as to your opinions. He seems to be just meat for the grinder.
Cris
Cris,
I agree. What do you propose?
Q,
There isn't really anything official that can be done. This is a free website and all are welcome to post whatever they wish.
We did try to control Tony1 at one time but that really wasn't effective. He simply hasn't posted for a few weeks but he firmly stated that he would never leave.
I don't want to suggest anything like that for truthseeker. On the other hand I'd rather not see the quality of debates here brought down to his level or other quality posters leave because of a lack of challenging debates, or worse be put off by childish debates.
I have no answers, only questions and observations.
Cris
Use your Ignore button if you feel so strongly about it.
As for Velma... When I was a little fella watching Scooby Doo, I always thought the blonde girl was a vapid waste of space, and thought Velma was kinda cool. But then I like tomato sauce on rice. *shrug*
Adam,
Use your Ignore button if you feel so strongly about it. Nah, that only attempts to deal with the symptoms of the disease and doesn't approach the underlying problem.
goofyfish
04-23-02, 11:52 AM
He cannot dominate threads if his input is ignored.
Trolls that are ignored ALWAYS disappear with time.
TruthSeeker has demonstrated total closed-mindedness,
and it is ludicrous to believe that we have the ability to
change this, or to correct Nelson's underlying problems.
Peace.
--- Edit: spelling ---
goofyfish,
He cannot dominate threads if his input is ignored. That is true, but cannot be achieved unilaterally. The temptation to respond to his gibberish in a hope of pointing out his errors are often overwhelming, at least for many people.
Cris
Adam: Tomato sauce on rice is gooood!
That out of the way, on to the discussion at hand:
I have tried a bit of 'evangelical skepticism' on Nelson, and I have always treated him with courtesy. I have tried to understand and evaluate his arguments, even when his ego reached stratospheric proportions. My thanks is to be insulted.
Cris mentioned Tony1. I haven't been posting as long as most of you, but I find Tony to be at least a good sparring partner. Nelson's refusels to debate, but rather to insult his 'opponents' and evade do not make him so.
That said, Tyler and I have been the ones 'feeding' him. I cannot speak for Tyler, but I've had enough. This (http://www.sciforums.com/f22/s/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6835&pagenumber=5) is it.
Obviously, banning Nelson is out of the question. But, if all or most of his opponents ignore him, he'll have less to feed on. I propose that the Q, Cris, Goofyfish and I simultaneously ignore him.
What say ye? I can supply the Bunnies with whips if you feel particularly masochistic and think that Nelson can be taught sense. ;)
I think it's a shame Bebelina felt she had to take a break from here, because people were insulting her. She brightened up the place.
goofyfish
04-23-02, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Xev
But, if all or most of his opponents ignore him, he'll have less to feed on. I propose that the Q, Cris, Goofyfish and I simultaneously ignore him.You can count me in on that.
The Fish gave up on Nelson yesterday (http://www.sciforums.com/f19/s/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6963&pagenumber=3).
Peace.
Adam:
Oh grawk, she was really much more nasty than those who 'insulted' her.
Don't be chivralous, dear. I can never spell the word properly, so the concept pisses me off.
All: Of course, if we do choose to keep responding to Nelson, we ought to control our tempers a bit more. Yes, he can be annoying but:
"We want to shear the Lord's sheep of their wooly, fuzzy thinking, not stampede them -so we can't use chainsaws." --Max G. Webb
Goofyfish: Then Cris and the Q remain to be convinced.
Is this a subtle way of censorship? Am I doing somthing wrong? :confused:
I must have missed Bebelina being mean. I don't recall seeing such.
I do try to be chivalrous. I see no problem with that.
I do. I hate words like that.
It's root is the French 'cheval' meaning 'horse' - so it should be spelled somthing like 'chevalery'. But nooo, some idiot had to put an 'i' in. So now we have 'chivalrous', which I always screw up.
The other problem is that to go easy on a poster's arguments because of thier gender is inherently....*Xev grins impishy*....degrading.
Most of us come here to have our arguments ripped apart, to make sure that we are right, not to sit around agreeing with one another.
I don't see it as degrading. I see it as polite. If politically correct people wish to see polite as degrading, that is not my concern. I don't live by their rules, I live by mine. And mine includes being polite to women. Except when talking dirty of course.
And if you're interested, chevalier/cheval comes from the Latin caballus.
I'm all for free speech. Therefore I submit that Truthseeker has every right to say whatever he wants as long as he directs his threads to the appropriate forum. I had asked Porfiry to appoint a moderator for the Math/Physics forum so that Truthseekers threads could be moved to the appropriate forum if need be. I have not heard anything back. But I digress.
The following quote is as relevant to this and any other forum as it was in its original context. We should always keep it in the back of our minds. The second part of the quote is appropriate to Truthseeker and anyone else we might consider.
This should be adequate in supporting the Q's decision.
The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution.
Justice John M. Harlan, Cohen v. California (1971)
Adam: So it's polite to treat a lady as inherently stupid? What the fuck?!
Since when was respect 'PC'?
Q: You're right, I suppose. Ignoring Nelson is almost....closed minded. I don't want to do that. And it is almost like censorship....
However, I tire of his insults and so I think I will take a break for a while.
But please, try to be understanding of him.
If Pofiry likes, I'll moderate Physics and Math.
Oh yes, and Adam, I demand that you respect my status as a serious intellectual sort or I will throw another lemon-creame pie at you! :p
So it's polite to treat a lady as inherently stupid? What the fuck?!
I never said that at all.
Oh yes, and Adam, I demand that you respect my status as a serious intellectual sort or I will throw another lemon-creame pie at you!
I think you're one of the most rational people on sciforums. But you have a serious problem with tossing pies.
goofyfish
04-23-02, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Xev
Q: You're right, I suppose. Ignoring Nelson is almost....closed minded. I don't want to do that. And it is almost like censorship...It is not being-close-minded to disengage from senseless chatter. It is certainly not censorship, as Nelson is certainly free continue "preaching". I view it more like changing the channel on a television.
(hmmmm.. i wonder if wrestling is on??)
Peace.
I don't see it as degrading. (to go easy on a poster's arguments because of thier gender) I see it as polite. If politically correct people wish to see polite as degrading, that is not my concern. I never said that at all.
I know, but it seems implied...or perhaps I ought to put down the bong.
But you have a serious problem with tossing pies.
I lay the blame soley on the 'Three Stooges' movies I watched as a child.
*Sobs*
I am innocent! Society is to blame!
Sorry. Will stop hyjacking the thread.
Goofyfish:
Hmm, I suppose that it can be compared to watching Crossfire....
If Cris Matthews has Jerry Falwell on, and Jerry starts ranting, I can change the channel. I am ignoring Jerry, not censoring him.
Who is harmed? Not Jerry. Not Cris Matthews. Not CNN.
So the only harm that would come of it would be to me if Jerry is
A: Right, and I miss him proving that he is right
B: Would make me think of somthing, in which case I miss that.
You are right (quite vacilliating, woman!). It is perfectly fine to ignore, and not so much closed-mindedness as not wasting time.
goofyfish
04-23-02, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Xev
I am innocent! Society is to blame!Ahhhhh...
Total abdication of personal responsibility!!
Ain't it a GREAT time to live in America!! :D
Peace.
The way this works for me is:
I like women. I like civilised behaviour. I live by my rules, not those shouted from the podium of political correctness rallies.
If a woman is a complete rude bitch to me, that is her right. I like free speech. That doesn't mean I should sacrifice my standards and behave the same way. If I think I should be polite to women, then I will be.
Genders, numbers, religions, borders, the weather, and any other such factor does not dictate how/whether my principles should change or remain static.
Goofyfish:
Total abdication of personal responsibility!!
Ain't it a GREAT time to live in America!!
I'm getting the urge to sue somone....:D
Adam: You misunderstand me. I respect your honor, however, I am explaining how the presumption of weakness is, well, rude.
Genders, numbers, religions, borders, the weather, and any other such factor does not dictate how/ whether my principles should change or remain static.
And if your principles are wrong? There's a fine line to be walked between being honorable and pig-headed...not that I am calling you pig-headed.
I don't presume weakness. That would be to let someone else guide my principles. My standards remain the same whether the person I am dealing with is strong or weak. Their state has nothing to do with it.
What if I'm wrong? Then I will consider the options and possibly rethink my principles. But that choice does not come from external factors. Principles come from inside, not outside.
Adam:
My standards remain the same whether the person I am dealing with is strong or weak. Their state has nothing to do with it.
But you have a different set of standards for women and men, no?
Why?
Principles come from inside, not outside.
Hmmmm.
Are principles logical?
Where does logic come from? Outside, right? So principles do come from outside, but honor (sticking to one's principles) comes from inside....
But you have a different set of standards for women and men, no?
Yep. And it remains the same whether the woman I am dealing with is strong or weak. Perceptions of strength have nothing to do with it.
Are principles logical?
Principles are, to me, the behavioural rules we set for ourselves to facilitate social function. However, you might say that greater social facility might be achieved by being a lying thieving scoundrel. Maybe so. But principles are also based on what we like, and what we would like our society and ourselves to be.
Where does logic come from? Outside, right? So principles do come from outside, but honor (sticking to one's principles) comes from inside....
Logic is what we do on the inside to rationally explain what's on the outside. Logic, principles, honour, all on the inside, to deal with the outside. But how we deal with the outside is the point.
Adam:
Yep. And it remains the same whether the woman I am dealing with is strong or weak. Perceptions of strength have nothing to do with it.
But you are assuming that a woman is ipso facto weaker than a man (intellectually speaking), right?
If that is true, why debate us at all?
If it is false, why hold such an assumption?
Logic is what we do on the inside to rationally explain what's on the outside. Logic, principles, honour, all on the inside, to deal with the outside. But how we deal with the outside is the point.
Yeah, you're right. Logic is internal.
There was a time when out shopping that I opened the door to a store for my girlfriend. She ignored me and opened another door for herself.
Her comment was that I was being demeaning because my opening the door for her implied that she was incable of doing it herself. I refrained from chivalry after that.
The next girlfriend seemed upset when she was expected to open doors for herself.
Ahhh, women. Sigh!
Cris
Counterbalance
04-23-02, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Q:
I'm all for free speech. Therefore I submit that Truthseeker has every right to say whatever he wants as long as he directs his threads to the appropriate forum. I had asked Porfiry to appoint a moderator for the Math/Physics forum so that Truthseekers threads could be moved to the appropriate forum if need be. I have not heard anything back. But I digress.
The following quote is as relevant to this and any other forum as it was in its original context. We should always keep it in the back of our minds. The second part of the quote is appropriate to Truthseeker and anyone else we might consider.
This should be adequate in supporting the Q's decision.
The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution.
Justice John M. Harlan, Cohen v. California (1971)
~~~
I’m all for free speech, too. Don’t think that’s what the real issue is, however.
The best way to counter obnoxious speech is not a “set in stone” rule or remedy. Consider the environment. This is not Washington D.C. where those with opposing views are standing on opposite sides of the street shouting at one another until the police arrive or until one side has argued the other into a physical retreat. Anyone posting on an Internet forum has the advantage of anonymity; a form of protection; a reduced risk of being made to stop when crossing some lines of normal, civilized behavior. And every single member here has a choice: to post obnoxiously, to reply obnoxiously, to behave civilly, maturely, to ignore, etc.
Those who are being obnoxious are likely to continue to do so for as long as anyone is willing to argue with them. They have no incentive to stop. These are individuals not organizations. And these are individuals who have given little or no evidence to show they have any intention to do other than what they always have.
Those who would stand up for rationality--or against irrationality--need only look at the evidence. A braggart, a trouble-maker, a spammer, a game-player... these sorts have no justifiable reason to be as unrelentingly disruptive or obnoxious as they are, and yet they are, and it appears that being so is their primary goal; their main purpose for posting anything. How much “reasoning” and “persuasion” is too much?
If a preacher stands on a street corner shouting ‘hellfire and brimstone’ to too few people who respond or react, what does he do? He moves to another, busier street corner. If an abusive spouse finds that his weary, battered wife has disappeared never to return, he looks for another victim.
We are not a court of law, we are group of individuals, with individual choices. What does your rational human mind tell you is the most productive thing to do in this situation?
The individuals being objected to here have their freedom of speech--and give every sign of understanding that they do. There is no need to think of taking it away from them. Let them speak. To an empty auditorium. No one is obligated to play a game that cannot be won; indeed, was never meant to be won by one who would come down on the side of "rationality."
In these kinds of situations, you win the game by not playing at all.
Thx,
Counterbalance
Cris: Well, you were already asking for it taking one of us shopping...
But I am referring to intellectual respect.
Incidentally, the 'who will open the door' routine started in the Middle Ages or thereabout. The first person to leave a castle ran the risk of facing an enemy, so the strongest person would leave first. Leaving first was both a mark of honor and a way of self-protection.
Or so my history teacher tells me. Does anyone know it it's true?
So basically, you're trying to make her face the hail of arrows, or whatever.
That story is more than likely false. A lady in recent times (talkin' the last few centuries) was never expected to do much for herself. That was seen as unladylike in general.
And Xev.......velman and xev eh.......sexy.
I honestly don't believe women, in general, are as smart as men. Being in high school right now I'm witnessing it every day.
I see a couple classes of people in school;
Intellects; The few and far between who are naturally gifted and understand advanced (relatively) concepts the minute they hear them. I would consider myself one of these people solely because I have never found any concept difficult in school. We spent 3 fuckin' days on the Atomic structure and NO ONE udnerstood it one year. Pissed the hell out of me. In my school there's (pause.....tyler is thinking of all the kids in his school)maybe......5 others in the group. 1 of which is a girl. Average mark for us 5 is about 82. Two of the guys are like me and dont work so their average is like 78-80, the girl works relatively hard and gets about 85 and the other guys work hard and get 84 and 85 I think. Then there's me, no homework for 3 years runnin' and 89, 86 and 87 averages in each year.
Workers; Those who really arent smart but do about 3-5 hours of homework a night (I can't even begin to understand how they do it). The average mark for these people is like 81 or 80 with some high and some slightly lower. I see waaaaaay more women in this group than men.
Mild-Intellects; Those who dont really work but pull off a 73-78. Which in my school is a good mark. I'd say almost every one of these people are men. They tend to be about as naturally smart as the Workers, but just don't work. Some of the ones here are quite smart though.
The Rest; People who either are not smart at all and dont work or are not smart at all and work a decent amount but not enough to get a B.
One of The Workers if they did about hte amount of work I did, would get somewhere near 68. Which is why I have no respect for them. Stupid drones...
Anyway. I honestly believe in my experiences there are a significantly larger amount of men who are naturally smart. And a significantly larger number of women who are better workers.
And does the Q really look like Arnold? Tyler has been mistaken for Prince William twice. Of course, one of those times it was an 80 year old woman.
Let me correct myself, I forget to put something in.
I in no way think women can not reach the same heights that men can. And in no way prejudge a person based on their gender.
Thought taht was important.
goofyfish
04-23-02, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Tyler
I honestly don't believe women, in general, are as smart as men. Being in high school right now I'm witnessing it every day.The Fish casts a panic-stricken glance around the room for Xev, and runs like hell for the nearest shelter!!
:D
Peace.
I honestly don't believe women, in general, are as smart as men. Being in high school right now I'm witnessing it every day.
*Pouts* (Edit to respond to Goofyfish: Oh crap, do I have to throw a lemon-creame pie at Tyler?)
Seriously, if you are talking about the people I know, yes. I don't know why it is, but...
For instance, I had the lab partner from the pits of hell about a month ago. Granted, she was blonde, but an utter idiot! The instructions for preparing the solutions we were using in our reaction - I will not bore you with the details - were printed out, and quite simple. So what does she do? She asks me the stupidest questions "Is this a 500 mL Erhlemyler flask?" "Is this .5 M HCL" (the molarity, M, is printed on the container).
I was about ready to brain her with my textbook by the end of the three hour lab. Of course, you get a moron lab partner, you have to do all the work by yourself, for three hours, at six am in the morning, and - right, no ranting.
As a general rule, if you want to talk about politics, or philosophy, or science, or 'intellectual' things, you will end up talking to a guy. Even online....look at us 'compulsive-obsessive rationalists'.
Of course, a lot of this is conditioning. I firmly believe that most is, and will go away if we straighten out education and indoctrination.
And yes, women do 'play dumb'. And yes, I have had dates flee in horror (well of course :rolleyes: ) when I tried to discuss 'intellectual' things.
"Seriously, if you are talking about the people I know, yes. I don't know why it is, but..."
I don't know why either.
"Of course, a lot of this is conditioning. I firmly believe that most is, and will go away if we straighten out education and indoctrination."
I wonder about that. It's a possibility, without a doubt. Is it indoctrination? I'm a pretty good judge of character and am able to easily spot out the people who 'play dumb' (male or female). Even the ones who do this seem to not be that intelligent. I think women are naturally the workers and men tend to naturally hit either extreme more often (intellectual or really dumb). Though I don't know why!
The main gripe I have in the sex war is sports. A girl in my class gave her speech on why women's sports deserves entirely equal press and money as mens sports. This is such bull. Men are better at most sports. Without a doubt. For one, womens sports have only recently become huge. For two, our bodies are better shaped for a large number of sports. For three, men on average are larger and stronger. There is no shame in this, it's just a simple fact.
I look at women's hockey as a perfect example. My school's girls team went the whole season loosing one game. My varsity team placed 3rd in the city. When we played them, we won 22-0. It was a disgrace. One of the girls on team is being recruited by NCAA schools. She came to play shinny with some guys one day and left after 20 minutes because she couldnt keep up. Granted, we were almost all good hockey players there, but if a guy who was going NCAA jumped on the ice, he would have walked around most of us. Most (NOT ALL) women's sports simply aren't as good as mens sports. People don't spend $160 (all figures Canadian....so yanks, that's like I think $1.50 to you) to go see junior hockey, so why would they spend that much to go see womens? We dont have front page coverage of Junior A hockey in Canada - the hockey capital - so why would we do it for womens?
P.S. The women have gotten front page coverage.
I don't care who is better at sport, but I know I much prefer to watch women play sport than watch men.
The main gripe I have in the sex war is sports. A girl in my class gave her speech on why women's sports deserves entirely equal press and money as mens sports. This is such bull. Men are better at most sports. Without a doubt. For one, womens sports have only recently become huge. For two, our bodies are better shaped for a large number of sports. For three, men on average are larger and stronger. There is no shame in this, it's just a simple fact.
Duh!
I don't see the attraction of women's sports either.
Less skill, much more amatuerish. Hey, I like baseball, but I don't watch the Tigers - *ahem*- Little Leauge play.
Cris:
Simple T & A, or somthing else?
Voodoo Child
04-23-02, 07:30 PM
I was about ready to brain her with my textbook by the end of the three hour lab. Of course, you get a moron lab partner, you have to do all the work by yourself, for three hours, at six am in the morning, and - right, no ranting.
I was a male, blond, moron lab partner. I left a trail of victims who will forever curse the proximity of their surnames to mine, almost all female. I literally reduced one to tears. She was permanently scarred. That is only partly figurative; you have no idea how hard it is to get diazo dyes out. In reality, the competent are better off without our help.
>Sigh< good times, good times.
Academically, the females seem a tad smarter and definitely more conscientious. And puzzlingly they seem to have much, much better handwriting.
In my classes this semester, I've noticed the following trends
Philosophy: Guys, guys, badly dressed guys
Psychology: 60:40 in favour of chicks
Computer Science: Mostly guys
Natural sciences: 50:50
The women tend to have a predisposition to the social sciences, whilst the guys are drawn to what we might call "the techy/nerdy".
The quality of the sciforums website is primarily due to the members who post here. But while Dave has furnished the medium and its structure, the content is very much up to us, the members.
There are effectively no rules yet there is significant respect between members and there is almost no abusive language or flaming, at least nothing that lasts for more than the occasional post.
The site is open to everyone and anyone and of all ages. And we do have members from 13, and perhaps younger, to I think around 70. And the variety of interests is also vast, and of course the site is open to all countries.
This represents a superb opportunity to explore and examine an extensively wide set of ideas, concepts, perceptions, and beliefs that would be difficult to find anywhere else.
I have learnt a lot from being here and I hope I may also have amused and helped others. I’m here to learn from others, to have an outlet for my own ideas, and to practice respectful and effective two-way communication with people who I would not normally meet in my usual life.
I hope that most members would have similar expectations. Without being forced, most here have adopted a civilized approach to communicating with other members and with a significant degree of tolerance for often very different perspectives. Certainly the religion forum can create the greatest heat. There are no winners or losers, and while many of us might lose a particular point, we generally move on and try again. There is usually an unspoken forgiveness if someone does screw up, perhaps because we all know we may do that ourselves sometimes.
However, occasionally, the site is used by some for quite different purposes: Some to preach, or to be vindictive, or to just annoy. There are no rules here to say such behavior is not acceptable, and there are no police to enforce standards, since there are few that are official. This means that the quality of the site and the behavior of potentially problematic members are entirely up to the majority of members to control. But there is no formal mechanism that would facilitate that role apart from our own debates and agreements such as this.
I don’t want to have anyone banned; neither do I want to prevent anyone from expressing their views.
Is truthseeker a problem? Perhaps not, but when some place him on their ignore lists then perhaps there is an indication of a potential problem. Perhaps I/we are being too sensitive and should just ignore posts we find foolish. But let’s agree that many of us find his manner and approach largely unacceptable and I think most would prefer he displayed a more mature attitude.
He is a young man with little to no experience of life and is desperately struggling to comprehend the world around him. I hope most can see that he has latched onto some concepts that do not relate very much to reality, and I’m not talking about religious differences here, but more along the lines of misconceptions about how real people view the world, and that seems to be really a lack of experience. Perhaps he just needs to get out more and mix with real people. Hiding behind an anonymous userid as if playing at a computer game will not help him develop any real social skills or understand how to more appropriately interact with other people.
Am I being condescending in discussing another member in such a way? Perhaps, but then I suspect many of you can see the same obvious facts as myself; so what I am saying should not be a surprise to anyone.
The solution: I don’t want to do anything to limit the freedom of another. I hope that truthseeker might read this and re-consider his approach to his posts. Perhaps he doesn’t even recognize he has a problem, and that is a real possibility. Perhaps we should all just give him our unconditional love.
I think I will just carefully choose his rare perceptive posts as a basis for a polite response, and those posts that are particularly arrogant or immature I will simply ignore. I just hope he doesn’t assume that silence means an endorsement for an idea.
Cris
"I don't care who is better at sport, but I know I much prefer to watch women play sport than watch men."
Women's volleyball as well as some other sports are better than men's, in my opinion. But not hockey, football, soccer, basketball or baseball. The major sports in our continent. Our rugby or lacrosse for that matter. And no, I dont like womens volleyball better for just the obvious reason! In the women's game there's actually rallies. The mens game is like; serve, set, smash.....serve, set, smash.....serve, set, block, set, smash......
Very boring.
Xev,
Simple T & A, or somthing else? T & A??
I'm simply attracted to athlectic women and watching them perform is pleasant. ;) ;) ;)
As opposed to sweaty aggresive men who don't do anything for me.
Cris
Tyler,
Really I just don't like watching sports, and if I do watch a sport it will be for some reason other than the sport - and watching lithe women being physical seems like a good idea.
However, I do like playing sports, or used to. I played rugby at school, and I played serious competive squash in my 30s, typically 2 hours per day, 7 days a week.
Cris
Tyler: Yeah, but vollyball....ouch. Hell on the wrists, which is why I quite playing.
Oh yeah, and I had to surrender the last vestiges of my life to school. ;)
Cris: I think many find it upsetting because they don't like to see a promising young man frittering away his life like this. Life is too short and precious to waste in a spiritual fantasyland. We all hope (as I did, and still do) that he will come to his senses.
T&A is a Yank term for 'tits and ass'. I suppose you Brits use somthing else?
*Grins*
I remember the time I didn't know what a 'wanker' was, and asked a Brit.
Voodoo Child:
Please. I have nightmares from the experiance. :D
Xev,
Cris: I think many find it upsetting because they don't like to see a promising young man frittering away his life like this. Life is too short and precious to waste in a spiritual fantasyland. We all hope (as I did, and still do) that he will come to his senses. Perhaps, although my point was not aimed at his beliefs since he is welcome to those, but primarily his immature approach, massive ego, and highly irritating condescending attitude where he set himself above everyone else.
T&A is a Yank term for 'tits and ass'. I suppose you Brits use somthing else? Nah, we use tits and ass as well, but we might call them something different.
Personally I think the face is the most important part. ;)
I remember the time I didn't know what a 'wanker' was, and asked a Brit.I discovered a few years ago that Americans think ‘bugger’ means something different to the Brit understanding.
Cris
"T&A is a Yank term for 'tits and ass'. I suppose you Brits use somthing else?"
I say tits and ass. No short forms for me.
I LOOOOOOOVE being brutally blatant when speaking to someone who doesnt know me all that well. It either scares them or confuses them.
For instance, I have a REALLY dumb career's teacher and one day in the computer room (we had some dumb research to do) she said 'Now, I don't want you venturing off onto any sites which may be considered not appropriate for school' and I replied, quite loudly; 'You mean pornography? You don't want us looking at pornography?'
It usually works quite nicely. Or when people like hint at saying something like tits or ass and I'll just go 'oh you mean her tits'
I love it.
"Personally I think the face is the most important part."
Agreed, for the most part.
"I discovered a few years ago that Americans think ‘bugger’ means something different to the Brit understanding."
I saw Gangster Number 1 a little while ago and after that and a few other Brit movies I decided a Brit word needs to make its way into Canada. Cunt. It's the greatest insult word. It's sooooo blatant and rude a word. Better than fucker. Much beyond ass. It's cunt!
And so far I've gotten it slightly into circulation. Not enough though.
Tyler:
I LOOOOOOOVE being brutally blatant when speaking to someone who doesnt know me all that well. It either scares them or confuses them.
I can't help it. I like to say what I mean, not use mushy euphamisms.
I rather like it when my swearing is criticised. "What the fuck do you mean, I don't fucking swear hardly at all"
That's fun.
I saw Gangster Number 1 a little while ago and after that and a few other Brit movies I decided a Brit word needs to make its way into Canada. Cunt. It's the greatest insult word. It's sooooo blatant and rude a word. Better than fucker. Much beyond ass. It's cunt!
I think it's of American origen. Here, we only use when we wish to be extremely insulting.
Cris:
Perhaps, although my point was not aimed at his beliefs since he is welcome to those, but primarily his immature approach, massive ego, and highly irritating condescending attitude where he set himself above everyone else.
Don't you think that massive ego and condescending attitude are hiding somthing? I think Nelson feels the need to be perfect, and can't stand the thought that he isn't.
That's why it never bothered me.
Personally I think the face is the most important part.
You realize that if I had a quarter for every man who's said that, I'd have next semester's tuition?
In other words, bull.
It really isn't. Some guys definetly, but for me it is.
Though it only goes so far. A beautiful face on a horrid body is not a good thing. Just like a horrid face on a beautiful body is not a good thing.
I think I put it somewhere else earlier, but the first thing I notice in a woman is their eyes.
And as for body preferences, I think I'm a tad different than the norm. I can't stand really skinny women. I'm a big guy myself (6'1, 184 lbs...classic hockey player. It's kind of sad. I feel so generic when I watch a high level hockey or lacrosse game, everyone has the same body as me) so I prefer a little something on a woman, not skin and bone.
And as for body preferences, I think I'm a tad different than the norm. I can't stand really skinny women. I'm a big guy myself (6'1, 184 lbs...classic hockey player. It's kind of sad. I feel so generic when I watch a high level hockey or lacrosse game, everyone has the same body as me) so I prefer a little something on a woman, not skin and bone.
Pity the folks who design clothing disagree. Somewhere along the line skinny legs got into style, and tiny jeans that accentuate skinny legs and....good lord.
Xev
But you are assuming that a woman is ipso facto weaker than a man (intellectually speaking), right?
Not at all. I never said that.
I while ago I was curious about any evidence to support intelligence differences. All I could find really were studies saying the genders were better at different sorts of things.
Xev,
You realize that if I had a quarter for every man who's said that, I'd have next semester's tuition?
In other words, bull.But you misquoted me - you missed off the smiley. ;)
Adam: It follows from the need to be coddled.
1: A and B are treated differently
2: A is coddled.
Why should A need coddling if they are not weaker? I play chess. If my partner is weaker than me (fat chance!) I give them a pawn advantage, or play as black, or whatever. I coddle them because they are weak.
Why coddle your equal?
Cris: Damned emoticons. I'd rather use plain text, but then it's hard to convey facial expression.
I don't coddle anyone. I don't have the time or inclination. I do, however, open doors for ladies and let them walk through first, hold out chairs for them, offer to carry things, mind my language around them, try to remember to say please and thank you to them, and so on. This is not because I think they are weak or stupid. It is because I like them and would prefer to be polite and helpful. I do these things for guys as well, but I put in more effort for women. Strength and intelligence have nothing to do with it. I would probably offer to carry the shopping bags for the world female weightlifting champion, and offer to hold a door open for Miss IQ 2002, even though both could no doubt whip me in their fields (not an altogether unpleasant prospect :p ). It has nothing to do with respect, or lack of it, for their abilities.
So, if not about them and their abilities, what is it about? It's about me and my principles. I would like to see more people helping each other. If a women held a door open for me, I would not get all worked up about how degrading it is, I would simply say "thank you". I don't see why that is such a difficult concept to understand. Good manners.
Originally posted by Xev
Why coddle your equal?
People are not equal, and never have been. People are all different. Most men are stronger than most women. Most people with working legs are better runners than most paraplaegics. I can see a hell of a lot better than blind people. I can think, and my uncle Wayne can not. We are all different.
The only equality (apart from death) exists as a matter of consensus. We make it up to suit us, to improve the functioning of our societies.
Counterbalance
In these kinds of situations, you win the game by not playing at all.
Good point, however I don't agree. There are several issues with the *silent* treatment.
Silence is often interpreted as agreement. If the orator receives no disagreement, he and others will interpret this as agreement. The orator will not only continue the onslaught of irrationality but will increase it to new levels. This is of course unacceptable.
Choosing to remain silent towards one individual and not another sets one up as judge, jury and executioner. We have no right to judge who is worthy of debate and who is not. We must treat everyone with the same equality if we are to be treated in the same way.
Choosing to remain silent even though one may have something to say is the same as rolling over and playing dead. With all due respect, it is the way of the wallflower and/or the coward.
Regarding your examples: a preacher on a soap box, an abusive spouse, troublemakers of any kind. These individuals crave the negative attention they so desperately seek. They should not be ignored. In fact, they are the ones that should receive the most attention. However, to give in to the negative attention they crave is not what they deserve. They need to be told straight out in the most rationalized way, why they are craving this attention and what they should do about it. It is a never ending challenge and one that should be taken up at every opportunity.
We should not remain silent but instead speak up, and let those know that the rational will not be held captive to the whims of madmen. If you remain silent, you might as well join them.
Adam:
People are not equal, and never have been. People are all different. Most men are stronger than most women. Most people with working legs are better runners than most paraplaegics. I can see a hell of a lot better than blind people. I can think, and my uncle Wayne can not. We are all different.
You know what I mean.
So, if not about them and their abilities, what is it about? It's about me and my principles. I would like to see more people helping each other. If a women held a door open for me, I would not get all worked up about how degrading it is, I would simply say "thank you". I don't see why that is such a difficult concept to understand. Good manners.
Yes, but I am talking about intellectually - not the annoying issue of doors - but a basic intellectual courtesy of ripping a person's false arguments into little bloody shreds.....
Sorry, grumpy mood - The courtesy of debunking.
BTW: I am not your equal, but your superior, and when I become SUPREME MASTER OF THE COSMOS ALL WILL OBEY ME! Mwahahaha!
Q:
We should not remain silent but instead speak up, and let those know that the rational will not be held captive to the whims of madmen. If you remain silent, you might as well join them.
*Strikes up 'Battle Hymn of the Rationalists'*
Very well. There may be hope for Nelson yet, I suppose.
Originally posted by Xev
Adam:
BTW: I am not your equal, but your superior, and when I become SUPREME MASTER OF THE COSMOS ALL WILL OBEY ME! Mwahahaha!
As long as you wear leather, I'm okay with that. :p
PS: Yes, I'm drunk.
Adamski:
As long as you wear leather, I'm okay with that.
Then I would be Mistress of the Cosmos. Which sounds like a very bad porno.
PS: Yes, I'm drunk.
So? A classmate thought I was stoned from the way I started giggling hysterically for no reason.
Do you do that all the time, or just now and then?
Wear leather or giggle hysterically for no reason?
ImaHamster2
04-24-02, 05:58 PM
Q,
“Silence is often interpreted as agreement.”
On a single post, perhaps. Repeated lack of response implies a lack of interest. Some statements are so foolish that a reply compounds the foolishness.
“Choosing to remain silent towards one individual and not another sets one up as judge, jury and executioner. We have no right to judge who is worthy of debate and who is not. We must treat everyone with the same equality if we are to be treated in the same way.”
Everyone has the right to determine with whom they choose to communicate. Often silence is the best way to end a dispute. Or not begin a dispute.
“Choosing to remain silent even though one may have something to say is the same as rolling over and playing dead. With all due respect, it is the way of the wallflower and/or the coward.”
Or the way of a wise person who understands when, where, and how certain battles should be fought.
“We should not remain silent but instead speak up, and let those know that the rational will not be held captive to the whims of madmen. If you remain silent, you might as well join them.”
When most threads devolve into meaningless confrontations the reasonable depart.
This hamster recognizes that others don’t share this hamster’s interests and worldview. In some cases differences stimulate. In others the differences are too great to be bridged. This hamster chooses to ignore those whose posts seldom interest this hamster. Likewise, if hamster droppings fail to amuse, people should ignore the hamster.
Ideally this should be an individual decision rather than a response to peer pressure. However, this hamster recognizes that some behavior harms a community. Those who care about the community must then discuss solutions. Ignoring a disruptive poster has been effective on other forums. If the problem is a clash of personalities or worldviews then the parties tend to disengage and find more receptive audiences.
Q,
I agree to some extent.
Hamster my furry friend, very refreshing - I'll go along with that.
Cris
Hamster
Good points. I believe we have shown that not only one must take into account the disruptive poster specifically and generally, one must also take into account their own characteristics. I may deal with confrontation in a different way than yourself for example, who may deal with confrontation in a different manner than Cris.
However, the three of us have probably dealt with confrontation in similar manners as well. It would ultimately depend on the situation.
Although I don't like the idea of treating posters on a case by case study within the forum community, the Hamster has swayed me to think it may be necessary to do so.
Counterbalance
04-24-02, 07:03 PM
Thanks for the response, Q. As the hamster has already posted a view that's in agreement with my own, I see no need to be repetitive. Just glad someone was able to get the message across.
CB
I agree hamy-shweetie.....
I pet your furry belly and replenish the water on your bottle just cuz you're so cuteeeeeeeeee.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.