Q-reeus's feedback (original title "Intellectual humility")
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
I can't recall. Q-reeus has been fairly tetchy since he arrived here, I think. He doesn't like being corrected on anything; that much is obvious. He likes to think he's the smartest person in the room, and I think he feels the need to try to establish his Alpha status. He does it with everybody, not just me. But he might be especially frustrated at the difficulty of claiming Alpha status when he's a regular member and I'm an administrator. Maybe he's somebody with an anti-authoritarian streak, who feels obliged to cut down tall poppies in order to try to lift himself up.
As for his specific excuses for his animosity towards me, I know that we've clashed quite a bit regarding his belief in supernatural little green men. Maybe that's what most turned his attention towards me as a special target for his personal attacks. He finds it difficult to cope with the fact that I don't take his views on such matters seriously enough for his liking. More generally, I think he gets angry because I don't take him nearly as seriously as he takes himself.
It is curious just the same, that you and James don't back down. I've noticed this with a few others here, and it's admirable to someone like me, who may go a few rounds, if that...but would prefer retreat and maybe a public ''loss,'' than fight to the end...and risk losing anyway. Does that make sense? Typing that out loud...hmm, I should work on that.
I'm not a confrontational person, in general, although there are ''causes'' offline that I stand up for, people I may stand up to. Forums can be good training grounds however, for the real thing. Just don't take the internet too, too seriously.
Careful! They have to be watched like a hawk - tipping over can lead to the house burning down! Constant alertness the only guarantee against that disaster! Yeah - enjoy the 'relaxation'.
https://intekclean.com/2017/09/25/home-candle-fires/
I see. Well, I'm not all that familiar with Q-reeus, but he seems to explain himself, so points for that. You're thorough, he's thorough. Perhaps, it comes back to ideologies. At any rate...has anyone ever ''won'' an argument on the internet?
Some threads start out in peaceful discussion, well thought out topics and by page 2 - it's an all out war. lolA classic example of James R committing perjury on a grand scale. He knows full well for instance I don't and never have believed in 'supernatural little green men' but that among many other examples is no barrier to his chronic caricaturing. Useless to keep correcting specifics. He feeds on it and loves to keep his distorted disingenuous replies going and going and going. His favorite hobby.
To tell the truth, I think I may have a character flaw in that regard. I don't like arrogance and I detest people who try to bully other people. As a result, I have a tendency in some contexts to want to take the arrogant down a notch or two, and I really have a low tolerance threshold for bullies. Both of those attitudes probably stem from some personal experiences I had in the past. Their practical consequence is that I probably waste more time than I should on those kinds of people, which is not always a productive thing to do.
I think you make a good point.
Giving certain people more of your attention than they deserve is counterproductive in several respects. It tends to give them more airtime than they deserve. They inevitably try to drag you down to their level and sometimes, if you lose your cool, they succeed to a greater or lesser extent. Also, your own actions in replying to them as if they deserve your attention has the sort of side-effect of lending them legitimacy that they might not otherwise have, if you're of good character and have a good reputation. It's sort a of guilt-by-association effect that works negatively in both respects. Just by giving them the time of day, it makes them look better (by association) and you look worse (for the same reason).
That's why I say it's a sort of character flaw to persist in engaging with certain types of people. Unfortunately for me, I seem to have certain buttons that can be pushed. Probably, I'm not as bad as I used to be, on this. I hope I've learned something over the years.
That's great advice, wegs. When I started on internet forums over 20 years ago, I initially made the mistake of taking some people far too seriously. At that stage, I didn't really have a good idea about what an internet troll was, or how they operate. In fact, at that time, the whole concept was quite a new thing, since the world wide web itself was only just really starting to take off in popularity. These days, I'm very wary of making emotional investments in internet arguments because it so often turns out that the other party in the discussion/argument/debate is not being honest, about themself or their position, or in how they conduct themselves, or some combination of those.
Last edited:
I wonder if the lack of verbal and visual ''cues'' that we miss online, are partially responsible for why arguing over the internet is so...easy. We all know that there is a person on the other end of these exchanges, but the anonymity of both debaters makes it easier to show less empathy.
I've read something recently that was really striking about all of this - that many passionate arguers online, are really arguing with their mother, father, significant other, friend, teacher, boss, etc. The chronic arguer gets out his/her frustrations online, when really he/she might actually need to clear the air with someone in their ''real'' life.
Well, enough rambling for one day.
I've read something recently that was really striking about all of this - that many passionate arguers online, are really arguing with their mother, father, significant other, friend, teacher, boss, etc. The chronic arguer gets out his/her frustrations online, when really he/she might actually need to clear the air with someone in their ''real'' life.
Well, enough rambling for one day.
These days, I don't think about it that way. I go into most internet "arguments" with the expectation that, by the end, my opponent will most likely double down on whatever silly position he is adopting (the one I'm arguing against) and probably become even more entrenched in his nonsense (on account of being determined to finally prove me and other perceived enemies wrong).
With that in mind, I'm not usually out to change his mind (it's a "he" most of the time) about anything. I've seen that happen occasionally, but certainly never in a thread in which my opponent has felt the need to resort to personal attacks and the like, having run out of (un-debunked) ideas to advance whatever position he is arguing. Instead, I keep front and centre in my mind that other people will be reading the exchange and drawing their own conclusions, whether or not they choose to participate in the discussion. Since they are usually nowhere near as emotionally invested in the argument, they are far more likely to be able to step back and think clearly about the arguments that are put, rather than being distracted by the interpersonal nonsense that goes on. Some of those people, who might initially have agreed with my opponent's crazy ideas, might change their minds.
Last edited:
This is news to me.
What do you think unexplained UFOs are, Q-reeus?
See, I'm fairly sure that you've said you don't believe they are your regular run-of-the-mill guys from another planet, but that you think it is far more likely that they are like ghosts from a different "paranormal" dimension, or similar.
Do I need to go and track down some relevant posts of yours?
It's okay if you've changed your mind, but you shouldn't tell lies about "never have believed", and that kind of thing.
Oh, and I'm aware that you might try to excuse yourself by making the supercilious argument that you never wrote the precise words "supernatural little green men". It's not my problem if you insist on giving everything I write its most literal, pedantic possible interpretation. As far as I'm concerned, I'm very happy for you to substitute "paranormal ghost people" or "mysterious pilots from another dimension" or whatever your preferred term is for your supernatural UFO belief. If you think it's important to distinguish between the various terms, maybe you ought to start a separate thread, where we can discuss that.
We all know that is directed here at me primarily. So here's your chance to prove your charge of arrogance and bullying by me. Cite at least one clear example of each.
That means specific passages, with full context given and links for anyone to check up on. Go to it James. Good hunting!
From your #40, referring to me:
"It's good they have brave souls like you to fight the good fight, eh, with no regard for your personal safety."
And here in #47, referring to yourself:
"To tell the truth, I think I may have a character flaw in that regard. I don't like arrogance and I detest people who try to bully other people. As a result, I have a tendency in some contexts to want to take the arrogant down a notch or two, and I really have a low tolerance threshold for bullies. Both of those attitudes probably stem from some personal experiences I had in the past. Their practical consequence is that I probably waste more time than I should on those kinds of people, which is not always a productive thing to do."
Such irony. Blowing your own bags, and at that about a total inversion of the truth. And you love to waste hours and hours typing up disingenuous reply after disingenuous reply ad nauseum.
wegs,
I think that's part of it. It's easy to abstract out the human being and imagine you're just dealing with a random name on a screen. There's the added bonus that you can freely insult names on screens without having to worry about being punched in the nose.
It's also easier, in some ways, to show who you really are, without fear of reprisals. That can be a good thing in some circumstances, but it can also be a bad thing - especially if you're of bad character underneath. It's why the internet is a breeding ground and meeting place for the anti-social and the criminal, along with the rest of us "normal" people.
I think that some people who feel disempowered in "real life", for whatever reason, find the internet to be a good place for venting their frustrations and, in some case, blaming other people. For good and ill, it also makes it easier for such people to connect with like-minded people. It's how supportive online communities form, but it's also how hate groups grow.
Rave on hypocrite. You know very well my position on those matters. Leave it for any further discussion over there. Unless you want to derail this thread.
Another of my Iggies. Fell to my personal 3 stupidites and Iggy kicks in
Went a bit longer with Write4U. He went Iggied for his school Master finger wagging style
I note he left soon after
Pick just about any one of your posts in this thread. Your arrogance is hardly hidden away. You always have to be right, and you're always looking for people to explicitly acknowledge that you're right. The topic doesn't much matter.
I'm not claiming you're bullying anybody, here.
I don't like bullies. If you want to self-identify as a bully, go right ahead, but I'm not accusing you of it, here.
I have no doubt you think I'm arrogant. That's because I stand up to you, and you can't abide that. I don't know whether you think I'm a bully. I don't really care what you think about me, very much.
Scratch the "disingenuous" part, and that might be fair comment. Like I said, it's probably a character flaw of mine.
Quote from Q-reeus, dated 18 December, 2020, link here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-227#post-3658061
"You along with anyone else who has followed this thread know very well what my reasons for believing non-mundane UFOs are paranormal in category. Bizarre behavior and characteristics, to be very brief. Elaborated on in many previous posts YOU HAVE WELL READ AND KNOW. Then again you also are well aware of the mounting recognition in military circles that non-mundane UFO encounters are real and well evidenced over many decades of reliable reports and permanent recordings."
Explain to me how that is different from what I wrote:
See, I'm fairly sure that you've said you don't believe they are your regular run-of-the-mill guys from another planet, but that you think it is far more likely that they are like ghosts from a different "paranormal" dimension, or similar.
The only hypocrisy here is yours. You ought to apologise to me for your rudeness.
So you choose to keep the UFO topic alive here. Noted. What apology? Ghosts are ostensibly the spirits/souls of deceased humans. Try not to blunder with category errors like that again.
Bunkum. I said quote specific passages, in full context. Since you claim just about every post of mine exhibits arrogance, that should be a quick and easy thing to do. So do it.
Q-reeus on 12 November, 2020 (link):
Q-reeus on 14 November 2020:
How's that apology coming along, Q-reeus?
and btw, I note your endless persistence in defining the arena as limited to 'space aliens if not mundane'. Please yourself. Paranormal if not mundane is my preferred categorization. As you all well know.
Q-reeus on 14 November 2020:
"But does fit quite well as just another category of paranormal phenomena of which poltergeist activity is probably the nearest one to UAP phenomena in general."
Q-reeus on 17 November 2020:
"I have made it clear in many posts now that UFO/UAP activity and Poltergeist activity are two sides of the same coin."
Q-reeus on 18 November 2020:
"And I have been for a long time here pointed to just why imo 'space aliens' are really paranormal manifestations by entities evidently domiciled in some other realm of existence.
It is perfectly correct to argue right here what is the true nature of 'space aliens'. You don't get to dictate what I can and can't do."
Enough yet?It is perfectly correct to argue right here what is the true nature of 'space aliens'. You don't get to dictate what I can and can't do."
How's that apology coming along, Q-reeus?
Last edited: