Given recent interactions on ILP, I’m going to stick my neck out and start this thread. Offense is not intended, but I’m sure some will be received.
IMNSHO, philosophy for the sake of philosophy is mental masturbation. There’s nothing wrong with that (hell, any idea with the word “masturbation” in it can’t be bad), as long as it’s understood for what it is. I personally prefer ACTIVE philosophy–that is, putting kowledge to USE. That’s just me…
We are probably ALL hypocrites to a certain degree, but when hypocrisy is at your CORE, when it pervades much of what you say/do (at least in certain contexts), your stock is pretty much worthless.
Generalizations are the death of good debate. I’m not talking about making a statement that excludes .000001% of a given group, or even 5%. I mean statements that LOOK good on the surface but which fail to take into account many other factors. Books such as “Men are from Mars…” are guilty of that. But they are extremely popular b/c many people can say “Yeah, that is SOOOO me…” or “I know someone JUST like that!” Whipppeee… Horroscopes, which have been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to be bunk, have the same effect (I’m not saying astrology is necessarily bunk, but horroscopes are). This is called the “Barnum effect,” something any 1st-year psych student learns. Yet, so many people fall for it…take a look at how many people give such great credence to the Myers-Briggs test (or its many derivatives).
Paraphrasing Nietzsche (but quoting Tab): “Whoever wants to be thought deep, strives for obfuscation, whoever is deep strives for clarity.”
If someone cannot answer a simple, straightforward question with a simple, straightforward answer, chances are you are dealing with someone who fails to appreciate 1) - 4) (or appreciate it but disregard it). IMNSHO, that is what I’ve been up against recently at ILP.
My challenge to anyone who disagrees with my points: State something you feel REALLY passionate about and then briefly explain what you DO to address this. I am certain that many of you would be able to meet this challenge–I’m sure many of those people would also agree with my assertions above (or at least most of them). So please don’t misconstrue my post as a claim that most people here do not do what they say they do. This post is directed at those who engage mostly in 2) to 5)…
Great topic. And yes, get ready for an ass whuppin’.
I’m not sure that there is any form of philosophy that doesn’t color our acting out upon the world. Even the most abstract meta-meta-meta discussions (the ones that put you to sleep in 30 sec or less) impinge on our understanding in some way. The effects can be hardly noticable, but they are there.
Given the above, I can’t see the distinction between honest seeking and then acting out a new or different understanding. Perhaps the devil is in the ‘honest seeking’ part. I agree that there are those who simply gather up superficial ‘knowing’ for superficial reasons. We see plenty of that here on the boards, but most of those here are truly seekers, both the honest ones (agree with me), and the dishonest ones (disagree with me).
Nietzsche striving for clarity. Damn! That’s funny! And yet, he made a valiant effort, did he not?
Simple straighforward questions do require simple straightforward answers. The problem lies in the inability to propose a straightforward question. No matter how clear and simple it might be in your head, it is filtered through an entirely different set of precepts by anyone else, which gives rise to the observation that, “there’s just no accounting for the way other people see things.”
If we add in issues such as confusion, covering up ignorance, or any other hidden agenda, the chances of getting a ‘straightforward’ answer seems fairly slim.
Behind all of this, it finally comes down to intent. No matter how poorly I answer any question (and I have lots of poor answers!), if I’m trying to give my best explanation, you’ll know that, even if you have no idea what the hell I’m talking about. Isn’t that the issue? Aren’t we talking about being honest?
Let me give a concrete example that captures what I’m trying to convey and some of the frustration I’ve experienced (or you could read the whole “sexual tensions” thread to get a better feel…but I’m trying to save your sanity…):
Satyr, on your personal site (I’ve said it before, I have no problem admitting that I admire much of what you write. You are obviously passionate about such things and make your ideas well known (though not always as clearly as they could be…)) there is an essay on race and intelligence. In it, you are essentially claiming that there are sound, evolutionary reasons why people from the sub-Sahara region would be less intelligent than those from other areas (but who originated from the same region).
The essay actually makes a lot of sense. But you know that it will be unpopular among many people b/c of the supposed racist overtones. You know that many people want to attack it for such reasons. And you know that many people will attack YOU and your CHARACTER instead of the arguments themselves.
[b]Readers may want to skip the different coloured section below, even though it is all relevant
Given that history (I’m sure it’s happened more than once), you post your “inflammatory” writings with pre-conceived notions of how things will play out. You are READY for those. You even try to pre-empt them with preambles and other tactics (it’s all there in the aforementioned thread). And you have a ready-formed image of what type of people will do the things mentioned in the preceding paragraph. So far, so “good.”
Now comes the tricky part: People don’t always react the way you expect them to. There may be 10 people, with let’s say 2 people reacting as you might expect, 3 reacting differently, and 5 who refrain from expressing their opinion. When YOU react to the 2 who react as you expect, YOU expose a part of YOURSELF that belies the so-called enlightenment or insight or whatever else you claim to possess.
YOUR reactions and what they indicate about YOUR true self–not what you write in your essays, as they appear to be two different things in some regards–now have some impact on the 8 who did not react as you had expected. But instead or recognizing or admitting this, you fall back on your prejudices re. how others will react to your posts. This shows a rigidity that is not consistent with your otherwise highly intelligent and, I think, flexible/creative writing. Most people will become disgusted or angry or frustrated, but occasionally someone who KNOWS about such things will tell you EXACTLY what is happening. How do you respond to such insight? You retreat further into your prejudices and past experiences, and see things even more rigidly. Again, it’s all laid out in the “sexual tensions” thread.[/b]
But let’s look at it a different (yet related) way. Hypocrisy, in this case re. EMPATHY. Satyr, I THINK you claim to be empathic, but you have NONE (or very little). That is, an empathic person would realize that most black people living in, say, North America, are going to get defensive when they see an essay that purports to explain why THEY (or their ancestors) are intellectually inferior. Even if their lineage does not map onto the story as you wrote it, the fact is many of them have experienced racism and have been told, directly or indirectly, that they are inferior (intellectually and otherwise). The more socially aware blacks will be aware of books that make similar claims to yours that have been used to try to SHUT DOWN PROGRAMS SUCH AS HEAD START, because proponents of such a view claim that we cannot change one’s intellectual potential, and since blacks are genetically/biologically/evolutionarily intellectually inferior, there’s no point in throwing money at such programs. This is not an exaggeration. It HAS been argued, despite evidence that PROVES that putting “underprivileged” children in enriched environments helps immensely in most cases.
So, an empathic person would appreciate why many different people, especially the “targets” of your assertions, would get defensive about such claims. Does that make YOUR claims wrong, a priori? No. There MAY be truth to what you write, and I would never disregard it for PC reasons (as stated several times).
However, given what I’ve written, an insightful and empathic person would NOT be surprised if, say, someone from the sub-Saharan region said something like “Intelligence is not merely analytic intelligence, which Satyr obviously possesses in spades. It is also THE ABILITY TO ADAPT TO ONE’S ENVIRONMENT, which essentially ALL bigwigs in the field of intelligence agree upon.” And this person might go on to say “I and my neighbours are experts at adapting to our environment. Give us a test that is not culturally biased…give us a test that allows us to show our ability to function well in our setting, and we will ace it.”
Now here’s the part you’re not going to like, Satyr: This person might also say, "If we are able to show that we can adapt to our environment very well, which is a crucial component of ‘intelligence,’ why does Satyr claim otherwise? What motivates him to claim such things? Heck, forget the motivation, let’s just be NON-HYPOCRITICAL. Let’s test SATYR’S intelligence. Satyr, how well do YOU adapt to your environment? What have YOU done to live life to its fullest (which you apparently have stated you strive to do). AVOIDING this question and/or RATIONALIZING one’s own failure to function well in one’s environment is NOT a sign of ‘intelligence’—cunning and manipulation, maybe, but not intelligence. At the very least, it shows HYPOCRISY.â€
THIS is what I’ve been trying to point out in the previous post and relevant other thread. I am using Satyr as an example, but the same process happens often (Satyr just happens to be an extreme example with a very high intellect). I think the most glaring point is the HYPOCRISY re. EMPATHY. I don’t “feel sorry†for blacks or whichever group Satyr wants to piss off. I EMPATHIZE with people/situations and can understand why certain people react certain ways. And Satyr, if you really were as empathic and intelligent as you believe you are, then you would be able to convey your ideas in a way that actually PERSUADES people to consider what you write, as opposed to finding people who accept your writings simply b/c they already shared such opinions.
Satyr, or anyone who says/does things in a similar manner as he, you would make things much easier if you simply stated a disclaimer at the start of your posts:
“I do not actually DO what I write about. I am thus merely mentally masturbating. If you want to engage in frustrating, fruitless debate, where I will lump you in with so many other people simply because I CAUSE certain reactions in many people by how I ACT (please refer to any of psyque’s posts on the matter for the specifics), not simply by my words, I’m your (wo)man.â€
I’m not so sure about that. Studies have consistently shown that people are more likely to assimilate new/incoming information into the schemas they already possess. That appears to be the ‘natural’ way of processing information, as opposed to new info. having some impact on the person. Even if we do say that EVERY incoming piece has SOME impact (I can live with that), the question is whether the impact (especially if it’s “hardly noticable”) is MEANINGFUL. I’d argue that in many cases it is NOT.
Well, yes, there ARE some honest truth seekers here, but I think many are not. But I have no idea what the proportions are, so you may be right. I would like to think you are, but I personally believe people’s prejudices (not to be mixed up with any kind of “-ism”…I simply mean pre-existing beliefs that make people pre-judge their experiences) and fears preculde this from happening (I agree with Satyr in THAT regard). But I am not so arrogant as to claim what percentage of people this applies to…I really don’t know…
I was actually quoting Tab’s paraphrase b/c I don’t know the N man well enough to comment (I’ve often professed my ignorance of “classic philosophers”).
Very true to all of that AT FIRST (I like your use of “filtered,” since I use it often myself). But can we not, as intellectual beings, work together to arrive at the simplicity on both sides? I have had such experiences here and elsewhere, so I believe it’s possible. However, it’s when such things prove to be IMpossible that I am compelled to write the post I did above.
In fact, when I used to run a language school/cultural centre years ago, I noticed that many ESL teachers would suddenly talk faster and try to use “big words” and speak in more “complex” sentences to their students whenever they were questioned on something they didn’t know the answer to, or were proven wrong by a student, especially re. grammar and less common usages of words…the one example that springs to mind is “chauvanist”–the student used it to refer to feelings/attitudes toward one’s country, which IS correct, but the teacher knew only the “male chauvanist (pig)” meaning and got all huffy and defensive and tried dancing around the issue, especially when the student took out a dictionary…There were many such examples, which is why I often looked in on the classes.
There is my weakness/neurosis. I DO know that others are sometimes being dishonest or hypocritical or something else that should warrant my ceasing to discuss anything with them, yet I feel compelled to EXPOSE them for it, since I sometimes can see that others do NOT recognize their lack of honesty. I do that only if it happens during an interaction with myself (i.e., I’m not on a mission to rid the world of such evil-doers… ), but I guess MY own insight will be improved if I can either be truthful about why I feel so compelled to expose/“beat” them, and/or if I can learn to say “whatever” more easily…
Anyway, I’m all for honesty and it’s the lack of it I sometimes see that sometimes motivates me to do what I do (such as starting this thread)…
On the sage advice of an ILP mate, I had planned to let this issue die, seeing as I had already presented an air-tight case re. a specific individual (though, once again, my points apply to many people). However, since said individual keeps alluding to my points in other posts (in an oh-so-indirect-hence-feminine way ), I thought I would raise them again, in a direct manner.
BTW, for all those keeping score, making derisive comments/references to certain points does not, on its own, contradict nor negate such points. In many cases, it actually buttresses them…
To answer your challenge, ile first give you the basics of my philosophy, which will give you an idea of how I “should” act.
I am a Determinist, no free will.
Pleasure/avoidance of pain is the driving force for all human action.
The better one is aware of the causal relationships in nature, the more pleasure one can potentially obtain.
There are no morals and ethics, everyone strives to better only themselves by nature. More pleasure, less pain. Pleasure is any “good” feeling, pain is any “bad” feeling. Individual trumps the collective, BUT society is inevitable, so we might as well find the most pleasurable form of society. 1 way to do this is through social programing and teaching people to find pleasure in absolute morality and ethics. This will cause less pain in the world. But this contradicts #3 above, it is lessening awareness of the actuall workings of nature, so it is lowering potential pleasure.
The alternative is to have very efficient enforcement of laws. This will allow people not to be dumbed down by absolute morality and ethics, but they will still act in accordance to what is best for society because of the natural desire to avoid pain.
Now, all of the above I am very passionate about… I dont need to do anything for #1. #2 I do at all times, I have no choice in the matter… For #3, I am always seeking more knowledge. Thats why im here. Thats why I always ask people to critique my philosophy, so that I may learn and test and strenghthen the integrity of my ideas. For #4, I would love to do something… I would love to go campaigning against religion and all other forms of absolute morality. I would love to become an influential person such that I may better fight my battle against absolute morality. But I am only 19, and in college. And morality is apparently very popular these days… So I have a big task ahead of me. But even now I am trying to create change in the world. In the only way I can… by arguing. That is another reason I am here, to try as best I can to convince people of the folly of absolute morality and ethics. And this same goes for #5. I can do little in my present state, but it is my objective.
Have you heard of the term:Fundamental Attribution Error?
Take out your books doctor, you’ll gonna need them now.
But what exactly are you insinuating? Considering this: “Whoever wants to be thought deep, strives for obfuscation, whoever is deep strives for clarity” Maybe you should live up to your own expectations.
Name one specificity. Only one will do.
I’m waiting.
Is science about specifics or about extrapolating universal ‘truths’ from small samples?
How does psychology make its assertions?
What is logic?
What is ‘reality’?
True.
I think Nietzsche must have been suffering from a mental disorder, as well.
He made broad interpretations with little scientific backing, he mentioned famous names, he brought up controversial topics and he was not politically correct?
Then he fell ill to a brain disease.
Sounds like he was sick.
Well, compared to his healthy German compatriots that is.
What does your book say about his type?
I’m sure that if you can offer a diagnosis that spans 500 kilometers you can offer one that spans centuries.
Make one then.
Why doctor you appear to be becoming obsessed with me.
Could be the early signs of a dysfunction.
I’m sure he, as well as many others, suffered from a terrible personality disorder.
Are you the personification of health?
I want to know what I’m trying to live up to.
Are you saying some topics are off-limit because they will offend and because idiots will choose to attack the opinion maker rather than the opinion?
Are you saying that the fact that most cannot remain objective and discuss certain topics abstractly, because they are burdened with moral and social programming, and that the ones that attempt to open such issues up for debate are guilty of something?
Are you proposing self-censorship and see disease in anything that does not discipline itself to socially acceptable behaviors and topics?
So if I want to talk about race, then I can only do so my mouthing the popular opinions of my culture and time or else I am guilty of something vile?
Is that your professional diagnosis?
Keep talking
Is philosophy about being empathic or is it about finding ‘truth’ or power?
Are you saying that if certain things about reality hurt a few or the many that this reality should be covered up or censored or denied access to debate and consideration?
Are we socializing here or are we comparing intellectual notes and opinions?
There is only one way to find strength. You face it and deal with it.
Sweeping it under the carpet doesn’t make it go away.
And you talk about hypocrisy?
Your argument against my views is that they hurt some people, and you call yourself a thinker?
Life is the test, not some multiple-choice pamphlet.
When an environment remains relatively stable, there’s not much ‘adapting’ is there?
What causes difference is necessity.
Growth is a product of a challenge. Intelligence is such an adaptation to necessity.
Different levels of challenging environment create different levels of necessity and in turn produces different levels of alteration.
Evolution.
How will he be “able to show†and who will decide if what he showed was sufficiently convincing?
There’s a reason certain groups dominate over others. It wasn’t only historical accident it was a consequence of environmental factors that produced effects.
For example darker skin is a product of environments with certain climates.
There’s a reason for this differentiation.
But why do we only assume that the differences remain on the surface.
Physicality is a manifestation of inner workings. Not only does my psychology affect my outward appearance but my experiential past and my genetic past and my mind is displayed in how I look.
A man is the sum of his past.
Historical past determines potential, environmental past determines attainment of potential or where within the boundaries of potential you fall.
How other react is their problem.
I am here to voice opinion.
When I agree with someone or with the popular sentiment then I have nothing to say.
It is when I disagree that I am driven to express my views.
Who decides if my methods are convincing? YOU?!
Or did you conduct a survey, Mr. Proof?
You can only say that they weren’t convincing to you, even if you write that you agree with a lot of it.
The thread that got you all hot and bothered progressed in a way that actually proved the very things that were denied.
You wanted proof, there it is.
It was written in an Aphoristic style so as to encapsulate my opinions with laconic efficiency.
Fleshing them out was left for the conversation itself.
But from what you say, certain topics inevitably deteriorate into name-calling. What I call feminine debating.
This is the way culture censors thought.
But why do they deteriorate?
Emotion, perhaps? Ego?
If I would like to discuss race or gender abstractly, why does this mean I have to be psychologically evaluated as a consequence?
If I were to talk about cars, why am I not evaluated?
I ALMOST got sucked into another fruitless discussion with you. But what would I prove? That I can keep repeating the same things and use your own words against you to “prove” that your take on matters is so highly subjective that it doesn’t even fit into the realm of “reality”? Been there, done that. And I am not going to be goaded into “proving” myself to you–in response to some of your questions, I’ll take a page from your book: “Do I have to do all the work for you?” Look and ye shall find…
You’re boring Satyr. Fascinating but boring. The boring part is the fact that you wilfully distort and/or ignore what is written to you. However, since I AM obsessesed with you somewhat (yeah, I admit it…then again, I’m famous in my hospital for willingly taking on the clients/patients that no one else wants to touch…it’s part of my nature), I’ll be a bit hypocritical and clear up ONE thing, lest anyone read your fantastical (i.e., not grounded in reality) interpretation of my post/example:
I did NOT say that debates on, say, race and intelligence are off limits. Sheesh…All I said was that you know darn well that these are “inflammatory” topics, thus you might want to try a tact that might actually WORK. That is, if the vast majority of people shut you out for WHATEVER reason, what good are your posts? You’re mentally masturbating…woo hoo… You claim to be “elitist.” Why? Because you have a good vocabulary, are well read, and can express yourself well at times? If no one takes you seriously because of the many flaws in your arguments, ALL OF WHICH you refuse to acknowledge, even when those flaws are pointed out by people of equal or superior intelligence to you, that doesn’t make you an elitist. It makes you rigid and unable to adapt and function properly in society. Knowing that makes the rest of your writings “interesting” but not compelling. Just as hearing a schizophrenic tell me that he is Satan’s twin brother is fascinating, but he’s not convincing me he’s Satan’s brother. The fact that you cannot understand WHY your failure to see reality as much of the rest of the world does is “proof” of your lack of contact with reality–and before you distort THAT statement, I am NOT referring to your beliefs so eloquently (usually) written here and across every other philosophy board you find; I’m referring to how you interpret what happens HERE ON THESE BOARDS. Given how you’ve acted and interacted here, I’ve got no problem with those posts I presented on the DSM-IV.
YOU might not get that, but I’m hoping OTHERS do. I’m hoping they see you as an extreme example of the kind of stuff they might be guilty of doing if they are not careful (“they” including myself, of course). You yourself stated that extremes make the point one is trying to convey all the clearer. Thank you for being a beacon of clarity, Satyr…
I will give you credit, though, Satyr. The one thing you HAVE been able to do in the “sexual tensions” thread is to get two people to play the game exactly as YOU want, even when YOU stray from it. I TRIED, but realized it was futile (see anywhere in my posts to you for clear-cut proof of why YOU make it so…). Somenewname, despite being insulted by you a few times (not sure if you interpreted some of her remarks as “insulting”–you ARE hypersensitive to such things, we know–and were thus merely responding in kind), managed to keep her civil tone and keep on keeping. That is impressive, Satyr: I’m inferring that she sees something in you worth putting up with the crap you pull with everyone else (almost all of whom apparently simply grow tired of beating their heads against the brick wall that is Satyr)–the avoidance of direct questions, the distortion or ignoring of others’ words, the putting of words into others’ mouths, the “use 1,000 words when only 10 would suffice, and still really say nothing” tactics, and, of course, the great hypocrisy of Satyr (i.e., claim that EVERYONE ELSE is doing what you in fact do). She still persists despite all of that. And you have thus proven that you can get someone to act exactly as you would like, despite the way YOU yourself act. Impressive.
Of course, the fact that you predict that people will get frustrated or tired with you is nothing special, since ANY child can get someone pissed off at them by doing what you do (but kids are far more simple/direct in their tactics). But to get someone like somenewname to play by your rules as you have is quite the feat. Detrop is the other one, but that doesn’t count b/c he already shares your views–like I mentioned before, preaching to the choir is far less impressive than converting them…btw, detrop, this is not meant as a shot against you; if I hadn’t mentioned your name, you or Satyr might have raised you as another example of someone who is not totally frustrated/bored/disgusted with Satyr’s tactics).
Of course, Satyr, I’m referring only to the sexual tensions thread (and this one; and, I guess, that other web site where you tried your luck again and failed…), since these are the only places I’ve interacted with you, and so I am writing based on what I’ve OBSERVED. And as a reminder, the DSM-IV is based in large part on OBSERVED behaviours, or inferences of internal processes based on observable behaviours (at least the diagnoses I presented).
That you can think without using your books and without being affected by your training?
Just a guess.
But you have a degree which proves you can think for yourself, right?
What did I “wilfully distort�
How do you know what I am wilfully doing?
A little paranoia there, Doctor Internet.
Hey I’m supposed to be the paranoid one.
I guess a neo-con can accuse someone that doubts the U.S. had benevolent motives in Iraq of being paranoid and suffering from a mental disorder.
Because, of course, what people think their motives are or what they say they are, is what they are….right Doctor psyche?
If I’ve misinterpreted your words, like you often do mine, then set me straight. That’s why we conversate.
This obsession with finding ulterior motives is all yours. Funny given what you said about my character type, don’t you think?
But this offers you a nice way to insinuate greatness without proving it and for leaving the debate without losing credibility. Take it.
I asked for a specificity or some measure of what defines a non-generality. Just so I can adhere to the rule you place forth.
Only one will do. One will be enough. ONE…
When science says: Humans are not a monogamous species, for example, are they generalizing based on a common behavioural trait, should they then also mention that some humans do manage to lead monogamous lives despite their natural inclinations for a myriad of reasons, most of which are cultural and which inhibit the free expression of instinctual drives?
When science says: What goes up must come down, or when common sense says so, is this not a set of rules based on a finite sampling of reality and its predictable dependability, or is it a declaration of a transcending ‘truth’?
What exactly is not ‘subjective’?
Just because the collective soul of humanity, at it experiences life on this planet, has come to common beliefs and logical rules it calls reality does not mean that it is anything more than that.
Given the timeline of the other thread, where exactly was I the one that debased the discussion?
The evidence is there. Point to where exactly I debased the thread.
By whom and why was this redirection perpetrated? Who instigated and how?
How was it achieved?
Saying that the subject matter ‘invites’ this reaction is only a copout and it places the responsibility on the other.
Glad to see you take responsibility for your actions and your life, unlike me.
So, if I want to discuss anything controversial, in that it might be against popular opinions, this automatically places my on the Bulls eye? How convenient.
Where exactly have you disproved the possibility that I may be correct, beyond your victory speeches and the communal backslapping which reinforces the veracity of popular sentiments?
I proposed an explanation for certain behaviors I saw around me.
I chose a topic that interested me. I would have talked about men more but they are a more intimate creature to me because I share in their chemistry.
So I chose the unknown to dissect. In that case women.
Do not men always explore the unknown or the alien?
My interests revolve around the human condition. If you look at all the topics I try to deconstruct, they all have to do with humanity.
Gender and sex is a major part of the human condition. I would go as far as to say it is the central theme for all human endeavors.
I explain why in many of my essays.
Whether their [males, females] behaviors are based on social effects or genetic predispositions was up for debate and I was willing to entertain any hypothesis if it remained on-topic.
I made certain assessments of how women prefer to discuss things and what social strategies they utilize to become relevant and effective and how they covet power.
Are there exceptions to these rules? Yes, but they were not the focus of the topic.
First you find a rule and then find the exceptions and explain why they are so and why they occurred.
The thread played out in the exact way I had predicted.
A female or a feminine mind that may be male in gender, enters the discussion and it is turned into a psychological assessment of the topic starter.
The subject ceases to be abstract and it becomes personal, thusly bringing emotion, sex, morality, social convention, instincts, and cultural influence into the discussion.
This sends a warning to anyone wishing to express certain views and start certain discussions. It says: ‘He who dares open this can of worms and he who strays from the current cultural and social norms and beliefs will be treated thusly.’
I, personally, didn’t mind this turn. I’ve gotten used to it and I can adjust my methods and demeanour to the crowed I’m in. I also enjoy seeing my views in real world environments and watch how they play out.
Suddenly the males, which were up to that point willing to maintain a certain civility and deal with the subject abstractly, become sarcastic, patronizing, insulting and feigning manipulation. In their desire to appease the female mind and live up to the standards she serves as a gatekeeper for, they backtrack, re-evaluate and misdirect. They excuse themselves for being drawn in and shame is brought in as a deciding factor.
Isn’t shame a cultural construct or is it instinctive?
I become the instigator and they the wronged in direct contradiction to the timeline. This is called the rewriting of history to serve the needs of the many.
It also serves as a mechanism for saving the need for victimization.
What is weak wants to appear as the unjustly wronged so that its aggression can be morally acceptable. Provocation is sought in the other to explain an instinctive reaction.
Here we see how memetic and genetic forces often come into contact with each other and how the balances of power are resolved by the mind.
Genes scream for expression, the meme places restrictions to these expressions so clever mental excuses methods are utilized to explain them or resolve the conflict.
The conversation turns into a long-distance psychological evaluation of another. Me.
End of topic.
The threat has been ‘dealt’ with. The cancer quarantined.
The sheeple saved from the wild where wolves roam. The shepherds care requires sacrifices and discipline. He must be paid for his vigilance.
A barn costs money.
Certain fields are off-limits. Certain authorities beyond reproach.
Morals keep the law subliminally.
Existence within a herd demands a respect for all, including the undeserving.
Without this rule, the social unity would fall apart.
Distinction will be intolerable and confined to within certain limitations.
Those that will not or cannot follow these basic rules will be labeled criminals or dysfunctional. They will be incarcerated, quarantined, treated, rehabilitated, re-socialized, retrained, domesticated.
Then peace will return to the fold.
If the idea cannot be eradicated the idea maker will be. He will be humiliated and victory will be proclaimed so that peace and stability can be returned to.
Quite an ingenuous tactic if you think about it.
What a wonderful social tool you are Doctor.
See how little you understand me?
Who says I want the majority to do anything? Who says I care about any majority? Here you are exposing your own desires and projecting them unto me.
I am after the distinct mind, the exceptional. The sheeple can ignore me and go back to regurgitating and masticating in the fields of conformity.
Free-spirits is what I’m looking for. Not well-trained dogs or herbivors.
Oooh.
No instinctual behaviour here, Doctor.
I never claimed to be intelligent. What reference I made to it was in response to one of your friends that found it necessary to mention his numerical intelligence, in that casual matter-of-fact way that is soooo telling.
Besides what is intelligence? Is knowledge intelligence?
How do you know how I “function†in society? Have you been following me?
How do you know where I’ve been, what I’ve done and how I’ve done it?
What is “properly� Define what that word means to you.
Does it entail a subtle rule of behaviour? Does it limit personal action? Does it direct behaviour?
When we train our dogs to act “properly†what are we doing to the dog?
How do you know what I understand? Are you a mind-reader?
“How I’ve acted†is in direct relation to how others have acted towards me?
I’ve adjusted my behaviour to the other. When I was patronized, I returned the favour.
When I was insulted and dismissed I did likewise to them.
I enjoy both the abstract, polite discourse and the base animalistic verbal sparring debate.
I’m flexible.
If you look more carefully you will see that I still respond to some, which have kept their behaviours and emotions in check and didn’t, except for a few slip-ups, give into impulse. They explain their points of view I reciprocate in kind.
‘Reality’? Are you referring to the commonly accepted and agreed upon construct you call reality?
Once upon a time reality meant that the world was flat.
Some peoples ‘reality’ means that there’s a place called heaven and hell and a guy called God.
What would one think about a self-described psychology teacher diagnosing others over the internet with no personal contact with them, the same one that stated numerous times that he wasn’t psychoanalyzing anyone, then dispelling a diagnosis over the internet?
No instinct there, Doctor. You are all reason.
No emotionality in you at all. No male ego there. No instinct.
I ask again:
Do you know what Fundamental Attribution Error is?
What exactly causes you to diagnose me as someone seeking converts?
I seek equals or betters to learn from. You ain’t it.
If, along the way, some begin being influenced by what I’ve said, then that’s a bonus.
I am human and I find some pride and satisfaction in human instinctual predispositions.
I try not to let it go to my head though.
You are just a common run-o-the-mill mind that has learned his place, how to “function†within societyâ€, has “adapted†and accepted the parameters of acceptable thinking and now serves as a memetic conduit.
You judge yourself and others in accordance with the cultural, social and religious standards you’ve inherited and you repeat the words of your accepted Bible verbatim, even while pretending that you rarely do so.
Like I said, if you had been born in another time in another place you would be performing rain-dances or exorcizing spirits or distinguishing witches from ‘normal people’. You would call it ‘modern’ and belittle the past as “antiquated†and inferior. You would be imitating and regurgitating the beliefs of your nation and your time.
You would have been concocting balms and salves concoctions that cure disease and wallowing in the admiration of your peers.
But philosophy is more about the search for transcending truths or ways towards self-empowerment.
What moral and cultural prejudices exist during a specific historical period are only relevant as far as finding them out and restricting their distortions.
Philosophy is about timelessness.
I ask again: If nature or environment created physical differentiation leading to distinction, such as gender, pigmentation, height, weight, shape, why do you assume that there were no mental, psychological alterations, as well?
Nature is frugal, what necessity does a different gender serve? In this case we can logically assume that females were the first gender out of which the male emerged.
We can both agree that certain effects are caused by the domination of one over the other, both in gender and in race, but why did this original domination occur at all and how?
We can say that technology is the great equalizer or from my perspective the great leveler of man. It not only bridges geographical distances which makes it possible for tribal or racial mingling and which leads to the blurring of the lines which differentiate them but it also erases the value of physicality in general. This makes it possible for a 120 lbs woman to wear a gun and become threatening or for an out of shape man to suit in a chair and launch ballistic missiles and call himself a warrior.
We have thus far only described a phenomenon, no value judgments have been made as to if this is preferable or not. Value judgments have only been insinuated through language choices. This is normal.
Was it not technology that enabled the emancipation of women and brought about the possibility for racial equality?
Why was this not feasible in the past when technology was not as effective in eradicating physical and mental differences?
We can both agree that reason distinguishes mankind and makes it possible for us to go beyond the limitations of our physical being and redefine ourselves other than through gender or sex or race or anything physical but in what way is this possible today, as what humanity is today?
Are we but evolutionary steppingstones to a higher being, an ‘overman’?
Should we now defame and degrade all the forces that enabled us to dominate on earth and label them ‘evil’ now that there remain no accessible frontiers and we are confined to a limited shrinking space which demands complacency, cooperation, tolerance and docile psychologies?
“Failed†Doctor?
What is your diagnosis as to my motives?
It is exactly that you now write from what you’ve observed that you show your true mental and observational qualities.
Without your books you lack a refinement.
You attribute motives wrongly and use yourself as an example to draw conclusions.
Where have I “failed�
Failed at what?
What do you think I was trying to do?
I snuck a look at your post during a break so I can respond only quickly/briefly (well, relatively speaking) while the thoughts are still fresh in my mind.
Here are a few questions for you:
What purpose does responding to you in detail serve, given everything you’ve (not) said/done throughout our correspondences? It’s like playing tennis against a jello wall (might as well switch metaphors).
One thing I need to respond to is your calling me out for “diagnosing” you. For professional reasons, I would never “officially” diagnose you or anybody else in this or any other non-professional manner/setting. I posted a list of traits/behaviours that you could look at and compare. They are available to anyone. And until I posted them, no, I was NOT “psychoanalyzing” you–I repeated that assertion b/c you obviously don’t understand what it really means yet you accused me of doing it more than once. Posting those traits does NOT reflect “psychoanalysis”–I then posted the “psychodynamic interpretation” for more insight into the topic. That was just a bonus. But the list of traits were presented for comparative purposes; I made no presumptions about your life OUTSIDE of this forum–I ASKED you about that but you declined to respond. Fear is a powerful motivator, I know; you DO provide compelling “proof” of that. I won’t deny that. So please stop “whining” about my posting that information. It’s available on the web for ANYONE to access, and I could have easily put the link only…I decided to be generous and let EVERYONE see these traits. And they are relevant to another discussion started recently, so I can direct people to those pages at another date. YOU can continue to whine about/allude to that as often as possible. I guess I really struck a nerve with that. I was referring to online personas (cf. my comments on such matters in said thread) but I guess people take things whatever way is most relevant.
“Willful distortions.” That was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I’ve explained things MANY TIMES, always consistently. How else would you describe your refusal to accept what I’ve written about MY motives, MY thoughts, MY acceptance of some things you’ve written (and a whole bunch of other things you distort)? I’d love to see your “fascinating” answer to that one.
I have to go now, but when I return, I will explain why you are either trying to convert others, or mentally masturbating, or being the biggest hypocrite in the world. It’s all based on YOUR words and YOUR actions. I am not presuming such things, I am reflecting back what YOU have written and professed.
I love how you complain about me not answering direct questions and then you actually do just that.
I’ve offered direct questions pertaining to subject matters.
You love talking about me and my motives and my style and my psychology.
Who’s the hypocrite?
Which question, relevant to the subject matter, did I not answer?
But of course Doctor psyche.
Your motives are nothing but noble just like the US’s is in Iraq.
I’m just paranoid, is all.
You are my benevolent hero.
No instinct in you at all. No posturing and exhibitions of self-worth. No competitive maleness at all.
You only mention your credentials and your ‘class’ over and over again, just like that. For no reason.
You whip out the text book to display and to remind and, perhaps, to intimidate.
I guess this impresses the many.
Have you ever psychoanalyzed yourself?
Are you used to others deferring to your ‘expertise’.
Tell me does a philosophy degree mean that one is a philosopher?
Answer that one, at least.
Are we discussing issues or simply exchanging understanding of other people’s beliefs when we talk about Kant or Plato or whoever?
Should we express personal opinion and then mention others who support our positions or simple offer our understanding of their positions as evidence that we are thinking?
Name one specific objective opinion. ONE. Name one specificity. ONE.
Yes it struck a nerve. A nerve of disgust. As in: ‘The nerve of that guy.’
I think you’re exhibiting your ‘professionalism’ as we speak.
That and your childish declarations of victory. What are we competing for?
Who decides the victor? The majority?
#2) is a question?
Are those the type of questions I didn’t answer?
You are the one that started alluding to my motives.
I just followed suit.
You talk about my motives and then bitch when I infer yours?
I guess when you do it it’s psychoanalysis, when I do it its paranoia.
I’m tingling with anticipation.
I’m sure your speculations will not be based on generalizations or the hypothetical.
I also like your selective reading skills.
Why did you ignore this part?
Was #4 also a question.
I think I’ll be accused of not answering that one either.
Are you more interested in talking about me or do you actually have any interest in issues?
Oy…I try to throw off a quick post during a break and get slammed for my misuse of “questions”…normally I write “questions and comments,” but this time I slipped up. I apologize.
As for the rest of your post, let’s address some of the points quickly. If I fail to address something, by all means remind me of it and I MAY respond. But please understand that my failure to respond is due to two things: 1) Lack of time (I have numerous jobs, a wife, two girls, and a poodle…I don’t have all the time in the world to engage in jello tennis matches–if I needed more than 4-5 hours of sleep per night, I’d never be able to communicate with you… ).
BTW, here’s some advice: If you want to stop frustrating/boring/insulting/turning off people, stop generalizing so much. Stop interpreting events ABC as if EVERYBODY involved did the SAME thing. To wit, SOME of your interpretation of what went down in the ST thread MAY have SOME truth with respect to SOME people in SOME small parts (I guess you’re not TOTALLY disconnected from reality… ). But you take that and make BLANKET STATEMENTS about how EVERYBODY acted. And then, when I CLEARLY EXPLAIN to you why your interpretation was 100% wrong, at least with respect to myself (I let others do their part as it pertains to them…or they are smarter than I am and simply hand in their jello racket…), you fail to acknowledge that. A REAL man–at least in my world–admits when he is wrong. A REAL man does not let fear or an overly fragile sense of self prevent him from owning up to his mistakes, especially when there is no real consequence to doing so, other than showing that he has the courage and true strength to acknowledge his imperfections.
Now on to your post:
See above, as well as my MANY posts where you did not answer simply/directly or even at all. More important, I see the game you play (I’m going to keep calling it “jello tennis”[size=75]TM[/size]…) and why engage in a game that you cannot “win” (yes, I treat this as a form of “competition”–either a game of persuasion (most people do) or, in your case, a game of “victory” in the sense that I point out the flaws in your arguments and/or interpretations. Childish? Perhaps. Common? Certainly, for those honest enough to admit it. But–and this is the most important thing IMNSHO–I DO what I write about in these forums. Any mental masturbation I may potentially engage in here is, I believe, off-set by my DOING in the 3-D world, and sometimes even online (e.g., if I give some information/words that someone might find PRACTICALLY useful).
Again, to be clear, the only reasons I would NOT answer a question of yours is that a) you set the tone by refusing to do so several times before, and b) two words: jello tennis. However, since I am a RESPECTFUL man, I AM responding in a bit of detail to your recent persistent posts–it would be disrespectful to do otherwise, though I DID clearly state in the other thread that YOU could determine the outcome/continuation of our discussions by the nature of your responses to my earlier post…YOU responded in an “inappropriate/insufficient” manner (don’t ask me to define the terms…Do I have to do all the work for you? It’s all in that post, as well as your response to it…check it out).
do I have to do all the work for you? It’s all in the thread…check it out.
Wow. You get Kant, Einstein, et al., and I get the US in Iraq…thanks…
And I never said you were PARANOID, thus your sarcastic comment must reflect something you feel about yourself…
This goes back to my third paragraph, as well as so many other things I’ve written to you. Did I EVER claim NOT to do such things? Have I not explained how important EMOTIONS are in our lives? Why do you think I use terms such as “victory” in my posts. Of COURSE part of this is what you describe. It didn’t START OUT that way, but then things took a turn. Granted, they took a turn when Shyster got involved, but that is why I mentioned before that you are a fool or naive to think that your inflammatory posts would NOT bring about certain reactions–especially since they apparently have done so before, according to YOUR OWN words.
Of course, I’m not excusing Shyster’s approach with you now, NOR DID I EVER DO SO. I even cut and posted the relevant posts to show you HOW WRONG YOU WERE IN YOUR INTERPRETATION OF HOW THAT PART OF THE THREAD WENT DOWN. In my world, a REAL man would have simply written something such as “oops. You’re right. my bad. Let’s move on.” A coward would simply ignore the reality and shuffle away from the topic. Not Satyr, however. SATYR CONTINUES to make the SAME CLAIMS over and over. Jello tennis anyone? At LEAST fess up to THAT Satyr…show me there’s SOME hope for you…
Jello tennis anyone? As for your last question, NO. A PhD in psychology and registration with the college does NOT make one a “real psychologist.” Instead of ONLY mentally masturbating, I let my track record in the real world speak for itself. I’ve got the degrees to back me up on paper, and the consistently outstanding student and dean (or dean reps) evaluations to back me up in the classroom, and the esteem of my colleagues and superiors and subordinates at the hospitals, and the impeccable track (court) record in child protection services. Now, those things matter to me insofar as they say I am the best (or close to it) at what I strive to do. I’ve always been that way (except for school–didn’t really cared that much about it in most cases…just did what was needed to get top grades). BUT, before you start distorting that and saying something about sheeple or slave to society or whatever else, the reason being the best (MY best, which ranks me pretty high up there, according to “objective” accounts, as mentioned above) is important to me is that I have chosen a field in which I CAN MAKE AN IMPACT. I CAN TRY TO HELP OTHERS. I CAN TRY TO SPREAD MY VIEWS ON HOW WE CAN MAKE A SLIGHTLY BETTER WORLD TO THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.
Those are some of my goals, Satyr. You can sneer at them and claim they are motivated by fear (jello tennis anyone? ), but that’s your gig. As long as I know I am trying to do my best to improve my tiny corner of the universe, I sleep well at night (for at least 4-5 hours…). And most important, as long as I can look at my two little girls and know that I am doing my best to make the world a little better for them, and am doing my best to help them grow to be all that they can be (or all they WANT to be), I can take pride in what I do. THAT counteracts any mental masturbation I may engage in here.
You see, Satyr, when I or others reveal a bit of our REAL lives, to help show why we are NOT merely mentally masturbating, your reaction is odd. Take a look at it. I am not going to postulate what causes you to react that way. Only YOU know the real answer to that (though it may or may not be repressed too deep for you to access). But anyone with enough experience with REAL PEOPLE in the REAL WORLD would probably make a few inferences about what your reactions mean about you. Why is that relevant? It’s relevant because your POSTS are basically all about YOU. They are based on how YOU see the world. And when you try to engage people in discussions on the web, YOU come out.
Deny as much as you would like, Satyr, but when things turned sour between you and Shyster, you started changing your tune to EVERYBODY involved (whoops…going to refer to only myself…your tone with ME changed). Check it out. Remember, Satyr, I called BOTH YOU AND SHYSTER on your language/style, as I’ve pointed out several times…jello tennis anyone? I clearly mentioned that you were REACTING to her tone and I was NOT going to change my impression of you just because SHE wrote what she did–I told you this several times…jello tennis anyone? I said I would ask simple, straightforward questions to allow YOU to clear the air of any misconceptions people may have had of you…jello tennis anyone? YOU made presumptions about my questions that were NOT accurate…jello tennis anyone? YOU refused to answer some of my questions directly…jello tennis anyone? YOU started acting in a way with me that suggested YOU were getting defensive and displacing whatever thoughts/feelings you had toward Shyster (and maybe Tabula) toward me…jello tennis anyone? It’s all there in B&W, Satyr…jello tennis anyone?
You tell me…
Hmmm…how about AVOIDING GENERALITIES and DISTORTIONS? See above for examples. Writing things such as “Many men…” or even “most women…” would help.
Re-read your many threads and the nerve of disgust might dissipate, or perhaps be re-directed to where it belongs…
Nah to the first part…the metre’s not running here…as for the other parts, see above…
For the most part I am pointing out your BEHAVIOURS, and my comments on them are CONSISTENT with what you actually DO IN THESE THREADS. What you infer about MY motives are NOT consistent with what I do here. THAT’s the difference. And I’ve mentioned that MANY times…tennis jello anyone?
Lol. I CLEARLY WRITE that I am throwing a few thoughts out during a break, and you try to turn that into an insult to me? Ya crack me up, Satyr…jello tennis anyone?
I’ll respond to that and my explanation in the following post. They deserve their own post. Besides, I need some water in between sets of jello tennis with Satyr…
Satyr, ALL people from Quebec are smarmy, ignorant, inferior assholes. Evolution can account for this, blah blah blah.
Now, if I say this to Quebecers, in that very manner (or maybe flower it up a little bit), am I not an ignorant or extremely narcississtic fool to believe that they SHOULDN’T react negatively? If I walk up to a parent and say, “You know, your child is really ugly,” should I not expect a negative reaction? Saying “I am merely stating the truth from a disinterested stance, so why would you get upset? Debate with me what I have said on merely the merits of my reasoning. Let’s ask the next 100 people if your child is not the ugliest baby they’ve ever seen,” or “Let’s ask the next 100 Canadians what they think of Quebecers” does not cut it.
The only people who might NOT expect such negative reactions are psychopaths, narcissists, people with anti-social or schizoid (and perhaps borderline, though they usually DO know how much their words hurt) personality disorders, people with severe mental/psychiatric disorders (e.g., schizophrenia), people who are “mentally challenged,” (mentally retarded, which is NOT a derogatory term but an actual clinical one), or what I personally term “socially retarded” (if they do not neatly fall into any of those categories). This is a “fact” that we have observed over and over in countless cases. More to YOUR liking, it is something I have observed many times. So, when I see what you DO here and how you REACT, I start mapping your BEHAVIOURS onto my clinical and personal and academic experiences and understanding and arrive at an inference or two.
Now, YOU claim to think mental masturbation (MM) is useless (or something like that…correct me if I’m wrong), thus one would reasonably infer that your countless postings are not for that purpose (unless you are a hypocrite–start taking your pick, Satyr). And let’s face it: you post the same things HERE, and in that other forum Tabula linked us to, and god knows where else. So far it’s looking like MM, unless you are trying to SAY something (someone in that other forum asked the essential question to your posts: “so what?”). Why would someone write SO MUCH? Most people I think would assume it’s to make a point. And what is a point made without any follow-up or call to arms or attempts at personifying such points in the real world? MM.
Now, maybe you DO do something outside of the computer realm, which is why I’ve ASKED you about it several times. Only YOU know why you are so afraid to answer. Don’t cop out and say it’s not relevant. It IS relevant, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned so many times. If YOU are too afraid to answer, then one might infer that you do NOT DO anything about what you write, thus making it MM.
Now, I could be wrong. Maybe you ARE different. Maybe you are, as you claim, merely throwing those thousands of lines out there in the hopes of finding an “equal” or “superior” to interact with. Okay, then what? MM together? I could be wrong, but your jello tennis all over the place suggests to me that you have not been able to find such a person (must be a lonely world…). I’ve seen some highly intelligent and insightful people here, so I’d be surprised if at least ONE of them couldn’t meet your high standards. But let’s return to my example above. If you REALLY want to meet such people, why do you risk alienating them with your inflammatory language and then “inappropriate” responses as I detailed in the previous post (and elsewhere)? Have YOU determined that the only people who are your “equals” are those who can suppress all emotions and react purely rationally? If so, YOU have failed miserably b/c your posts are FULL OF such emotions. You might claim to be playing at the level of others, but that is just a cop-out. You appear to be as emotional and prone to bouts of “irrationality” as the rest of us humans.
Yet you profess to be so much more. Fine, but your ACTIONS belie such claims. And that would make you a hypocrite, no? Or, you can pick any of the “disorders” from above. Your choice.
But the MOST IMPORTANT question to ME is, [size=150]if I know you are any of the things I’ve written in this post, what motivation do I have for playing jello tennis with you?[/size]
If you can answer that last question, I might continue conversing with you. Otherwise, please stop making patently false/absurd claims about me that ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I WRITE/DO HERE AND/OR IN THE REAL WORLD (especially when I spend so much time “PROVING” that your claims are wrong–something I have yet to see YOU do). Remember, that is the difference between the two of us.
Until you realize and acknowledge this key difference, conversing with you is a sad game of jello tennis. I don’t like to play futile games. I’ve made my points with you time and again. Every time you claim that I have not, or you claim without foundation that I am doing something hypocritical (that I haven’t already acknowledged myself), is just another volley in your game of jello tennis. Please find someone else to waste their time with you, since jello tennis and MM take up far too much time. I have many things to DO in this world.
And, sorry to burst your bubble, Satyr, but I do these things in a way that allows me to work far less than most professionals, and without the many rules/constraints/hassles that many professionals have to put up with every day. I have a GREAT schedule and am in control of much of my work hours, and can say/do what I want to say/do much of the time. I LIKE my field. And I make GOOD money that allows my wife not to have to work but raise our kids in a stable environment, living in a VERY good neighbourhood, and sending our kids to one of the best (public) schoold around (which is literally a stone’s throw from our house). All this and I am very short walking distance from my family members.
You see, Satyr, it IS possible to have so much (all of which I’ve WORKED FOR myself) and NOT give up your individuality/creativity/morals/beliefs/desires etc. (TOO much…I STILL can’t go to work in my underwear, though I do often DO my work attired as such… ). You can call that what you want and you can make fun of my pride in my accomplishments all that you want. Guess what? That is much more telling about YOU than it is me.
And, to pre-empt you, YES, writing about such personal matters IS a form of “bragging.” But I don’t “brag” for the sake of it. I’m doing it to make a POINT. From what I’ve read of your posts, you seem to suggest that attaining any “success” means we’ve whored ourselves or sacrificed part of ourselves, etc. Again, I would LOVE to know how you avoid doing this. But I can tell you how I avoid it. I’m still a big kid at the age of 36. I will still say/do things my friends and neighbours (or students) can’t believe I am saying/doing. I am still a pseudo-hedonist. I still ENJOY acting all silly and goofy with my girls or friends and not really caring what others think. Yet I learned to adapt to my environment enough to enable me to enter into the system to reap all of the benefits I can get from it without losing my soul. Part of that adaptation is knowing my limitations. I will NEVER become a professor b/c I couldn’t put up with all the bullshit and the politics…that’s a “weakness” of mine. I’m more inclined to tell people where to go (and have). But instead of letting that HINDER me, I used my awareness of my foibles to help carve out a career that suits me fine. And it allows me to enjoy my FAMILY more than most working stiffs, while allowing them to not have to worry about the kinds of crap I had to worry about growing up poor. But I also get to instill in them VALUES–SELF-RESPECT…EMPATHY…A DESIRE TO “DO GOOD.” Mock any of that as you see fit. This big man-child is pretty comfortable with it…
Last response because you are boring the shit out of me.
If I wanted to sit around and listen to someone talk about all the stuff he owns or his ‘beautiful’ family or his neighbourhood or his job I would have went next door to my neighbours.
Are you saying that a subject matter is to be evaluated by how few people it offends?
Or are you saying one should lie and say that someone’s kid is beautiful when it looks like a donkey?
We aren’t here to socialize and make friends we are here to exchange points of view with no censorship or social anxieties.
Are we here to spread good cheer and happiness or are we here to explore reality no matter how vile and ugly it is?
I believe I see your problem. You think discourse should adhere to politeness standards and language and beliefs should be censored in accordance to how much they offend.
As to your point about Quebecers, I can say a lot of things about Quebecers, those are not some of them.
But if you can construct argument explaining why you think so and defend that position, why should you not be able to express it?
Hmmmmm….well since you’ve restricted me to only those 3 picks I would have to go with……hypocrite.
It’s more mysterious.
Now answer my question, inspired by your logic.
I think you are either a moron, a mediocre mind or a braggart hot air bag.
Which one is it?
I love how you grab onto anything to make construct straw-men with.
First it was a typo, then me misunderstanding a question and correcting myself, then me using famous names to create a metaphor, now me posting in multiple Forums.
Explanation: recently the Forum sciforums.com has been off-line.
I searched for a new forum .
I first came up with Able2Know, I posted some things there, then I stumbled into this one.
I preferred this one. I question my judgment about that now.
But besides that, what’s the problem with me posting in multiple Forum’s?
What personality disorder can you find in that one?
Well I did go out last week, but only for an hour. You’re beginning to sound pathetic. You grasp at anything to slander me.
I’ve maintained a certain decorum and offered you respect I don’t think you deserve.
You might be an outstanding citizen but so is every Tom, Dick and Harry.
Intellectually you are overly reliant on your training and your Bibles of knowledge and the cultural and social norms you’ve accepted as superior and cutting-edge.
My writing spans 6 years of living.
So being a prolific writer constitutes a mental disorder?
Being interested in expressing perspective through language is now a flaw.
Maybe I should be watching more T.V.?
Thanks doc.
I think I’ll give up reading also. It’s bad for you and people might think I’m a nerd
Sorry I must have missed the question.
Is this a forum for debating ideas or one where we exchange credentials and speak about our personal lives?
I really did choose hastily.
Well…let’s see…I write….I play computer games….I masturbate….uhhhh….I eat, sleep, urinate, defecate, drink…uhhhhh, what else?..I dream about killing people and burning down houses……uhhhhhh……I think about suicide and hate women because I can’t get laid….what else?..I read a lot and fantasize about worlds and dimensions….hmmmmm….I also like D&D and role playing on-line games, because that’s the only way I can pretend I have a real life.
No friends.
No job.
No car.
Never had a girlfriend. I’m a virgin actually. I’m saving myself for the right one.
No seriously…Are you a psychology teacher?
Tell me, did Diogenes the cynic live on the streets because of his beliefs or were his beliefs based on him living in the streets?
What exactly would you like to know about me?
Which one?
Not Shyster?
I cannot help how other react to my opinions.
Should I not voice them because they might not like them?
Were my “inappropriate†responses a consequence of how others addressed me or did I instigate them simply by being honest about my beliefs?
No, I have determined that my equals are people that can separate themselves from the topic and control their emotions when contemplating ideas.
Emotion is a necessary aspect of life and it enhances the living experience, but when dealing with rational thought, most of it must be left outside. Or else all conversations deteriorate to name-calling and personal attacks.
Would you say that a Christian presenting his views about his God and his God’s nature and grandeur is trying to instigate a response from Muslims?
If I liked the color blue and presented my views on why I liked it and exalted its hue, would that inevitably invite psychoanalyzing and derogatory language from all those that preferred red?
It’s a test by fire.
I present my views in their rawest form and then see how others comment.
Through this I weed out imbeciles and superficial dolts and gasbags.
I see how they add or translate my views, when they do not know all the details.
From that I deduce their intellectual worth and with the rest I play with.
Next question…
I never claimed to be anything but human.
It was your friends that pretended they were rational beings that acted using only reason.
From my experience the majority are purely instinctual creatures that use reason to justify their instinctual behaviours.
Where?
Now you are not only being slanderous but a down right liar.
Where have I said I was “much more� and don’t tell me it is insinuated.
Most of what I write are letters to myself. It is how I rearrange my thoughts and make room in the ‘hard-drive’.
I aspire to be ‘much more’ and I try to insight others to do likewise using linguistic artistry.
Why ask me? You’re the one responding.
Ask yourself why you do it.
The “Jello-Tennis†was good but you overused it.
You’ve “proved’ something?
Wow.
I must have missed it amongst your demonstrations of personal worth and bragging.
But your bragging also is based on institutional values and cultural norms.
How appropriate.
What kind of car do you drive? Tell me this and complete your resume.
You are such a ‘busy man. I understand. It’s because you are so connected to reality.
And here’s the pre-emption:
Wow. I bet there’s nothing wrong with your life.
You seem ‘perfect’ and so well adjusted and so engaged with the world and so…typical.
I don’t work.
I live off Welfare.
Talk about nerves being touched.
I bet our little resident psychology teacher read my ‘What about Bob?’ essay and saw a little of himself in there.
He then returned to avenge his bruised ego and save his self-esteem.
Watch him repeat all the things he bases his self-evaluations on.
Telling and ….typical.
So, where are you going on vacation this year professor? Somewhere sufficiently enchanting and decadent to make the neighbors envious, I hope.
Somewhere where you can brag about it afterwards in that nonchalant manner supposed to imitate indifference and an absence of motive.
And, of course, you claim that it is not.
Who says I avoid it?
I’ll tell you what I don’t do.
I don’t then turn around and redefine it.
I don’t excuse myself from it and justify it.
I don’t use it to evaluate myself.
I don’t whitewash it and pretend that it defines my worth.
I don’t base my self-esteem on it.
I don’t accept it as inevitable or ‘the way things are’.
I don’t inherit cultural values and then judge myself in accordance with them.
Yet, somehow, along the way you have lost your soul.
The rest?
All commendable behavior that I can only hope to live up to.
It’s not that you play the game but know what it is, it’s that you’ve actually convinced yourself about its importance and relevance.
It’s not that you live life of ‘normality’ but secretly you know the underlying forces, it’s that you have accepted most of them now as ‘the best of all possible worlds’
Ah, finally common ground.
A sudden spark of reality from underneath the fluff and circumstance.
Now we are getting somewhere beyond the posturing.
Finally a genuine personal ‘truth’.
I will not mock it because it is genuine and pure and personal.
We’ve broken through the bullshit, finally.
Maybe progress is possible.
But you are lucky in many ways.
I myself have found other means of attaining a similar freedom.
Was never overly ambitious in a social/economic way.
My ambitions were always rooted in the attainment of mental and physical potentials and in seeing as much of the world and of reality as possible.
Alas, I am forced to partly whore myself so that I can enjoy what I enjoy.
And this is the source of most of my bitterness. So much to see and do and so little time. Most of which must be offered to ‘the man’ just to buy my way into survival and social acceptance.
I enjoyed this thread, which was dedicated entirely or partly to me.
Perhaps it was only inspired by me. I can only dare to hope that it was so.
When I wrote that I would never become a “professor,” I forgotto add that “professor” refers to tenured prof., as opposed to assistant or associate professor. Instead, I lecture at various universities. Less pay and none of the benefits of full professorship, but the lack of politics and other crap more than makes up for it (besides, clinical practice pays more than professorships in most universities in Canada).
Amazing, Satyr. Aside from the last part, you managed to distort almost everything I wrote. You ARE the man…errr…such distortion and manipulation are feminine tactics, according to you, so I guess that makes you the woman…sheesh I envy you…
To continue bursting your bubble (well, if you were able to admit how distorted your processing of things is), I’ll just answer your question about my car and vacation (I know, you are merely trying to play a tit for tat game, although my tat is based on your actions, while your tit is based on your distorted schemas). I drive a nice, efficient, less-harmful-to-the-environment-than-other-vehicles Toyoto Corolla CE (that means bare basics…not even power windows…). I rarely drive it and never idle it and used to ask strangers to stop idling…
As for vacations, I haven’t taken one in years, though every year I pay for my wife and girls to return to my wife’s home country for 5-7 weeks. Sorry, Satyr, but I do NOT try to keep up with the Joneses…I just try to provide the best, safest, most comfortable life possible for my wife and girls. Simple…
However, the one thing I WILL give you is that your travel has exposed you to things I have not yet experienced. I hope to some day (though travel is not really my thing…yes, a sign of a small mind), but it’s not in my cards right now. And paying for those annual visits for my wife and girls to one of the most expensive cities in the world saps our travel resources…
I have no problems sharing/admitting such things. It may not fit into your distorted stereotype, but I’m sure you can make it so. As for what you think I think of YOU, lmfao…you still do crack me up, Satyr. You do…oh you do…Thank you for the laughs–they ALMOST compensate for the jello tennis elbow…
What on earth is intelligence? For example, is a farmer with less “education” be less literate in farming. How about the rancher being literate in hubandry. We all have our gifts that have adapted and changed with societal and geographical needs. Also, language, culture and religions often assimilate with geography.
Bravo, and thank all of you for demonstrating tolerance and humility, unlike the responses I have met with on the BBC Religion blogs, especially the Judaism blog. How odd, I support Israel, but have been met with many nasty responces from Eliezar regarding my posts.
I am trying to undestand, and often am ignorant regarding issues. Thanks again.
Horroscopes, which have been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to be bunk, have the same effect (I’m not saying astrology is necessarily bunk, but horroscopes are). This is called the “Barnum effect,” something any 1st-year psych student learns. Yet, so many people fall for it…take a look at how many people give such great credence to the Myers-Briggs test (or its many derivatives).
), but I guess MY own insight will be improved if I can either be truthful about why I feel so compelled to expose/“beat” them, and/or if I can learn to say “whatever” more easily… 
Bravo, and thank all of you for demonstrating tolerance and humility, unlike the responses I have met with on the BBC Religion blogs, especially the Judaism blog. How odd, I support Israel, but have been met with many nasty responces from Eliezar regarding my posts.