Jump to content

bonesiii

Premier Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,611

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by bonesiii

    bonesiii

    Posted

    Sure, I don't doubt that. It's just that that doesn't mean you aren't disagreeing.

    Alright, fair enough. :P

     

    Although I wouldn't be so sure about the 'villain winning a battle' thing. Not every 'villain' wants you to get angry and hate him, lots of people don't care about that. Hitler, for example, didn't want people to hate him, they were supposed to love him.

    Okay, "evil in general"; I don't mean the villain's desires per se. Lemme rephrase -- if I hated a villain, I myself would lose, at least a little.

     

     

    It was both opposition and disagreement. The Dictionary.com definitions aren't mutually exclusive. It's possible to both 'fail to agree/differ' and 'act against or provide resistance to/combat' at the same time, and that's what was going on in the Roosevelt/Hitler example.

    I know, but like I said, I'm not trying to argue that only this definition of disagreement should be used. Like I said, by one definition, the two words are synonyms. I'm just trying to point out the ideas behind the words I happened to pick to label them for purposes of this blog entry only. :)

     

    So I guess what I'm trying to say is, when you CAN achieve a 'disagreement among friends,' it's a better kind of disagreemen for all involved. Which is, I suppose, probably just a fancy way of saying "friends are better than enemies." XD Anyways... :P

     

    Kinda maybe, 'cause it looks like it's the premise for the rest of your post. I was just pointing out a nuance in what you said in the first paragraphs, and especially in the title

    Yeah, title is shameless attention-grabbing hyperbole. XP

     

    bonesiii

    Posted

    However, that's sometimes, not always. It's perfectly possible for two people who hate each other to actually disagree on something.

    Perhaps, but when you have an attitude of hate towards someone, even if it's deserved, surely that at least slightly affects your judgement?

     

    Take Roosevelt and Hitler for example: they were enemies and they disagreed.

    Did Roosevelt hate Hitler? I don't know. Definately enemies, yes. And that's the sort of battle situation I was talking about. But I do not personally believe that it's ever justified to hate any human being, even one as horribly too-far-gone (probably) as Hitler was. :shrugs:

     

    Because the feeling of hatred harms the hater.

     

    If I were to face off against someone as detestable as Hitler, and I allowed his evil to drum up hatred against him (as opposed to against his actions, which I do believe should be hated), then I have let the villain win a small battle, by corrupting me.

     

     

    There was nothing 'empty' or pointless about their animosity (even though animosity probably wasn't the best option), Hitler thought he had a right to conquer Europe and Roosevelt didn't. Those are two conflicting opinions, meaning there was disagreement.

    Well, not by the definitions I used. What Roosevelt did towards Hitler was from an opinion, yes, but it went much farther than that, into "combat" (literally). So at least by my definitions, it was more of opposition than disagreeing -- which of course just justified, because it was a war.

     

     

    Now obviously, they didn't treat their disagreement as friends would, meaning they weren't really doing anything meaningful with it. There wasn't really much of a difference to be seen with a situation where they would have agreed: in both cases they were enemies and at war because of that. That's why I'd say only friends can disagree and do something meaningful with their disagreement.

    Yeah. I basically think that's another way of saying what I was trying to say. :)

    bonesiii

    Posted

    *finally replies to question... allows self to DP :P*

     

    Since the various beings know what will happen in the original cosmos, can they try to change the outcome in theirs? (For example, keeping Makuta, or Rathoa, from inhabiting Mata Nui's body?)

    They can try, but very rarely succeed. The phenomenon of Convergeance with the canon plot seems to be one of the most powerful forces of physics in the Paracosmos. Often the very ways that people try to change the outcome result in that outcome.

     

    But obviously, if there's anything they want to change, it's preventing an evil takeover of the MU. But can such a major change happen? Nobody knows, but all of known Paracosmos history would seem to say no.

     

     

    bonesiii

    Posted

    *finally gets around to replying here*

     

    Lightstone rifle was out of the question.

    As in, they don't exist anymore, or it's inconceivable for them to be used against the good guys?

    As in, if it was used, it would have shattered, and the pieces would have been found easily by Surkahi later. Also, it would have made a bright flash that Surkahi would have noticed before falling unconscious.

     

    I'm not going to fish for the exact quote, but "she looked like a matoran, but with fancier armor" just seems a bit sloppy to me, perhaps something along the lines of "she looked like a matoran, but with intricate details in her armor." would be better.

    Maybe, but there's only so many different ways to say it in different stories. :P Intricate doesn't quite describe it (I do explain in Endless Blue, because it has story purpose there), but I didn't feel it was important enough in this story to spend the time explaining it.

    ou're very good at creating intricate plots and knowing when to have action or to set the scene, but you need to put as much effort into your use of words, I get really drawn in to your stories, but it does end up feeling a bit sterile and impersonal at times.

    This is true.

    bonesiii

    Posted

    Scenes with Hujo were cool and creepy. The descriptions and the implications were meshed together really well, and when he was thinking about going into the pipes, I recalled just about every nightmare I've had about turning around to see something right behind me. Yeek.

    Glad I accomplished invoking that. I mean... not that I want yall to have nightmares... XD

     

     

    Yes, the plants have a purpose. :) But Dume may also be going insane, yeah. :ziplip:

     

     

     

    A big reason for the delay, besides being busy was... well, I was... busy. :P Meaning, I didn't do anything like an outline, and that was a dumb move. Lost track, and didn't have the time to keep reviewing. So... I invented Tracklines. :P

     

    Meaning, I don't outline further ahead than one chapter, normally, and it's still Arena Method, so anything I do outline ahead of time is just a possibility. But I also outline everything I HAVE written, so I can keep track (hence the name) of it, for future chapter's sake. Doing this for Endless Blue now too. (I had kinda used this for Captain of Treason as well, but hadn't really thought it through.)

     

    Also, I'm making it a rule that before I stop writing, I must have a tentative outline of the next chapter (so, something to point me along the track I want to go on next... again, hence the name. I love double meanings :P).

     

    Plus, I plan to do new chapters of this on Sundays and Mondays now, not Thursday. Thursday just don't work.

     

    Edit: And, next chapter is written. Will put it up tomorrow; for today I have another entry. :)

    SPIRIT

    Posted

    I don't mind the wind, as long as it's not too cold outside -- it adds a real sense of power to nature, I find; as long as you don't have to shovel it, snow is fantastic to look at

    *loves shoveling snow, prefers it "too cold"*

     

    My answer to the characters you would like to be topic was Kopaka, what can I say? :lol:

     

    Otherwise, I agree. Sunny weather would be great if people would stop acting so silly about it. It's all got pros and cons, like anything.

     

    Buuuuut, of course they will never stop. So whatever. :P

    bonesiii

    Posted

    When will the next version of the guide come out?

    It's out now; see front page news article. ^_^

     

     

    I’m also happy with the ones that won over mine, though, to be quite frank, I don’t get the Brethren winner. It’s not that I think it’s bad or anything; I just don’t get the symbolism is all.

    Well, I don't know what he intended, but it looks like a sun, and all the triangles on it give me a sense of equality. Lots of different parts, equal in size etc.

     

    Just one thing, if you like, I can find a way to send you the PowerPoint file containing my logos so you can adjust them better for the guide. I’d also like to make my name on them a little less intense – it’s a bit overpowering on two of the three winners I now notice.

    Have a look at that page of the guide and lemme know if you feel it's okay. I don't see any problem with them.

     

    Also, if I may be so bold, do I count as one of the top winners rolleyes.gif?

    Yes. :P But nobody else ask me. I'll almost certainly reveal what'll happen with this next week. :) Already got notes for it, just haven't got the time or Swert's opinion yet.

     

     

    I gotta say, I didn't see my appalling gemsand bag ever winning. I thought it would stab the rest of my entry in the back

    Well, aside from Chrome's also-win there, I felt the bag was fine. If the crystal hadn't captured what I wanted so well, it probably would have hurt it, yeah. But I was trying to focus on the crystals more than the bags, because let's face it, the Multiverse characters don't care about the bag either. :P

     

    A nice approval

    Thanks, man.

     

    Here's a white background version of the currency if you want, since the one in the Guide looks kind of gritty

    You think so? I didn't notice anything weird on my screen, but thanks for providing it anyways. I'll put it in for V4.

    bonesiii

    Posted

    Kayru @ nicer looking labels -- sure. Can you get them done by nine-ish today? If not, no problem, but that's as soon as I think I can finish going through the guide looking for any text changes to make, links to the wiki, etc.

     

    And yeah, feel free to improve upon them as you see fit. It can't change the placements, but we have agreed to allow it anyways.

     

    SD, it did indeed. :D

    bonesiii

    Posted

    Silenced in Slavery

     

    :k::h:

    Ojh wanted me to say this was his favorite so far.

     

    I must say, you interpreted “foundational elements” a lot differently than I did – for example, I probably wouldn’t have made the elemental associations distinct and probably wouldn’t have included Ice and Plant Life, but Gravity and maybe Magnetism. Though in retrospect, I really don’t care for that idea anyway tongue.gif

    So, yeah, I’d say you came up with a fairly good list for elements.

    I did have a feeling you didn't mean it that way, but I felt it would be cooler to do that, although I imagine with most of them there wouldn't be much distinction. Mainly I wanted to use the opportunity to have someone on Ice that's out of the reach of the King, and then the Gold idea too.

    I think adding a general physical description would be a good addition – I mean, Vonuk is a good reference for average shape and size, but I always imagined a fair amount of room for variation. For example, all Teralpids possess tusks and claws of varying size and style – Vonuk’s tusks and claws are of the smaller variety – and their feet may or may not be clawed as well. Colors pretty much vary with their elements like most other beings. Also, the average height ranges from around 6-8 feet tall – so they can stand from just shorter to just taller than the average Toa

    Alright, I'll add all that.

     

    Also, I’ve been playing around with this idea: on Barrawahi, many Teralpids practice the consumption of their fallen enemies’ weapons, believing they will gain some of their adversaries’ strength. Even those that don’t believe in this myth will engage in this practice as a symbolic show of strength. Like?

    Like. :)

     

     

    Oh, and something I’ve been meaning to ask about Dendrokans: by “light-bulb” heads, do you mean Glatorian/Agori-style heads, or actually shaped like a light-bulb?

    Basically a mix between both. Shaped like light bulbs, in a style similar to Glat heads.

     

    Though, even if they are G/A-style, their whole head could glow like in the product animations on the website

    Hadn't thought of that. It's a bit cheesy, but maybe. :P

     

     

    bonesiii

    Posted

    I knew we'd get this question, heh. See, I was actually going to just set up a freewebs site with normal pages we'd have to edit, but then I realized they do have a simplified version of a free Wiki. True, it doesn't have many good options, but it's still a wiki, and it comes with no strings attached like the other options yall have mentioned. So for now, it's what we're using. :)

    bonesiii

    Posted

    *gives self permission to double... comment...*

     

    Alright, Stig, I guess I'm going to go ahead and add my reply now. Before I start, lemme say that I do appreciate what you're trying to do here. You are raising issues that do need cleared up, and you're bluntly calling me out for what you think are mistakes. So please understand that I'm glad you're doing that, Stig. :)

     

    Most importantly, you have hinted at some very important questions -- "What is condescension?" "What is humility?" or "What is equal?" That's what I'd like to focus on here.

     

    That said, I gotta call you out on some things, too. :P

     

    And, I wanna make it clear that I've thought over how to reply to your, and rethought it, and rethought it, all weekend. I've debated where to start and which styles of reply to use and changed my mind a couple of times... this is what I ended up deciding to do. Hopefully it's helpful.

     

    Please note! This post is designed to be understood as a whole. Please, please read through the whole thing first, before you judge. Please read it with context in mind, or you will misunderstand me. Then you can re-read and reply in whatever style you want, I just wanna make sure you aren't posting reactions to the beginning parts without having read the end. Most of these parts are just as important at the rest -- hence why I had such trouble deciding what to start with...

     

     

    Firstly, we have to clear up the whole logic, opinion, taste, and emotion thing, since it seems your confusion is revolving around those issues.

     

    To begin with, I have to point out what seems like a contradiction in your latest post. You object to "assuming things" (or what you believed was that), and yet you basically admitted that you're assuming things yourself, even assuming that I meant something when I directly told you I didn't.

     

    You brush aside my asking you to go back and re-read what I originally said about the shield thing and such as "just a smokescreen." How do you know? Are you telepathic? You're the one who's assuming things. That's not wise. ;)

     

    And earlier in your post, you said "You're the one who claims to take the logical route." When in fact I never made such a claim -- you did.

     

    I'll reply to these two points in a moment.

     

    But what I want you to realize is, it's not fair to simply brush aside what someone has said by assuming they didn't really mean it. That's one step away from accusing them of lying. Style or opinion, that's clearly not helpful in having a civil discussion. If I cannot honestly tell you what I think because you have apparent trust problems (with a staff member, might I remind you... :)), then how can we have a discussion?

     

    It seems that you're the one who has a problem with assuming.

     

    Now, in the rest of this post, I'm going to ask that you pay attention to the context I'm giving, and the whole word choices in the sentence, not just zero in on one word, okay? Otherwise, this will all just be a big waste of time. Everything I'm saying is honest. None of it is a smokescreen or a lie. Dishonesty doesn't work.

     

     

     

    Now. You said that this is about style. For the moment, I'll play along with that idea.

     

    If there are such things as posting/writing styles, there are also such things as reading styles.

     

    Regardless of what my style is or is not, you revealed that you apparently use a type of reading style that goes light on giving the benefit of the doubt and paying attention to wording and context, and goes heavy on picking up the most emotionally connotated word and obsessing over that word. Exaggerating it, even.

     

    That's a mistake on the reader's part.

     

    If a writer's wording and context are crystal clear, but the reader doesn't care about accurate understanding and context -- if the reader is reading what they want to hear instead of what the author actually meant -- then there's really nothing a writer can do to fix that (except hopefully what I'm about to do ;)).

     

    Now in the next part I want to explain what I meant by the psychological shield part, going back over the context of it. I wanna make it clear off the bat that you are forgiven for any mistakes you might have made that I'm summing up here -- I'm doing that only to explain how I think that particular misunderstanding happened, so we're good now, and to clarify what I meant. :) So, don't take any of this personally, please.

     

    You brought up, in the spirit of playing Devil's Advocate for the types of complainers I mentioned in this blog entry (or that's how I read what you said, anyways), that many of them probably see my style as portraying myself as some kind of "God's gift to humanity" if you will, floating in a cloud as if I thought I was better than them, and attacking them to tear them down or something.

     

    Which gets into the questions of "what is equal" and such I brought up -- I'll get to that in a bit. My response to that was, maybe there's some subconscious truth to it; I used to be guilty of that because I made the mistake I now devote much of my time to fighting -- the idea that who I am must be better than everybody else's simply because it works for me. But that is not my intent now. Instead it's when I see people making common mistake that, through my experience on here, I know the best solution to, I know that my knowledge is useless unless I'm helping others to learn it too. :)

     

    However, while considering those possibilities, I warned you that I am also aware of another possibility, that the people who often accuse me of this (again, notice I wasn't talking about you -- I didn't read YOU, Stig, as accusing me of it when I first brought this possibility up) don't ACTUALLY think I see myself as high and mighty or whatever. Holier than thou etc. Someone like that doesn't go out of their way to work hard to give people helpful advice as I do, and I respect the intelligence of the people in question, so I know that if they are thinking, they're likely to realize that's not my intent.

     

    However, when someone has argued for or against something vehemently, psychologically this creates an almost instinctual, deep-seated stubbornness to defend that point, no matter what else happens in the discussion that comes -- even if the discussion is totally civil sometimes. We all know that we do this sometimes; we've all seen people do this in real life, or on TV, etc.

     

    And so, often when people have emotionally "staked their reputation" on sticking to their guns on whatever they happened to say before, without really having any idea whether it's right or not... when people do this, they often throw out wild accusations against others (often using "inverse accusation syndrome", heh), trying to make it sound like the other person's opinion is silly. Usually, deep down they know the other person is right, but what they fear most is not being wrong, but they fear others seeing their emotional reactions while admitting they are wrong.

     

    These accusations and arguments that not even the person making them really believes are what I call psychological shields.

     

    Basically, when someone is both using thought (in speech or typing, etc.) and strong emotions, and then when someone else points out a contradictory thought, the counterpoint works successfully through the thought part of their brain.

     

    But, because the person had attached such strong emotions to the original thought, this learning of the more accurate opinion doesn't produce the natural positive emotional reaction of happiness at now being able to be more right.

     

    Instead, it converts the strong emotions into shame, dissappointment in self, fear of looking embarrased in social situations, etc.

     

    The person fears these emotions more than intellectually knowing they were wrong. But since they DO think they're wrong in this case, they can't stem these emotions off with confidence. Confidence is an inherently calm emotion.

     

    So they, instead, channel that emotion into anger towards the person in question. Anger is an effective block of embarrassment and other such emotions. It's even an effective disguise of those emotions to novice debaters. It's also a lousy way to have a civil conversation. Fortunately, to experienced debaters like me, we can see through that trick, and see the embarrasment behind the anger, which can tell us that the person does realize they're wrong.

     

    However.

     

    Knowing that for sure in the text-only realms of communication like a forum is virtually impossible. We can be be pretty sure if we see a person making a mistake over and over from the same triggers, but most of the time, all I can say is "suspect it might", as I did in that post.

     

    So, I said:

     

    Since this keeps happening, I can only conclude that you're right that it comes across that way. I must warn you that I also suspect that this accusation might also be a psychological shield against hearing my true points for stubborness or pride's sake, though. Just a suspicion, I'm not sure about it, and I'm sure it's not always true even if it sometimes is. I can see through such copouts; I don't bow to such tactics and games. Especially when the person I'm replying to was already quoting others and criticizing their points -- another of those strange contradictions; they do the very thing they criticize me for doing, so the criticism rings rather hollow, you know? Buuuut, that's not everyone, again. Only bringing it up since it was true in the case you are bringing up (but again, no names or locations please).

     

    Read the whole context. I was talking about mainly the person in the case you referenced (which, as you know, was not you), and comparing that type of reaction to others who often exhibit the same pattern.

     

    My point is, if someone else is quoting someone else, and giving reasons they disagree (emotionally loaded or not), and then I do the same... and then they object to me... I'm not going to fall for that ploy. If I stopped talking to them to avoid coming across as condescending, then a stubborn person gets what they want, and truth is not served. I don't fall for such tactics. And regardless of whether they actually meant it to be a psychological shield, if I stopped moderating a debate just because a flamer or troller wants me to, I'd basically be rewarding them for their flaming or trolling.

     

    Again, not once in any of this was I talking to you. At the time, it had not occured to me that you also might agree with those who make that accusation towards me (shield or not), so obviously I couldn't have been accusing you of having a psychological shield.

     

    But then when you responded to me, you did something that surprised me.

     

    You acted as if you thought I was talking to you. This surprised me because that's not how the subject came up; it was about an example of a complainer who went overboard (not you), and I thought you and I were talking about that type of complainer... not you and I talking about each other.

     

    But then, when you got upset, apparently, about that and acted as if I was talking about you, then yes, it honestly made me wonder if it WAS true of you. Usually when someone does that, inexplicably denying an accusation that nobody made or would have even thought to make, it's because deep down there is some truth to the accusation -- it's actually the conscience doing the accusing, not the other person. And this psychological principle is pretty common knowledge -- the other person is very likely to now wonder.

     

    Sorta of like how the Mentalist, fictional yes, but based on some real psychological principles, will find hidden objects by watching a person's reactions to their motions. If he moves slightly on direction, and the person looks relieved, he knows that's the wrong way, but if he moves slightly another way, and the person looks worried, he know's they're probably hiding something that way. But when someone isn't hiding anything at all, there is no unusual emotional reaction no matter which way he goes.

     

    What you did struck me that way, honestly. I moved slightly in the direction, said "I suspect it might" be the case that someone else, not you, did X, you had a surprisingly strong reaction against it. Honestly, yes, that made me wonder if you weren't trying to hide something you deep down realized might have been true of you.

     

    Also note, "assume" actually means the opposite of "suspect it might".

     

    "Assume" means you actually believe something is true, without having any evidence. You choose to believe it without any grounds, or without sufficient grounds -- but the point is you believe it.

     

    (Although, it is sometimes used in other ways, like the one example I used in this post in which logicians "assume" (in the technical sense of the word in logic) as a presupposition that taste is outside the realm of logic. This doesn't mean that there's no reason to think it; in fact it's scientifically proven for all the reasons I'm giving in this post, but that it's a universal truth in logic.)

     

    "Suspect" means you might believe it, or you might not, but you are strongly leaning that way, at least, because of evidence. It has a popular technical use of "the suspect is on the run", etc. in which case the police officers chasing the suspect very well might believe or even know for sure that the suspect is guilty but guilt is not legally considered proven. In plain English, suspect usually doesn't mean you believe it, just that you are leaning that way.

     

    "Suspect it might", on the other hand, which is the word choice I used, means that you're merely aware that it's one possibility. You might be leaning more that way, but you're not strongly leaning that way -- and you definately aren't assuming it.

     

    But what you did, as you illustrated with your bolded insertions, was take the word "suspect" and see it as assume -- you even quoted a dictionary definition of the word that does NOT mean assume (have an idea of or an impression of does not mean you necessarily believe it), and then ignore or even pooh-pooh the context.

     

    That's not a good reading style. Can you see that?

     

    Now, I'm glad, Stig, you brought it up. Bad reading style or not, it does help me see how I may be coming across in the very opposite way I intended. Which, I think, is what you're trying to do, yeah?

     

     

    So aaaaaaaaanyways.

     

    All of this is unneccessary. :) Good news, there is. :)

     

    Whether it's you, or someone else, these are trivial issues.

     

    It might be defensible that one a fictional character in the Mentalist has committed a crime, they're naturally going to be interested in hiding it. But when it comes to small mistakes, we should all be willing to easily admit when we're wrong. :) And it definately helps to remain calm when expressing thought-opinions to begin with (although there's usually no harm in getting excited about positive taste-opinions :)), so that if it turns out you were wrong, you are open to changing your mind. ^_^

     

     

     

     

    Moving on. "The logical route."

     

     

    This is the wrong way to look at things. Your wording implies that logic is "one route", and illogic (that is, bad thinking) is "another route", or that emotion and logic are opposed to each other, etc. It makes it sound like "if you're going to choose the logical route, you feel free, and then I would expect you to act like a Vulcan (XD), but as for me, I pick a different route." Er, no.

     

    Logic and emotion are not meant to be opposites. They are meant to be a unison; to work hand in hand.

     

    In both thought, and feeling, there are healthy approaches, and unhealthy approaches.

     

    Fallacious logic (or thought) is simply unhealthy thinking. Logic is the study of reliable and unreliable ways of thinking. Unreliable ways of thinking get a person into trouble -- not every time, but often. Reliable ways of thinking make for a smooth, harmonious way of life, solving problems, etc.

     

    In the same way, emotion can be treated healthily and unhealthily. Emotions are meant to be "body allocation macros", if you will, that adapt the body in various ways to help it handle certain natural threats (by natural, I mean as in nature). For example, fear is supposed to switch the body into a mode that helps the person survive a predator or the like.

     

    Those emotions, negative or positive, are not inherently bad. They can simply be misused in unhealthy ways. Since emotions are supposed to help the person survive and thrive, by affecting behavior with the goal of preserving the ability of the body to experience mostly positive emotions, when we use emotions OR logic in ways that cause consequences that produce negative emotions, we defeat the point.

     

    Also, conscious logic is just one part of thought. The subconscious can be "programmed" to be more logical, as the conscious thinks more logically (with less fallacies), giving us a learned (and somewhat instinctual too) subconscious logic that we often call "intuition" or "gut feeling." This is not emotion, per se, but a subconscious fusion of logic and emotion. Subconsciously, a person well-trained in both logic and emotion will be able to rapidly analyze things, and produce results not of direct conscious thoughts, per se, but in simplified emotions.

     

    This is extremely effective; while the consciousness is limited to slow, linear thought-after-thought thinking, the subconscious can process in a parallel way, and much faster.

     

    "I've got a bad feeling about this" (lol Star Wars) is the short way of saying "my brain has subconsciously use parallel processing to logically analyze tons of sensory inputs that my consciousness hasn't yet had time to notice about this situation I'm in and my surroundings, and has reached a conclusion which it is feeding me in the simplified form of emotion... and then my conscious is taking that emotion and logically analyzing this simplified form -- 1) My intuition is usually pretty accurate, 2) I've got a bad feeling now, 3) therefore it's likely that the bad feeling is ABOUT THIS."

     

    All of that is a complex interaction between logic and emotion that cannot be fairly called "the logical route." However, the only truly reliable way to find truth is to use total (sound and valid) logic -- research, analysis, etc. Logic itself is "clear thinking" in the consciousness.

     

     

    Personal taste, on the other hand, producing "I like this" or "I don't like this" statements in the consciousness. These statements are considered to be outside the realm of logic, by logicians. They are assumed outright to be true statements -- while it's technically possible for someone to lie about their personal tastes, logicians do not consider it to be something that logic can address. This is why statements of individual taste and arguments about other things should not be mixed.

     

     

    No, actually, because its not your opinions I'm in disagreement with. It's mainly your style and attitude if you look at the gist of my posts. Like this, for example:

     

    I'm afraid, you said exactly what I programmed you to say, Stig.

     

    Now, either you're like Sherlock Holmes and genuinely can't see how that could be construed as condescending and patronising, or you're actually trying to be provocative which is kind of at odds with everything else you say.

     

     

    First of all, if someone has the opinion that their style is good and you disagree, you are disagreeing with an opinion. :P But that's just a nitpick.

     

    You raise an important issue, Stig, which is summed up as "Can you see how that would come across as condescending?"

     

    The answer is yes and no.

     

    I'm all about understanding, and yes, I do understand how it can be construed as condescending. But probably not in the way you thought. I know how it happens, yes. I think it's basically a reading style thing, possibly mixed in with some strange ideas about what people are or whatnot.

     

    But if you're asking, "Can you understand how it would come across as condescening to anyone who's thinking about it healthily?" then frankly, no, I can't think of a healthy thinking explanation for why it come across that way.

     

    To anyone who thinks that me telling them I predicted what they'd say, even programmed them to -- to anyone who thinks that is condescending -- whether that is actually you, or whether you're just playing Devil's advocate for them -- to such people, I must ask.

     

    Do you think humans are totally unpredictable? Do you think that humans don't learn certain programmable responses from the societies they live in? Do you think cliches don't exist? Do you think that if someone who studies people gives them certain inputs, they will not be able to know what outputs are likely, and plan ahead?

     

    If you know anything about chess, for example, you know that experienced chess players will play out multiple possibilities for how the game will go, often many moves into the future. "If I move here, they're likely to move there," etc. What I do is no different, except that the only way anybody loses is if we misunderstand each other or start attacking each other, etc. We're both looking for truth (hopefully :P), and so if either of us is proven wrong, it doesn't mean we lose in a chess sense; we actually win by becoming able to change our minds and thus become more right. :)

     

    As far as whether such a statement could actually BE condescension on my part... it's the exact opposite. I don't tell people that I am programming what they're saying to any extent until I judge them worthy. I told you this, Stig, because I saw that you were responsible enough that you could handle it.

     

    And beyond this, when I tell someone that they have been being predictable, by that very act, I give them the power to be unpredictable. For whatever it's worth to you, in what I quoted above, you didn't do most of the things I predicted in response -- you went above and beyond and thought for yourself, bringing up what I think is the most important issue directly, which I did not program you to do. You did that on your own.

     

    So for those two reasons alone, telling people that I'm affecting their responses is a sign of respect. The opposite of condescension. :)

     

    Also, another big reason I do this is simply to split up subjects into multiple posts. I could go on for days about most things, covering all angles of a subject and conclusively proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that I'm right about it, but that would take forever and who'd want to read it except a few people? My posts are long enough as it is.

     

    So instead, I say the most important things to say, but I also program the other person to bring up other points I wanted to respond to, so I can reply to those points in a separate post instead of just one single post. :) So it's partly just for presentation's sake. And when I do that, if I think the person is mature enough to handle it, I let them know that I planned that response beforehand, so they understand that it's not like I'm just coming up with this stuff on the fly; I knew why I was right from the start. (Otherwise, the point of splitting up the argument into multiple posts is defeated, if they don't realize I had thought it all out beforehand.)

     

    Now, I can definately see why this would be surprising, or even shocking, to a typical person who probably hasn't realized this is possible. My response to that is, first, watch the Mentalist for some clues as to how. :P Fiction, yes, but that show does a really good job of showing this principle in action. It works in real life -- it's not just pure fiction. A person who pays a lot of attention and has enough knowledge about people can -- and usually does without even consciously intending to -- have a large amount of control over their behavior.

     

    But if all I cared about was controlling people for the sake of condescension or whatever, why would I reveal that I'm doing it? By doing so, I give you guys the power to do this too, or at least to start to learn how. It's like a chess player telling another chess player the advice to think ahead. It's not in the advice-giver's selfish interests to give that advice -- it can only be altruistic (or just downright foolish in some cases, perhaps XD).

     

     

     

    Now, I wanted to touch on the question of what exactly IS condescension? And what is "equal" when we say everybody's equal? What is humility?

     

    I definately think that a lot of people have some very strange (wrong) ideas about those questions. They usually haven't thought these ideas through; they just sort of emotionally 'feel' them when faced with something that they don't understand, so it's understandable. But nowadays, we do have a pretty good idea of what the right view of that is.

     

    In essence, equal value is all about OVERALL POTENTIAL, from the beginning of your existence, to at least one other human being.

     

    In other words, Bob might have the potential, due to his inborn talents, to help society in X way, but not be naturally very good at Y way. But Joe might not be very good at X.

     

    Some people assume, sillily, that this means Joe is of lesser worth.

     

    And, if Joe meets Bob when X is the subject at hand or in action, etc. -- Joe might feel intimidated or jealous of seeing Bob doing so much better than Joe himself at X.

     

    But both responses are wrong.

     

    X might be valuable to society or to another person, but it's not the only thing that's valuable. Y, Z, A, J, M, whatever... various talents help society meet various different threats. If someone's good at quick thinking, but not much depth (which is what most people tend to be, compared to me), they will be better able to adapt to obvious problems faster. They might see someone like me, in their element, and think less of me because I simply won't be able to do as well as them, naturally, in that area. As a simple example, a soldier in a gunfight will do better if they have that talent set, while I would end up dead.

     

    But while I'm not able to think quickly, I do tend to think more thoroughly, and so I can meet other types of threats to society or to others. I can spot problems that are invisible to others, and solve them before they become big problems. To continue the war example, a soldier might not do well in a gunfight, but might be able to see that their unit is heading into a trap, etc.

     

    And I think even in the case of mental handicaps, equal value is still there. Often the mentally handicapped are much happier people, ironically, than the so-called mentally healthy, and we can learn to improve from them. Potential is not something that any mere human can accurately judge, because no matter how many factors we have included in our judgements in the past, we can never know for sure that another factor isn't working behind the scenes, unbeknownst to us.

     

    So, this is why everybody has equal value.

     

    (And again, remember that our genetic talents and weaknesses are what our personal tastes stem from. This is why tastes can be subjective.)

     

    However, being equal in overall potential doesn't mean that everybody ends up performing equally in all areas.

     

    Some people seem to think that "I'm equal" means "I am perfect in every way, and if you try to give me advice as to how to improve, you must be evil", heh. These types of people are very hard to get along with; I know a lot of them. They KNOW they're not perfect, and they'll say so... and they certainly know everybody else isn't perfect because they do not hesitate to give out free advice to others.

     

    But if anyone dares to give them advice when they're in the wrong mood, watch out. "They can dish it out, but they can't take it", as the saying goes. This is unwise.

     

    If Bob is good at X, that doesn't mean Joe has to hate X. He will naturally dislike it, but he can come to realize that while he should focus on his specialty, Y, it's also wise to at least have rudimentary skill in X. Because, what if Joe ever finds his or someone else's life at stake, or even something else important but not life or death, and Joe could have learned enough about X to save a life, or something else? If Joe's life depends on him being at least open to the important of X, and not acting like "Y is better than X", then it would be wiser for him to learn from Bob instead of being jealous of him or insulted by Bob's talent, etc.

     

    (Of course, Bob might actually insult Joe; this is quite common too. But even then, it's not fair for Joe to hate Bob's talent itself, but only the "sin" of insulting Joe's overall worth.)

     

    In other words, each different personal taste (and talents) are equal. :)

     

    Condescension can come in different forms, but the most basic is viewing someone else's specialty (talents, tastes, and weaknesses) as inferior to our own.

     

    Also, performance in various aspects of life can improve with choices, practice, application of the brain properly, etc. Two people might be "equal", and also have the exact same genetic talents and tastes, but one of them might be more experienced. That does not make the less experienced one inferior.

     

    And just to be clear, if hypothetically someone claims that after having lived out a full life, they fulfilled their own potential better than someone else, so that somehow makes them superior, I disagree with that too. People do this in small ways and big ways all the time "IIIII worked hard today, what did YOU do? So you can't talk." etc. (which is basically a type of selfish pride). I believe EVERYBODY is equal, no matter their age, no matter their accomplishments, etc.

     

    However, it's also true that people's performances and accomplishes themselves are not necessarily equal. If I do better than another person in a sports game, that means I am better than them.... in the limited instance of that one game, in the past. :P It cannot possibly, IMO, speak to personal worth... and it's often deceptive to assume it means they're even better at the sports game itself, heh.

     

    I'm not into sports, but for example, I often cream my little brother at video games the first time, because I am very good at thinking of the best strategies on my own... but he's a brilliantly fast learner. So I can almost never continue to beat him. He gets gradually better, learning from my tactics like the Borg (:P), until he's doing all my tactics so much better than me, he creams ME every time, and I basically can't beat him no matter what I try. (Obviously, long records of sports accomplishment or the like ARE more reliable ways to judge who's superior AT THAT THING, though.)

     

    The problem comes when people act like either their overall worth is more just because they're good at something, or like someone else is evil for being better at something, etc.

     

    Also, what is humility?

     

    People often think that humility means you basically lie to people about your skills. And yet honesty is also praised. Confused, most people conclude that humility is all about claiming you're not very skilled, even though you might be... and even to some extent not even trying to improve, so that you don't look prideful. Or not using those skills when others can see you, so you don't look like you're showing off, etc.

     

    I think that's wrong.

     

    NOTE, BTW, that by skills I mean learned or natural abilities to use our brains to do things. This includes talents, yes, but we can also learn skills that are actually in our areas of weakness, committing them to muscle memory or subconscious in other ways, so ironically we can sometimes actually be better at something that we're genetically NOT inclined towards than a novice who IS inclined towards it. So, by skills I mean anything we're good at, whether from just learning or just talents or both.

     

    From early childhood, I have believed that we can all do pretty much anything, if we choose to put our minds to it and learn how, even if we don't naturally have the talent to do so (and although we probably will never do it as good as someone who has talent for it and is also experienced). I know that many people choose not to believe that, but I think that choice is a big part of why many people feel low self esteem and the like.

     

    I think humility is all about believing that our TASTES and TALENTS are equal to others' different talents and tastes. About believing us all to be of equal worth -- meaning that EVERYBODY else deserves our kindness, forgiveness if necessary, any help we can give them, etc.

     

    Humility doesn't mean you pretend you aren't good at what you're good at. It means you treat others as overall equal. :)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Alright, now moving on...

     

     

    I'm afraid I don't see how your first example "LEGO should do this just because I personally want it" is an example of an opinion that is wrong. Why is it a logical fallacy? I just don't see the difference between "I like Tahu because I like red" and "I don't like what Lego is doing here because I don't like these sets". You wouldn't say the first was wrong, or illogical, so why is the second?

    I'm not sure if you realized it, but you made a subtle semantics error here.

     

    You equated "LEGO should do what I desire" with "I don't LIKE what LEGO has done", even though in plain English, I had made it clear I don't think the two types of opinion are the same.

     

    English is a muddlesome language, and either saying could be interpreted in the way it sounds like you are. But. In plain English, "LEGO should" is not at all the same thing as "I would like it if LEGO did" or "I wish LEGO would." I am trying to speak plain old normal English here, and in normal English, "should" means "should", not "I would like it if." :)

     

    Example.

     

    I love brown sets.

     

    When LEGO moved away from brown sets... okay, well, I liked the replacement colors too... but not as much as brown. So, I disliked the move.

     

    But I agreed with the decision. I understand that LEGO should move away from brown. Believing that LEGO should do something and liking the decision are two very different things, at least in plain English. :)

     

     

     

    So?

     

    So, if you mean "I don't like the move" when you said "LEGO should..." in your first sentence here... Then I agree with you.

     

    But, can you see why, at face value, the words you used in these two sentences seem odd?

    I'm afraid I don't see how your first example "LEGO should do this just because I personally want it" is an example of an opinion that is wrong. Why is it a logical fallacy?

     

    If you had given no context (or if I was using a reading style that brushed context aside, which I bet you wouldn't appreciate), then I'd think this was a strange question indeed, especially after I'd linked to a blog entry that explained it.

     

    But from your context, it appears you don't actually mean "LEGO should" opinions. So you're not talking about what I was talking about.

     

     

    So.

     

    Forget what you meant for a second, okay?

     

    I want you to do this just so you can understand what I meant. When I talk about "LEGO should" opinions, I am NOT talking about likes and dislikes. I'm talking about the "thought-opinion" side of "opinion." You might not personally use the word opinion in that way, but you really should understand that in plain English, "opinion" includes thought-opinions that can be wrong all the time, and that often includes LEGO should opinions.

     

     

    You get that? So, the fallacy I was talking about (not what you were talking about) was when some complainers actually try to make a business proposal type complaint, giving LEGO the advice that they actually should make the sets in the ways that would please that fan. Why that is a fallacy should hopefully be obvious by now -- it mixes something that's outside the realm of logic with things that are inside... that just doesn't work.

     

    Now. You can go back to what you meant now.

     

    I would just like to point out that even liking a policy or move can be separated from the liking of the actual set itself. How? It's simple. Love others. :)

     

    Because I love others, even though I personally dislike the nonbrown sets compared to brown sets, and even though on a selfish "me-only" level, I do wish LEGO hadn't done it... I understand that more fans like brown. And when lots of kids are happy, that pleases me too, because I do want toys to make kids happy. :) So, in that sense, I can like the change, even though I don't like it. See what I mean?

     

    And, when I have an attitude of love towards others like that, ironically I too am happier, so that attitude is the right thing to do. It can even benefit the self -- which is why I define selfishness as ironically more harmful to the self than selfLESSness.

     

    And that's a big thing I think many of our more upset complainers would do well to understand.

     

    Many of them don't actually argue what LEGO should or shouldn't do, but they still have a strong negative reaction to LEGO's actions sometimes. When, if they could realize that these actions are making more people, overall, happier, they could both intellectually believe it's the right course of action AND emotionally be content with it. :)

     

    It's true that, to continue my example, I would always like it better if LEGO continued to make brown sets as a treat to us. All this taste stuff is subjective anyways, so if LEGO did give us minority brown fans more treats, as long as it wasn't too much to financially ruin the company, it's not an evil action. Just not quite as good, overall, as pleasing the majority. Both are good, one is more good than the other, if you will. So, I would personally love brown sets more than I enjoy knowing that the majority is happier.

     

    Still, when LEGO does make the decision to do what I dislike, this can help me avoid the self-harming depths of toy despair that some people exhibit. The attitude can make me more mentally healthy, in other words, by choice, even in the face of something that is personally not good for me.

     

     

    And, of course, it's worth noting that tastes can change with age and other things, so if we give things we don't like chances, sometimes they can actually grow on us. But anyways. Yes, even though something could grow on someone, and even though they could like the policy itself, if they say "I don't like this toy", there's nothing wrong with that.

     

    Now -- keeping in mind what you apparently meant -- to your last question, I'm not sure I would say the second example you gave is "illogical." Perhaps less healthy in a purely emotional sense. But again, your second example was an "I like" statement, which is outside the realm of logic. So "illogical" or "logical" are words that just don't apply to it.

     

     

    Finally, just advice. When someone brings up multiple possibilities as I did with the whole psychological shield misunderstanding, next time try to just calmly answer which possibility you think is true, instead of getting defensive, okay? I brought that up as one possibility, and made it crystal clear I wasn't accusing anyone for sure of it. The normal response to that would be to look in the mirror and ask yourself if there might be some truth to it, or look at others fairly and ask whether it might be true of some of them (like the complainer in question who shall not be named here)... and then calmly say "well, maybe I was doing that a bit" or "No, I don't think I was doing that" or "Yeah, I guess I agree that that guy was doing that" or "I don't think he was" etc.

     

    A'ight? :) Alright, now hopefully all of this will help you and/or others in some way. ^_^

    • Upvote 1
    SPIRIT

    Posted

    Yeah, Foolery, real-world mountains don't flow downriver along with their rivers. :P Something holds them up. In fact, it's electromagnetism, for the most part, that does it, but through direct atom touching, instead of something more like a magnetic repulsion on a large scale.

     

    (Actually, mountains DO flow downriver... just slooooowly. :P)

     

    But I still understand the complaint. :)

×
×
  • Create New...