Well put. An equivalent piece of childish gibberish is "your silence speaks volumes". No, it doesn't. It might mean I haven't thought about it, don't think I have opinions worth sharing, suspect the loaded way something has been phrased, or (increasingly these days) suspect the person of sheer bad faith. Or, I might not be able to squash my thought into 280 characters.
Precisely this. If I have a sense that whatever I say will be read in the worst way possible, regardless - I don’t see the point of engaging. Once, in the early days of the blogosphere, I thought I could have a rational discussion with most people. Oh sweet summer child that I was. Life is too short to engage in pointless stoushes.
I think we all went through that stage! Bad faith changes everything though. Once you realize that some folk are in this simply to project their ghastly personalities/pre-arranged childlike political views (I'm balanced between wanting to beat them over the head with their copy of Ayn Rand or throttle them with their Che Guevara T shirt) then it totally changes the game. And Mike Tyson was right: The level of disrespect people think they can get away because they are behind a screen is not helping.
Yes, I had a very similar experience. I should note that the Student Experience Survey which stung me so badly was one of the first online ones - I really do think it makes a difference - you don’t have to face the person as you say rude or nasty things to them.
It's leading to a blandness in delivery because (understandably) lectures pay more attention to 1 or 2 making a fuss than hundreds enjoying/getting lots out of it. I know that colleagues censor themselves and lots refuse to be recorded as clips can be decontexualised or similar
A belief test is when you set the other party a test that you know they can pass.
They pass it.
Then you set a slightly higher threshold for the other party.
If they fail, then you declare “they can’t be trusted !”
Imagine that the belief test is reversed to demonstrate lack of “integrity”? Set an unachievable threshold and condemn the other party for their behaviour.
The problem is that reasonable people try to reason with people who are simply not amenable to logic, facts, reason or anything that resembles a coherent argument.
Einstein is the subject of more false attributions than anyone else in history, at least in my opinion. One of the false attributions is that Einstein claimed that “the same level of thinking cannot be described to the solution of a problem as created the problem.“
The point is that people who rationalise a point of view which is fundamentally based in emotion are not susceptible to arguments based in facts, reason or logical positions.
You might as well discuss Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co with a cockroach. You can present your arguments as elegantly as you like. But the cockroach will survive whatever you throw at them, and there will be a conga line of people who will lineup to tell you that the cockroach is right and you are oppressing the cockroach.
Well put. An equivalent piece of childish gibberish is "your silence speaks volumes". No, it doesn't. It might mean I haven't thought about it, don't think I have opinions worth sharing, suspect the loaded way something has been phrased, or (increasingly these days) suspect the person of sheer bad faith. Or, I might not be able to squash my thought into 280 characters.
Precisely this. If I have a sense that whatever I say will be read in the worst way possible, regardless - I don’t see the point of engaging. Once, in the early days of the blogosphere, I thought I could have a rational discussion with most people. Oh sweet summer child that I was. Life is too short to engage in pointless stoushes.
I think we all went through that stage! Bad faith changes everything though. Once you realize that some folk are in this simply to project their ghastly personalities/pre-arranged childlike political views (I'm balanced between wanting to beat them over the head with their copy of Ayn Rand or throttle them with their Che Guevara T shirt) then it totally changes the game. And Mike Tyson was right: The level of disrespect people think they can get away because they are behind a screen is not helping.
Yes, I had a very similar experience. I should note that the Student Experience Survey which stung me so badly was one of the first online ones - I really do think it makes a difference - you don’t have to face the person as you say rude or nasty things to them.
It's leading to a blandness in delivery because (understandably) lectures pay more attention to 1 or 2 making a fuss than hundreds enjoying/getting lots out of it. I know that colleagues censor themselves and lots refuse to be recorded as clips can be decontexualised or similar
A belief test is when you set the other party a test that you know they can pass.
They pass it.
Then you set a slightly higher threshold for the other party.
If they fail, then you declare “they can’t be trusted !”
Imagine that the belief test is reversed to demonstrate lack of “integrity”? Set an unachievable threshold and condemn the other party for their behaviour.
The trust threshold reversed.
Sadly I recognise these dynamics. So much of what passes for argument these days consists of this kind of thing.
The problem is that reasonable people try to reason with people who are simply not amenable to logic, facts, reason or anything that resembles a coherent argument.
Einstein is the subject of more false attributions than anyone else in history, at least in my opinion. One of the false attributions is that Einstein claimed that “the same level of thinking cannot be described to the solution of a problem as created the problem.“
The point is that people who rationalise a point of view which is fundamentally based in emotion are not susceptible to arguments based in facts, reason or logical positions.
You might as well discuss Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co with a cockroach. You can present your arguments as elegantly as you like. But the cockroach will survive whatever you throw at them, and there will be a conga line of people who will lineup to tell you that the cockroach is right and you are oppressing the cockroach.