FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The wisdom of paradox
The wisdom of paradox
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does condescending mean? "I’m sorry if you think I’m condescending, Doc. Makes me think of projection as another topic, though - thanks  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Words are spoken by the listener: All too often we get upset because other people break our trust or misunderstand us. But the problem we have is that we tend to assume that whatever we say is perfectly understood and perfectly projected, reflecting our thoughts and feelings in fine precision. The truth is that words are the most complex, arbitrary, relative and symbolic forms of communication. Furthermore, each of us have different definitions based upon our own unique experiences and associations with each word we come across. So in essence … you may provide the words, but the listener always provides the definitions.”" ' I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Words are spoken by the listener: All too often we get upset because other people break our trust or misunderstand us. But the problem we have is that we tend to assume that whatever we say is perfectly understood and perfectly projected, reflecting our thoughts and feelings in fine precision. The truth is that words are the most complex, arbitrary, relative and symbolic forms of communication. Furthermore, each of us have different definitions based upon our own unique experiences and associations with each word we come across. So in essence … you may provide the words, but the listener always provides the definitions.” ' I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant'" Boom!!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Words are spoken by the listener: All too often we get upset because other people break our trust or misunderstand us. But the problem we have is that we tend to assume that whatever we say is perfectly understood and perfectly projected, reflecting our thoughts and feelings in fine precision. The truth is that words are the most complex, arbitrary, relative and symbolic forms of communication. Furthermore, each of us have different definitions based upon our own unique experiences and associations with each word we come across. So in essence … you may provide the words, but the listener always provides the definitions.” ' I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant'" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener. "That’s very relevant to the OP, yes! It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.” https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The meaning of communication is the response you get" Pithy. I like. Does that not always lay “blame” (for want of a better word) with the speaker though? I’ve always felt the art of communication is like a bridge with a gap in the middle and that both parties need to take that final little leap of faith together to catch each other in mid-air. It’s a good way to remember that more communication is needed though, if it’s not being received as intended. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The meaning of communication is the response you get Pithy. I like. Does that not always lay “blame” (for want of a better word) with the speaker though? I’ve always felt the art of communication is like a bridge with a gap in the middle and that both parties need to take that final little leap of faith together to catch each other in mid-air. It’s a good way to remember that more communication is needed though, if it’s not being received as intended. "Or maybe less communication? Sometimes you can be communicating but not actually saying anything. Therefore use less words with more meaning, that can have a greater impact on the listener  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY"Does all that mean Im the terrible explainer then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The meaning of communication is the response you get Pithy. I like. Does that not always lay “blame” (for want of a better word) with the speaker though? I’ve always felt the art of communication is like a bridge with a gap in the middle and that both parties need to take that final little leap of faith together to catch each other in mid-air. It’s a good way to remember that more communication is needed though, if it’s not being received as intended.
Or maybe less communication? Sometimes you can be communicating but not actually saying anything. Therefore use less words with more meaning, that can have a greater impact on the listener "Agreed, silence/listening is part of communication. Although, if your intent hasn’t been understood as per the above, then more words are probably necessary to express that there is dissonance, no? Unless there’s a time mac_ine at hand.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't a paradox something that seems true and false at the same time. Cretans always lie. If a Cretan says "I am lying" is he telling the truth? " What have you got against people from Crete? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
Does all that mean Im the terrible explainer then "Nope. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The meaning of communication is the response you get Pithy. I like. Does that not always lay “blame” (for want of a better word) with the speaker though? I’ve always felt the art of communication is like a bridge with a gap in the middle and that both parties need to take that final little leap of faith together to catch each other in mid-air. It’s a good way to remember that more communication is needed though, if it’s not being received as intended.
Or maybe less communication? Sometimes you can be communicating but not actually saying anything. Therefore use less words with more meaning, that can have a greater impact on the listener
Agreed, silence/listening is part of communication. Although, if your intent hasn’t been understood as per the above, then more words are probably necessary to express that there is dissonance, no? Unless there’s a time mac_ine at hand. "Dissonance? Depending on the situation or person I’d be asking myself is that maybe the the problem. Am I speaking with someone lacking in communication skills and would this be a recurring theme? Obviously it depends on the situation but sometimes the effort outweighs the reward. I realise I’m talking in riddles but it’s difficult to generalise when it’s dependent on why and who you are communicating with | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Paradox - a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true." Ones that blew my mind: 1.You don't necessarily know why you do something (because the subconscious) could be directing you 2. There are different types of truth, follows from the first point. The truth that you act out (which incorporates your subconscious beliefs) is often different to the truth you can logically explain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You post this here?
"I always think out loud here! I shouldn’t. But I do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes you have to challenge your own perception I think as our perception can be biased, due to life experience and may not be relevant in this moment... "That’s true. I like to say we have “an already hearing you voice” that whispers in our ear as we listen to other people, and colours things. You need to shake it off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY"I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The meaning of communication is the response you get Pithy. I like. Does that not always lay “blame” (for want of a better word) with the speaker though? I’ve always felt the art of communication is like a bridge with a gap in the middle and that both parties need to take that final little leap of faith together to catch each other in mid-air. It’s a good way to remember that more communication is needed though, if it’s not being received as intended.
Or maybe less communication? Sometimes you can be communicating but not actually saying anything. Therefore use less words with more meaning, that can have a greater impact on the listener
Agreed, silence/listening is part of communication. Although, if your intent hasn’t been understood as per the above, then more words are probably necessary to express that there is dissonance, no? Unless there’s a time mac_ine at hand.
Dissonance? Depending on the situation or person I’d be asking myself is that maybe the the problem. Am I speaking with someone lacking in communication skills and would this be a recurring theme? Obviously it depends on the situation but sometimes the effort outweighs the reward. I realise I’m talking in riddles but it’s difficult to generalise when it’s dependent on why and who you are communicating with "No, I do take your point that sometimes it’s not worth continuing! I was perhaps still thinking a little about Autumn’s work scenario where perhaps there was a requirement/necessity to get to the mutual understanding. But yes, sometimes the effort far outweighs the reward.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I like the classic Grandfather paradox. You go back in time, kill your own grandaddy. Therefore you were never born. Because you were never born, you didn't grow up and go back in time and kill your grandpa, so he lives, so you *are born*, so you go back in time and kill him, and so on. " Oh that’s good! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Paradox - a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true. Ones that blew my mind: 1.You don't necessarily know why you do something (because the subconscious) could be directing you 2. There are different types of truth, follows from the first point. The truth that you act out (which incorporates your subconscious beliefs) is often different to the truth you can logically explain" I really want to be sarcastic to you here as it makes me smile.
That’s not supposed to be rude by the way.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits. "I’m going think about that as I feel there’s an aspect of DKE being missed in the assumption it’s simply not having learned a skill yet. I’ll get back to you - I was reading the original DK paper yesterday, I’ll review. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits.
I’m going to think about that as I feel there’s an aspect of DKE being missed in the assumption it’s simply not having learned a skill yet. I’ll get back to you - I was reading the original DK paper yesterday, I’ll review."Edited typo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes you have to challenge your own perception I think as our perception can be biased, due to life experience and may not be relevant in this moment...
That’s true. I like to say we have “an already hearing you voice” that whispers in our ear as we listen to other people, and colours things. You need to shake it off. "..Everybodys talking at me, and I don't hear a word they say,only the echos of my mind...Harry Nillson  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't a paradox something that seems true and false at the same time. Cretans always lie. If a Cretan says "I am lying" is he telling the truth? What have you got against people from Crete?" Not sure whether you are being ironic. It's a classic paradox dreamed up by some Greek philosopher in times NC. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I come across terribly over text. I have an issue with typing exactly what I mean yet using all the wrong words so I find myself apologising and being misunderstood a lot. I guess what I’m trying to say but terribly... is, yeah. I get it. " I hear ya.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes you have to challenge your own perception I think as our perception can be biased, due to life experience and may not be relevant in this moment...
That’s true. I like to say we have “an already hearing you voice” that whispers in our ear as we listen to other people, and colours things. You need to shake it off. ..Everybodys talking at me, and I don't hear a word they say,only the echos of my mind...Harry Nillson "Awwww. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't a paradox something that seems true and false at the same time. Cretans always lie. If a Cretan says "I am lying" is he telling the truth? What have you got against people from Crete? Not sure whether you are being ironic. It's a classic paradox dreamed up by some Greek philosopher in times NC. " Because I misunderstood you. I incorrectly assumed you had spelt “cretin” wrongly! Bloody ooooops!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you on hallucinogenic drugs " No. " Your posts are so deep" Welcome to my weird brain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits. "When I did criminal defence I met a lot of very stupid people. The ones who knew they were stupid were more sensible as they would take advice. The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Words are spoken by the listener: All too often we get upset because other people break our trust or misunderstand us. But the problem we have is that we tend to assume that whatever we say is perfectly understood and perfectly projected, reflecting our thoughts and feelings in fine precision. The truth is that words are the most complex, arbitrary, relative and symbolic forms of communication. Furthermore, each of us have different definitions based upon our own unique experiences and associations with each word we come across. So in essence … you may provide the words, but the listener always provides the definitions.” Wise. What paradoxes have you encountered that made you stop and think?" Whilst it's not a paradox as such, in my hobby I teach. I use words and phrases and physical examples. The greatest challenge is that not everybody hears everything that is said, or sees everything that's shown. Frequently my students use their own interpretation of what they hear and see, and fill in the blanks themselves. My students are of mixed experience, some grasp things quicker than others. Some need 5 different explanations and demonstrations of the same thing. Communication is key. And the ability to get to the root of the problem and find a form of communication that gets the message across. Some students ask questions out of a thirst for knowledge, some ask in a challenge to my skill, understanding and authority. The two methods of questioning garner a differnet response. The challenger always gets a deeper explanation to hopefully get the message across. Frequently it doesn't, at which point the explanation becomes more direct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits.
I’m going think about that as I feel there’s an aspect of DKE being missed in the assumption it’s simply not having learned a skill yet. I’ll get back to you - I was reading the original DK paper yesterday, I’ll review.""We have shown that once poor performers are educated out of their incompetence, they show ample ability and willingness to recognize the errors of their past ways" Under the section titled "the paradox of gaining expertise" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits.
When I did criminal defence I met a lot of very stupid people. The ones who knew they were stupid were more sensible as they would take advice.
The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. "Yeah but it's not really a good idea to embark on mastering criminal law while you've got a trial pending against you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits.
When I did criminal defence I met a lot of very stupid people. The ones who knew they were stupid were more sensible as they would take advice.
The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down.
Yeah but it's not really a good idea to embark on mastering criminal law while you've got a trial pending against you! "This wasn't usually their first trial. I think you need a rational assessment of what you can and can't do. These guys were shit at both crime and law, given that they kept getting caught and convicted. . Didn't seem to affect their confidence that they were good at both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't a paradox something that seems true and false at the same time. Cretans always lie. If a Cretan says "I am lying" is he telling the truth? What have you got against people from Crete? Not sure whether you are being ironic. It's a classic paradox dreamed up by some Greek philosopher in times NC. Because I misunderstood you. I incorrectly assumed you had spelt “cretin” wrongly! Bloody ooooops!! "There will have been those who will have read it as cretin because they simply didn't understand Cretan, even with the capital letter C as a clue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits.
When I did criminal defence I met a lot of very stupid people. The ones who knew they were stupid were more sensible as they would take advice.
The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down.
Yeah but it's not really a good idea to embark on mastering criminal law while you've got a trial pending against you!
This wasn't usually their first trial.
I think you need a rational assessment of what you can and can't do. These guys were shit at both crime and law, given that they kept getting caught and convicted. . Didn't seem to affect their confidence that they were good at both.
"They felt they were experts by experience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The meaning of communication is the response you get Pithy. I like. Does that not always lay “blame” (for want of a better word) with the speaker though? I’ve always felt the art of communication is like a bridge with a gap in the middle and that both parties need to take that final little leap of faith together to catch each other in mid-air. It’s a good way to remember that more communication is needed though, if it’s not being received as intended.
Or maybe less communication? Sometimes you can be communicating but not actually saying anything. Therefore use less words with more meaning, that can have a greater impact on the listener
Agreed, silence/listening is part of communication. Although, if your intent hasn’t been understood as per the above, then more words are probably necessary to express that there is dissonance, no? Unless there’s a time mac_ine at hand.
Dissonance? Depending on the situation or person I’d be asking myself is that maybe the the problem. Am I speaking with someone lacking in communication skills and would this be a recurring theme? Obviously it depends on the situation but sometimes the effort outweighs the reward. I realise I’m talking in riddles but it’s difficult to generalise when it’s dependent on why and who you are communicating with
No, I do take your point that sometimes it’s not worth continuing! I was perhaps still thinking a little about Autumn’s work scenario where perhaps there was a requirement/necessity to get to the mutual understanding. But yes, sometimes the effort far outweighs the reward. "If the situation was a regular occurrence with all colleagues I would be inclined to think I’m crap at communicating. However if it’s one colleague then I would be considering several possibilities as to why it was happening. The conclusion would probably be nothing to do with communication, speaking from experience | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits.
When I did criminal defence I met a lot of very stupid people. The ones who knew they were stupid were more sensible as they would take advice.
The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down.
Yeah but it's not really a good idea to embark on mastering criminal law while you've got a trial pending against you!
This wasn't usually their first trial.
I think you need a rational assessment of what you can and can't do. These guys were shit at both crime and law, given that they kept getting caught and convicted. . Didn't seem to affect their confidence that they were good at both.
""Many poor performers push back. They rebel against the advice; they argue points of view that contradict their own". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits.
When I did criminal defence I met a lot of very stupid people. The ones who knew they were stupid were more sensible as they would take advice.
The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down.
Yeah but it's not really a good idea to embark on mastering criminal law while you've got a trial pending against you!
This wasn't usually their first trial.
I think you need a rational assessment of what you can and can't do. These guys were shit at both crime and law, given that they kept getting caught and convicted. . Didn't seem to affect their confidence that they were good at both.
They felt they were experts by experience.
"God forbid any patient post multiple surgeries think that way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. " That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits.
When I did criminal defence I met a lot of very stupid people. The ones who knew they were stupid were more sensible as they would take advice.
The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down.
Yeah but it's not really a good idea to embark on mastering criminal law while you've got a trial pending against you!
This wasn't usually their first trial.
I think you need a rational assessment of what you can and can't do. These guys were shit at both crime and law, given that they kept getting caught and convicted. . Didn't seem to affect their confidence that they were good at both.
They felt they were experts by experience.
God forbid any patient post multiple surgeries think that way "I scored well on that Junior Doctors Quiz last week.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers" I don't think criminals make good examples since they have, on average, low intelligence. You effectively couldn't replicate the DKE findings if you only used them as your sample set. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers" There was an interesting discussion on Imposter Syndrome on Woman's Hour a few years ago. It was given as one of the reasons women hold themselves back from succeeding in their careers. There is always a point when you know you're blagging it before you are truly confident in your knowledge, skills and experience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The meaning of communication is the response you get Pithy. I like. Does that not always lay “blame” (for want of a better word) with the speaker though? I’ve always felt the art of communication is like a bridge with a gap in the middle and that both parties need to take that final little leap of faith together to catch each other in mid-air. It’s a good way to remember that more communication is needed though, if it’s not being received as intended. "There’s no blame just responsibility. I find it is a better investment to change how I’m communicating than to try and change how someone receives it. Working towards mutuality would be my ultimate aim, but I prefer to see the misinterpretation and misunderstanding as feedback to do something different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I think some of that relates... doesn't it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits.
I’m going think about that as I feel there’s an aspect of DKE being missed in the assumption it’s simply not having learned a skill yet. I’ll get back to you - I was reading the original DK paper yesterday, I’ll review.
"We have shown that once poor performers are educated out of their incompetence, they show ample ability and willingness to recognize the errors of their past ways"
Under the section titled "the paradox of gaining expertise""Yes, I knew that which is what I paused but, there was something in what you said that didn’t quite sit right with me. Apologies I got distracted elsewhere so haven’t followed up yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think most people post on these forums imagining the people on the other side are roughly like themselves. What I mean by that is that people often respond to others posts as if they were robust "normal" people. When in fact they may be really vulnerable. It takes someone actually stating they're really vulnerable for everyone to suddenly flip into super gushy kindness. I often think of this when the person I'm exchanging with on here is a bit weird. I wonder if they're a bit vulnerable. On a similar front I'm not really into swinging and I'm not into nsa... but I'm here. Why? Fuck knows. But I thought I might get some sex at some point but now I mainly use the forums as a dustbin of thoughts I'd never bother sharing with anyone else. So essentially, I don't really belong here and the thoughts I share here are totally peripheral to who I am... a kind of idle Jeremy Kyle world of rejected thought experiments... my own online equivalent of some trashy women's magazine like Cosmo. Yet people have built up an image of me from these fragments of my rejected periphery and have built a bizarre image of me based solely on that. It's like palaeontology really
I think some of that relates... doesn't it? " Nice post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers I don't think criminals make good examples since they have, on average, low intelligence. You effectively couldn't replicate the DKE findings if you only used them as your sample set. " Depends if you’re only testing the caught criminals... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers There was an interesting discussion on Imposter Syndrome on Woman's Hour a few years ago. It was given as one of the reasons women hold themselves back from succeeding in their careers. There is always a point when you know you're blagging it before you are truly confident in your knowledge, skills and experience. " Did subsequent studies not show that it effects men and women in equal numbers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers There was an interesting discussion on Imposter Syndrome on Woman's Hour a few years ago. It was given as one of the reasons women hold themselves back from succeeding in their careers. There is always a point when you know you're blagging it before you are truly confident in your knowledge, skills and experience. " *know* you’re blagging it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The meaning of communication is the response you get Pithy. I like. Does that not always lay “blame” (for want of a better word) with the speaker though? I’ve always felt the art of communication is like a bridge with a gap in the middle and that both parties need to take that final little leap of faith together to catch each other in mid-air. It’s a good way to remember that more communication is needed though, if it’s not being received as intended.
There’s no blame just responsibility. I find it is a better investment to change how I’m communicating than to try and change how someone receives it.
Working towards mutuality would be my ultimate aim, but I prefer to see the misinterpretation and misunderstanding as feedback to do something different."Ahh yes, I concur with that. I meant as an outsider viewing it objectively. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits.
I’m going think about that as I feel there’s an aspect of DKE being missed in the assumption it’s simply not having learned a skill yet. I’ll get back to you - I was reading the original DK paper yesterday, I’ll review.
"We have shown that once poor performers are educated out of their incompetence, they show ample ability and willingness to recognize the errors of their past ways"
Under the section titled "the paradox of gaining expertise"
Yes, I knew that which is what I paused but, there was something in what you said that didn’t quite sit right with me. Apologies I got distracted elsewhere so haven’t followed up yet. "I haven't read it in full, recently. That was my initial impression of it, but i could be wrong or both outcomes are actually possible (i.e. some people never progress and some do). I probably need to re-read it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers I don't think criminals make good examples since they have, on average, low intelligence. You effectively couldn't replicate the DKE findings if you only used them as your sample set. Depends if you’re only testing the caught criminals... "Tru' dat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers There was an interesting discussion on Imposter Syndrome on Woman's Hour a few years ago. It was given as one of the reasons women hold themselves back from succeeding in their careers. There is always a point when you know you're blagging it before you are truly confident in your knowledge, skills and experience. *know* you’re blagging it " Yes, the problem - the syndrome - occurs when you continue believing you know, or at least suspect, that you're blagging it and you really haven't been for some time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers" There’s also an interesting thing discussed on the most recent No Such Thing As A Fish podcast (which also discussed DK). Experts often overstate their knowledge, based on the fact that they’re experts. There have been tests where experts in a given field have been asked to grade their knowledge of aspects of said field. The examples presented to them include entirely invented things, and many of them will claim to have sound knowledge of entirely fictitious examples. It’s like they’re saying, “I’m a physicist, so of course I know about the Mueller-Goldman effect.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers There was an interesting discussion on Imposter Syndrome on Woman's Hour a few years ago. It was given as one of the reasons women hold themselves back from succeeding in their careers. There is always a point when you know you're blagging it before you are truly confident in your knowledge, skills and experience. *know* you’re blagging it Yes, the problem - the syndrome - occurs when you continue believing you know, or at least suspect, that you're blagging it and you really haven't been for some time. " "I was saying I'm the greatest, long before I believed it" - Muhammad Ali | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think most people post on these forums imagining the people on the other side are roughly like themselves. What I mean by that is that people often respond to others posts as if they were robust "normal" people. When in fact they may be really vulnerable. It takes someone actually stating they're really vulnerable for everyone to suddenly flip into super gushy kindness. I often think of this when the person I'm exchanging with on here is a bit weird. I wonder if they're a bit vulnerable. On a similar front I'm not really into swinging and I'm not into nsa... but I'm here. Why? Fuck knows. But I thought I might get some sex at some point but now I mainly use the forums as a dustbin of thoughts I'd never bother sharing with anyone else. So essentially, I don't really belong here and the thoughts I share here are totally peripheral to who I am... a kind of idle Jeremy Kyle world of rejected thought experiments... my own online equivalent of some trashy women's magazine like Cosmo. Yet people have built up an image of me from these fragments of my rejected periphery and have built a bizarre image of me based solely on that. It's like palaeontology really
I think some of that relates... doesn't it? "A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself. Also, I disagree that it takes the statement of vulnerability for people to treat people with care, many I see posting don’t make assumptions. I also twinge slightly at some of the negative phrasing of your trying to explain your point that often reads to me (and certainly may not be your intent but is how it lands with me) a tad supercilious. But that’s likely just the power of certain words and phrasing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers There’s also an interesting thing discussed on the most recent No Such Thing As A Fish podcast (which also discussed DK). Experts often overstate their knowledge, based on the fact that they’re experts. There have been tests where experts in a given field have been asked to grade their knowledge of aspects of said field. The examples presented to them include entirely invented things, and many of them will claim to have sound knowledge of entirely fictitious examples. It’s like they’re saying, “I’m a physicist, so of course I know about the Mueller-Goldman effect.”" Do you remember which episode it was? That sounds interesting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener.
That’s very relevant to the OP, yes!
It also links a little to Dunning-Kruger effect that one, which is “the cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”
https://youtu.be/VFFczMYJoSY
I think the DKE is actually very rational and essential to learning. If you think of any complex skill you've mastered, if someone told you on day 1, how difficult it was going to be - then you'd probably give up and next start. That would be the rational thing to do. DKE gives you the arrogance necessary to undertake worthwhile pursuits.
I’m going think about that as I feel there’s an aspect of DKE being missed in the assumption it’s simply not having learned a skill yet. I’ll get back to you - I was reading the original DK paper yesterday, I’ll review.
"We have shown that once poor performers are educated out of their incompetence, they show ample ability and willingness to recognize the errors of their past ways"
Under the section titled "the paradox of gaining expertise"
Yes, I knew that which is what I paused but, there was something in what you said that didn’t quite sit right with me. Apologies I got distracted elsewhere so haven’t followed up yet.
I haven't read it in full, recently. That was my initial impression of it, but i could be wrong or both outcomes are actually possible (i.e. some people never progress and some do). I probably need to re-read it. "Me too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers There was an interesting discussion on Imposter Syndrome on Woman's Hour a few years ago. It was given as one of the reasons women hold themselves back from succeeding in their careers. There is always a point when you know you're blagging it before you are truly confident in your knowledge, skills and experience. *know* you’re blagging it Yes, the problem - the syndrome - occurs when you continue believing you know, or at least suspect, that you're blagging it and you really haven't been for some time. " Oh yeah - fake it until you make it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers There was an interesting discussion on Imposter Syndrome on Woman's Hour a few years ago. It was given as one of the reasons women hold themselves back from succeeding in their careers. There is always a point when you know you're blagging it before you are truly confident in your knowledge, skills and experience. *know* you’re blagging it Yes, the problem - the syndrome - occurs when you continue believing you know, or at least suspect, that you're blagging it and you really haven't been for some time. " Absolutely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think most people post on these forums imagining the people on the other side are roughly like themselves. What I mean by that is that people often respond to others posts as if they were robust "normal" people. When in fact they may be really vulnerable. It takes someone actually stating they're really vulnerable for everyone to suddenly flip into super gushy kindness. I often think of this when the person I'm exchanging with on here is a bit weird. I wonder if they're a bit vulnerable. On a similar front I'm not really into swinging and I'm not into nsa... but I'm here. Why? Fuck knows. But I thought I might get some sex at some point but now I mainly use the forums as a dustbin of thoughts I'd never bother sharing with anyone else. So essentially, I don't really belong here and the thoughts I share here are totally peripheral to who I am... a kind of idle Jeremy Kyle world of rejected thought experiments... my own online equivalent of some trashy women's magazine like Cosmo. Yet people have built up an image of me from these fragments of my rejected periphery and have built a bizarre image of me based solely on that. It's like palaeontology really
I think some of that relates... doesn't it?
A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself.
"Aren't you in danger of implying all opinions are equally valid? " Also, I disagree that it takes the statement of vulnerability for people to treat people with care, many I see posting don’t make assumptions. I also twinge slightly at some of the negative phrasing of your trying to explain your point that often reads to me (and certainly may not be your intent but is how it lands with me) a tad supercilious. But that’s likely just the power of certain words and phrasing. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers There was an interesting discussion on Imposter Syndrome on Woman's Hour a few years ago. It was given as one of the reasons women hold themselves back from succeeding in their careers. There is always a point when you know you're blagging it before you are truly confident in your knowledge, skills and experience. *know* you’re blagging it Yes, the problem - the syndrome - occurs when you continue believing you know, or at least suspect, that you're blagging it and you really haven't been for some time. Oh yeah - fake it until you make it." I still think I’m faking it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers There’s also an interesting thing discussed on the most recent No Such Thing As A Fish podcast (which also discussed DK). Experts often overstate their knowledge, based on the fact that they’re experts. There have been tests where experts in a given field have been asked to grade their knowledge of aspects of said field. The examples presented to them include entirely invented things, and many of them will claim to have sound knowledge of entirely fictitious examples. It’s like they’re saying, “I’m a physicist, so of course I know about the Mueller-Goldman effect.”" Nods head enthusiastically. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncanny. I was reading about impostor syndrome earlier today. Weird that its come up on here. It's definitely something I suffer from. But I think it also has something to do with having too high opinion of yourself... which is something I probably suffer from too. But it's difficult not to develop that sometimes " You make me chuckle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think most people post on these forums imagining the people on the other side are roughly like themselves. What I mean by that is that people often respond to others posts as if they were robust "normal" people. When in fact they may be really vulnerable. It takes someone actually stating they're really vulnerable for everyone to suddenly flip into super gushy kindness. I often think of this when the person I'm exchanging with on here is a bit weird. I wonder if they're a bit vulnerable. On a similar front I'm not really into swinging and I'm not into nsa... but I'm here. Why? Fuck knows. But I thought I might get some sex at some point but now I mainly use the forums as a dustbin of thoughts I'd never bother sharing with anyone else. So essentially, I don't really belong here and the thoughts I share here are totally peripheral to who I am... a kind of idle Jeremy Kyle world of rejected thought experiments... my own online equivalent of some trashy women's magazine like Cosmo. Yet people have built up an image of me from these fragments of my rejected periphery and have built a bizarre image of me based solely on that. It's like palaeontology really
I think some of that relates... doesn't it?
A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself.
Aren't you in danger of implying all opinions are equally valid?
"When it’s a subjective topic then (thinks) yes, I think I am. (Thinks more) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers There was an interesting discussion on Imposter Syndrome on Woman's Hour a few years ago. It was given as one of the reasons women hold themselves back from succeeding in their careers. There is always a point when you know you're blagging it before you are truly confident in your knowledge, skills and experience. *know* you’re blagging it Yes, the problem - the syndrome - occurs when you continue believing you know, or at least suspect, that you're blagging it and you really haven't been for some time. Oh yeah - fake it until you make it. I still think I’m faking it " I admit I faked it once. I felt bad for him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
That's when impostor syndrome bites you in the arse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers" With respect to the average Joe, a big part of the problem is that the experts held up by the media are usually not accurate in their predictions at all. Real experts do exist but research has shown they are unlikely to be shown to the public, since media prefers entertaining talking heads than accurate predictions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers There was an interesting discussion on Imposter Syndrome on Woman's Hour a few years ago. It was given as one of the reasons women hold themselves back from succeeding in their careers. There is always a point when you know you're blagging it before you are truly confident in your knowledge, skills and experience. *know* you’re blagging it Yes, the problem - the syndrome - occurs when you continue believing you know, or at least suspect, that you're blagging it and you really haven't been for some time. Oh yeah - fake it until you make it. I still think I’m faking it I admit I faked it once. I felt bad for him. " You said you wouldn't tell anyone  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncanny. I was reading about impostor syndrome earlier today. Weird that its come up on here. It's definitely something I suffer from. But I think it also has something to do with having too high opinion of yourself... which is something I probably suffer from too. But it's difficult not to develop that sometimes You make me chuckle. " I would be supercilious if I had opinions on people on these forums. I don't. So I'm just being fucking blunt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I did the equivalent of a first year in degree level mathematics on my ma. I was undoubtedly one of the top in the class and even corrected the teacher on one occasion. At the end of it we were asked to mark how we felt we did. I felt I could've done lots better as there was so much left I didn't understand, so gave myself 60%. At the end of the Ma all our markings were posted on the wall and it suddenly became apparent that the mark we had given ourselves for maths was what they used to grade us for it. That's how I ended up only getting 60% in maths whilst every single other idiot in the class got over 90%
That's when impostor syndrome bites you in the arse "That sounds ridiculous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The highly dangerous ones were the ones who thought they were clever and knew more about law than their lawyers. . They usually went down. That's classic DKE, a little knowledge being a dangerous thing and sitting on the mount stupid of the DK curve. One of the examples given is the robber who knowing lemon juice could be used as invisible ink, covered his face in juice so he wouldn't be seen. When caught he was incredulous stating 'but I was using the juice!' This is what worries me about a world in which experts are no longer trusted or respected and countries would rather be run by reality show presenters. Imposter syndrome is also an interesting subject in this area, I think alot of us 'feel' like we are just winging it and are imposters on our careers There was an interesting discussion on Imposter Syndrome on Woman's Hour a few years ago. It was given as one of the reasons women hold themselves back from succeeding in their careers. There is always a point when you know you're blagging it before you are truly confident in your knowledge, skills and experience. *know* you’re blagging it Yes, the problem - the syndrome - occurs when you continue believing you know, or at least suspect, that you're blagging it and you really haven't been for some time. Oh yeah - fake it until you make it. I still think I’m faking it I admit I faked it once. I felt bad for him. You said you wouldn't tell anyone "Hush, sweetheart. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think most people post on these forums imagining the people on the other side are roughly like themselves. What I mean by that is that people often respond to others posts as if they were robust "normal" people. When in fact they may be really vulnerable. It takes someone actually stating they're really vulnerable for everyone to suddenly flip into super gushy kindness. I often think of this when the person I'm exchanging with on here is a bit weird. I wonder if they're a bit vulnerable. On a similar front I'm not really into swinging and I'm not into nsa... but I'm here. Why? Fuck knows. But I thought I might get some sex at some point but now I mainly use the forums as a dustbin of thoughts I'd never bother sharing with anyone else. So essentially, I don't really belong here and the thoughts I share here are totally peripheral to who I am... a kind of idle Jeremy Kyle world of rejected thought experiments... my own online equivalent of some trashy women's magazine like Cosmo. Yet people have built up an image of me from these fragments of my rejected periphery and have built a bizarre image of me based solely on that. It's like palaeontology really
I think some of that relates... doesn't it?
A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself.
Aren't you in danger of implying all opinions are equally valid?
When it’s a subjective topic then (thinks) yes, I think I am.
(Thinks more)
"I would have thought that it depends on the validity of the assumptions on which the perceptions are based. Thoughtful inquiry can test those assumptions, both our own and the other person(s). With appropriate illustration of our perceptions we can understand each other’s perspectives more fully and potentially reach a more valid mutually agreed perception | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do love your posts!!" Awww, I do like some positive feedback! I tend to just witter. Thank you, though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncanny. I was reading about impostor syndrome earlier today. Weird that its come up on here. It's definitely something I suffer from. But I think it also has something to do with having too high opinion of yourself... which is something I probably suffer from too. But it's difficult not to develop that sometimes You make me chuckle. I would be supercilious if I had opinions on people on these forums. I don't. So I'm just being fucking blunt "I’m not sure that’s wholly accurate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But I think it also has something to do with having too high opinion of yourself... which is something I probably suffer from too." This seems to highlight the paradox... Thinks "god am not very good at my job", colleague "hey, you did a great job there!" thinks "oh maybe I'm quite good at this", thinks again "oh no I'm an imposter now I think I'm good when I'm not really" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think most people post on these forums imagining the people on the other side are roughly like themselves. What I mean by that is that people often respond to others posts as if they were robust "normal" people. When in fact they may be really vulnerable. It takes someone actually stating they're really vulnerable for everyone to suddenly flip into super gushy kindness. I often think of this when the person I'm exchanging with on here is a bit weird. I wonder if they're a bit vulnerable. On a similar front I'm not really into swinging and I'm not into nsa... but I'm here. Why? Fuck knows. But I thought I might get some sex at some point but now I mainly use the forums as a dustbin of thoughts I'd never bother sharing with anyone else. So essentially, I don't really belong here and the thoughts I share here are totally peripheral to who I am... a kind of idle Jeremy Kyle world of rejected thought experiments... my own online equivalent of some trashy women's magazine like Cosmo. Yet people have built up an image of me from these fragments of my rejected periphery and have built a bizarre image of me based solely on that. It's like palaeontology really
I think some of that relates... doesn't it?
A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself.
Aren't you in danger of implying all opinions are equally valid?
When it’s a subjective topic then (thinks) yes, I think I am.
(Thinks more)
I would have thought that it depends on the validity of the assumptions on which the perceptions are based. Thoughtful inquiry can test those assumptions, both our own and the other person(s). With appropriate illustration of our perceptions we can understand each other’s perspectives more fully and potentially reach a more valid mutually agreed perception"Nods. My brain is hot and I want to be clear what I mean by this and at what point I’ve bent it round too far. I’m going to work through some examples tomorrow. Because I don’t want to validate wilful deviation from fact as being truth, but if someone thinks x about me and I disagree, I’m trying to promote that the other person getting to the view of x is not invalidated simply because my intent was not how they took something. Mmmm. I’m not articulating well! So I’m going to mull this and your clarification further so I’m settled! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself. " What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you remember which episode it was? That sounds interesting. " Just checked. Episode 222. That part starts just after the fifteen minute mark. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Words are spoken by the listener: All too often we get upset because other people break our trust or misunderstand us. But the problem we have is that we tend to assume that whatever we say is perfectly understood and perfectly projected, reflecting our thoughts and feelings in fine precision. The truth is that words are the most complex, arbitrary, relative and symbolic forms of communication. Furthermore, each of us have different definitions based upon our own unique experiences and associations with each word we come across. So in essence … you may provide the words, but the listener always provides the definitions.” Wise. What paradoxes have you encountered that made you stop and think?" everything I say has wisdom but yet is believed to be a falsehood | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps the real wisdom of a paradox is that it's entirely possible to believe two opposite at the same time. " One reason for this is that there are different types of truth. Something may be true in one type and false in another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself. What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo " Totally agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself. What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo " And therein lies the issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you remember which episode it was? That sounds interesting. Just checked. Episode 222. That part starts just after the fifteen minute mark." Thanks, got in on YouTube. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself. What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo Totally agree "Oh exciting. I have a new thing to explain further. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself. What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo Totally agree
Oh exciting. I have a new thing to explain further. "It did sound very postmodern and I did seek your clarification | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself. What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo And therein lies the issue." ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps the real wisdom of a paradox is that it's entirely possible to believe two opposite at the same time. One reason for this is that there are different types of truth. Something may be true in one type and false in another. " Expand on this, please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself. What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo Totally agree
Oh exciting. I have a new thing to explain further.
It did sound very postmodern and I did seek your clarification "I know! I want to explain (and will) with an example but am fearing I’m no longer making sense of my point tonight. I shall endeavour to expand on what I mean but given the work day tomorrow, I may request the weekend to come back and write a thread to work it through with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself. What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo And therein lies the issue. ? " Just acknowledging your and my different perceptions of you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t take advice especially if it comes from me." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps the real wisdom of a paradox is that it's entirely possible to believe two opposite at the same time. One reason for this is that there are different types of truth. Something may be true in one type and false in another. Expand on this, please. " Well this was one of the things Socrates debated and the basic question is whether ignorance is the only reason we do anything bad / we would ever knowingly act against our own interests. I will warn you that it's a debate that can degenerate into semantic nonsense. But a person can, for example, believe that cheating is wrong which is the truth they can rationalise. But they can also cheat, which is the truth they act out. Some people would argue that they don't really believe that cheating is wrong, if they do it. But i think that's ignorant. I think if you hooked them up to an (accurate) lie detector, it would show they do believe it is wrong, consciously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t take advice especially if it comes from me. "I love paradoxical injunctions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps the real wisdom of a paradox is that it's entirely possible to believe two opposite at the same time. One reason for this is that there are different types of truth. Something may be true in one type and false in another. Expand on this, please. Well this was one of the things Socrates debated and the basic question is whether ignorance is the only reason we do anything bad / we would ever knowingly act against our own interests. I will warn you that it's a debate that can degenerate into semantic nonsense. But a person can, for example, believe that cheating is wrong which is the truth they can rationalise. But they can also cheat, which is the truth they act out. Some people would argue that they don't really believe that cheating is wrong, if they do it. But i think that's ignorant. I think if you hooked them up to an (accurate) lie detector, it would show they do believe it is wrong, consciously. " Aha, I do see. Oh I need to read more on this. That’s got my brain whirring and I need to try and slow down right now. Or I won’t sleep. Can everyone tuck me in and sing me to sleep? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Night night x"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps the real wisdom of a paradox is that it's entirely possible to believe two opposite at the same time. One reason for this is that there are different types of truth. Something may be true in one type and false in another. Expand on this, please. Well this was one of the things Socrates debated and the basic question is whether ignorance is the only reason we do anything bad / we would ever knowingly act against our own interests. I will warn you that it's a debate that can degenerate into semantic nonsense. But a person can, for example, believe that cheating is wrong which is the truth they can rationalise. But they can also cheat, which is the truth they act out. Some people would argue that they don't really believe that cheating is wrong, if they do it. But i think that's ignorant. I think if you hooked them up to an (accurate) lie detector, it would show they do believe it is wrong, consciously. " I like Badiou's take on this. People only believe they believe something. They profess to. But can suddenly be surprised when they realised they never really believed it at all. They were just trying it on for size | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps the real wisdom of a paradox is that it's entirely possible to believe two opposite at the same time. One reason for this is that there are different types of truth. Something may be true in one type and false in another. Expand on this, please. Well this was one of the things Socrates debated and the basic question is whether ignorance is the only reason we do anything bad / we would ever knowingly act against our own interests. I will warn you that it's a debate that can degenerate into semantic nonsense. But a person can, for example, believe that cheating is wrong which is the truth they can rationalise. But they can also cheat, which is the truth they act out. Some people would argue that they don't really believe that cheating is wrong, if they do it. But i think that's ignorant. I think if you hooked them up to an (accurate) lie detector, it would show they do believe it is wrong, consciously. I like Badiou's take on this. People only believe they believe something. They profess to. But can suddenly be surprised when they realised they never really believed it at all. They were just trying it on for size " I think of it in terms of different types of truth, but I'd say the one that you act out is the most important. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself. What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo And therein lies the issue. ? " Who are you? Do you exist independently perceiving the universe or are you the universe experiencing yourself/itself? Perhaps we are the latter and have the overwhelming need to interact with each other (like starlings in a murmuration) through conversation so we can collectively draw and redraw the map which enables the universe to perceive its own terrain? A knife cannot cut itself, nor can a flame burn itself, so then can we never really know ourselves My head hurts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps the real wisdom of a paradox is that it's entirely possible to believe two opposite at the same time. One reason for this is that there are different types of truth. Something may be true in one type and false in another. Expand on this, please. Well this was one of the things Socrates debated and the basic question is whether ignorance is the only reason we do anything bad / we would ever knowingly act against our own interests. I will warn you that it's a debate that can degenerate into semantic nonsense. But a person can, for example, believe that cheating is wrong which is the truth they can rationalise. But they can also cheat, which is the truth they act out. Some people would argue that they don't really believe that cheating is wrong, if they do it. But i think that's ignorant. I think if you hooked them up to an (accurate) lie detector, it would show they do believe it is wrong, consciously. I like Badiou's take on this. People only believe they believe something. They profess to. But can suddenly be surprised when they realised they never really believed it at all. They were just trying it on for size I think of it in terms of different types of truth, but I'd say the one that you act out is the most important. " The most believable one? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo " That’s not really right, though. It is incredibly rare for anyone to accurately perceive and assess themselves; the DKE and Imposter Syndrome we’re discussing here are two shining examples of that. The results of D&K’s studies show that very few people can accurately perceive themselves, in any single aspect of their multi-faceted personalities. The most precise assessment is some mix of your own and everyone who has interacted with you, to varying degrees. But if we’re going to talk about truth as something that is unique to each individual, well, yes, unless someone is deliberately lying to themselves, then their opinion is true. One of the receptionists at a place I worked was always rude. To everyone. The fact that she thought she was funny doesn’t help. Her perception of herself was not the most primary and essential truth of who she was. She wasn’t funny, she was rude. I don’t think that’s the same as saying that every opinion on every topic has equal validity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself. What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo And therein lies the issue. ? Who are you? Do you exist independently perceiving the universe or are you the universe experiencing yourself/itself? Perhaps we are the latter and have the overwhelming need to interact with each other (like starlings in a murmuration) through conversation so we can collectively draw and redraw the map which enables the universe to perceive its own terrain? A knife cannot cut itself, nor can a flame burn itself, so then can we never really know ourselves My head hurts" Thanks for that Rene very poetic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo That’s not really right, though. It is incredibly rare for anyone to accurately perceive and assess themselves; the DKE and Imposter Syndrome we’re discussing here are two shining examples of that. The results of D&K’s studies show that very few people can accurately perceive themselves, in any single aspect of their multi-faceted personalities. The most precise assessment is some mix of your own and everyone who has interacted with you, to varying degrees. But if we’re going to talk about truth as something that is unique to each individual, well, yes, unless someone is deliberately lying to themselves, then their opinion is true. One of the receptionists at a place I worked was always rude. To everyone. The fact that she thought she was funny doesn’t help. Her perception of herself was not the most primary and essential truth of who she was. She wasn’t funny, she was rude. I don’t think that’s the same as saying that every opinion on every topic has equal validity." You're right that there's a whole world of difference between the essential I AM and the shambolic Winchester House of our personality which continually builds a maze of corridors, conservatories, and extensions off it. But these are also primary raw truth for each of us. As are our own opinions of others. But everything outside ourself, even objective reality... well it just isn't a truth in that deeper sense imo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo That’s not really right, though. It is incredibly rare for anyone to accurately perceive and assess themselves; the DKE and Imposter Syndrome we’re discussing here are two shining examples of that. The results of D&K’s studies show that very few people can accurately perceive themselves, in any single aspect of their multi-faceted personalities. The most precise assessment is some mix of your own and everyone who has interacted with you, to varying degrees. But if we’re going to talk about truth as something that is unique to each individual, well, yes, unless someone is deliberately lying to themselves, then their opinion is true. One of the receptionists at a place I worked was always rude. To everyone. The fact that she thought she was funny doesn’t help. Her perception of herself was not the most primary and essential truth of who she was. She wasn’t funny, she was rude. I don’t think that’s the same as saying that every opinion on every topic has equal validity." I’m going to have to pretend that it’s cooler temperatures in Scotland than London that has allowed you to articulate so much more deftly what I poke clumsily at trying to say. Damn you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps the real wisdom of a paradox is that it's entirely possible to believe two opposite at the same time. One reason for this is that there are different types of truth. Something may be true in one type and false in another. Expand on this, please. Well this was one of the things Socrates debated and the basic question is whether ignorance is the only reason we do anything bad / we would ever knowingly act against our own interests. I will warn you that it's a debate that can degenerate into semantic nonsense. But a person can, for example, believe that cheating is wrong which is the truth they can rationalise. But they can also cheat, which is the truth they act out. Some people would argue that they don't really believe that cheating is wrong, if they do it. But i think that's ignorant. I think if you hooked them up to an (accurate) lie detector, it would show they do believe it is wrong, consciously. I like Badiou's take on this. People only believe they believe something. They profess to. But can suddenly be surprised when they realised they never really believed it at all. They were just trying it on for size I think of it in terms of different types of truth, but I'd say the one that you act out is the most important. The most believable one?" People don't tend to think in terms of multiple truths. So when people say / talk about "the truth" then i think about the acted truth. So when a politician says "yes I agree that's very important, but we can't find it because there isn't enough money" then they don't really believe it's very important.* *assuming they have authorisation to fund it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A person’s perception of you is as valid, true and real as your perception of yourself. What nonsense. My own perception of myself is THE most primary and essential truth of who I am. Another person's perception of me is a total fraud that plays out in their head with either successful predictability or woeful failure of predictability. It is only true to them in the same way any fiction is true to them. It's like saying the map is as real as the terrain. Very postmodern. But ridiculous imo And therein lies the issue. ? Who are you? Do you exist independently perceiving the universe or are you the universe experiencing yourself/itself? Perhaps we are the latter and have the overwhelming need to interact with each other (like starlings in a murmuration) through conversation so we can collectively draw and redraw the map which enables the universe to perceive its own terrain? A knife cannot cut itself, nor can a flame burn itself, so then can we never really know ourselves My head hurts" Why would a knife need to cut itself? If a knife cuts butter then it knows it's a good butter knife. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*TLDR Too Late Didn’t Read... " That was a joke by the way. An intense and thought provoking thread, I find it really interesting the way that concepts of who are are threaded through multiple perceptions, not just by others but by ourselves as well. Is that the ultimate paradox? That we can’t know ourselves and neither can others...? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps the real wisdom of a paradox is that it's entirely possible to believe two opposite at the same time. One reason for this is that there are different types of truth. Something may be true in one type and false in another. Expand on this, please. Well this was one of the things Socrates debated and the basic question is whether ignorance is the only reason we do anything bad / we would ever knowingly act against our own interests. I will warn you that it's a debate that can degenerate into semantic nonsense. But a person can, for example, believe that cheating is wrong which is the truth they can rationalise. But they can also cheat, which is the truth they act out. Some people would argue that they don't really believe that cheating is wrong, if they do it. But i think that's ignorant. I think if you hooked them up to an (accurate) lie detector, it would show they do believe it is wrong, consciously. I like Badiou's take on this. People only believe they believe something. They profess to. But can suddenly be surprised when they realised they never really believed it at all. They were just trying it on for size I think of it in terms of different types of truth, but I'd say the one that you act out is the most important. The most believable one? People don't tend to think in terms of multiple truths. So when people say / talk about "the truth" then i think about the acted truth. So when a politician says "yes I agree that's very important, but we can't find it because there isn't enough money" then they don't really believe it's very important.* *assuming they have authorisation to fund it" I think the word "truth" is banded about too much. Its only meaning can ever possibly be singular THE TRUTH. Nothing else is true like this. It's all just opinions and conjecture that common parlance has set upon calling truth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*TLDR Too Late Didn’t Read... That was a joke by the way. An intense and thought provoking thread, I find it really interesting the way that concepts of who are are threaded through multiple perceptions, not just by others but by ourselves as well. Is that the ultimate paradox? That we can’t know ourselves and neither can others...? " That we come to know ourselves through others? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps the real wisdom of a paradox is that it's entirely possible to believe two opposite at the same time. One reason for this is that there are different types of truth. Something may be true in one type and false in another. Expand on this, please. Well this was one of the things Socrates debated and the basic question is whether ignorance is the only reason we do anything bad / we would ever knowingly act against our own interests. I will warn you that it's a debate that can degenerate into semantic nonsense. But a person can, for example, believe that cheating is wrong which is the truth they can rationalise. But they can also cheat, which is the truth they act out. Some people would argue that they don't really believe that cheating is wrong, if they do it. But i think that's ignorant. I think if you hooked them up to an (accurate) lie detector, it would show they do believe it is wrong, consciously. I like Badiou's take on this. People only believe they believe something. They profess to. But can suddenly be surprised when they realised they never really believed it at all. They were just trying it on for size I think of it in terms of different types of truth, but I'd say the one that you act out is the most important. The most believable one? People don't tend to think in terms of multiple truths. So when people say / talk about "the truth" then i think about the acted truth. So when a politician says "yes I agree that's very important, but we can't find it because there isn't enough money" then they don't really believe it's very important.* *assuming they have authorisation to fund it I think the word "truth" is banded about too much. Its only meaning can ever possibly be singular THE TRUTH. Nothing else is true like this. It's all just opinions and conjecture that common parlance has set upon calling truth " I don't agree because i feel can emprically demonstrate multiple versions of the truth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Words are spoken by the listener: All too often we get upset because other people break our trust or misunderstand us. But the problem we have is that we tend to assume that whatever we say is perfectly understood and perfectly projected, reflecting our thoughts and feelings in fine precision. The truth is that words are the most complex, arbitrary, relative and symbolic forms of communication. Furthermore, each of us have different definitions based upon our own unique experiences and associations with each word we come across. So in essence … you may provide the words, but the listener always provides the definitions.” ' I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant' I don't know if its the same thing as the op, I got a bit lost... but I always find it interesting how things get interpreted by people, say when at work asking someone to do something and something almost entirely different happens. Am I a terrible explainer or they a terrible listener. "I'm not sure which but I have 3 and 4pence let go to the dance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps the real wisdom of a paradox is that it's entirely possible to believe two opposite at the same time. One reason for this is that there are different types of truth. Something may be true in one type and false in another. Expand on this, please. Well this was one of the things Socrates debated and the basic question is whether ignorance is the only reason we do anything bad / we would ever knowingly act against our own interests. I will warn you that it's a debate that can degenerate into semantic nonsense. But a person can, for example, believe that cheating is wrong which is the truth they can rationalise. But they can also cheat, which is the truth they act out. Some people would argue that they don't really believe that cheating is wrong, if they do it. But i think that's ignorant. I think if you hooked them up to an (accurate) lie detector, it would show they do believe it is wrong, consciously. I like Badiou's take on this. People only believe they believe something. They profess to. But can suddenly be surprised when they realised they never really believed it at all. They were just trying it on for size I think of it in terms of different types of truth, but I'd say the one that you act out is the most important. The most believable one? People don't tend to think in terms of multiple truths. So when people say / talk about "the truth" then i think about the acted truth. So when a politician says "yes I agree that's very important, but we can't find it because there isn't enough money" then they don't really believe it's very important.* *assuming they have authorisation to fund it I think the word "truth" is banded about too much. Its only meaning can ever possibly be singular THE TRUTH. Nothing else is true like this. It's all just opinions and conjecture that common parlance has set upon calling truth I don't agree because i feel can emprically demonstrate multiple versions of the truth. " Then that's THE TRUTH | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*TLDR Too Late Didn’t Read... That was a joke by the way. An intense and thought provoking thread, I find it really interesting the way that concepts of who are are threaded through multiple perceptions, not just by others but by ourselves as well. Is that the ultimate paradox? That we can’t know ourselves and neither can others...? That we come to know ourselves through others? " But they can’t really know us as they're perceiving us through themselves. It’s like trying to get a picture through crystal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*TLDR Too Late Didn’t Read... That was a joke by the way. An intense and thought provoking thread, I find it really interesting the way that concepts of who are are threaded through multiple perceptions, not just by others but by ourselves as well. Is that the ultimate paradox? That we can’t know ourselves and neither can others...? That we come to know ourselves through others? But they can’t really know us as they're perceiving us through themselves. It’s like trying to get a picture through crystal. " But we often learn stuff about our opinions etc by other people prodding us about them. In a similar way nothing forces you to learn about a subject more than having to teach it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would a knife need to cut itself? If a knife cuts butter then it knows it's a good butter knife. " I was trying to use it as an analogue to perceiving ourselves, either individually or collectively. Like the cave allegory; because we can only see the shadows on the cave wall and we cannot turn our heads to see what's behind us, our perception is our reality, we can no more explain ourselves than the knife can cut itself. The paradox I guess is that the more we understand the more we realise how much we don't understand (DKE). Now we can take a zen approach and know we spread butter well and live happily ever after, though I suspect many of us continue to question who am I and what is reality even though we know we can never know. Head hurts even more! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would a knife need to cut itself? If a knife cuts butter then it knows it's a good butter knife. I was trying to use it as an analogue to perceiving ourselves, either individually or collectively. Like the cave allegory; because we can only see the shadows on the cave wall and we cannot turn our heads to see what's behind us, our perception is our reality, we can no more explain ourselves than the knife can cut itself. The paradox I guess is that the more we understand the more we realise how much we don't understand (DKE). Now we can take a zen approach and know we spread butter well and live happily ever after, though I suspect many of us continue to question who am I and what is reality even though we know we can never know. Head hurts even more! " But DKE says that you reach a level where eventually you do know what you don't know. I never really had much time for the cave anology. Philosophy has a tendency to degenerate into semantic silliness. I much prefer psychology. I'm far more interested in reconciling the individual conscious, subconscious and collective knowledge, than worrying as i think that answers any meaningful question about who you are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would a knife need to cut itself? If a knife cuts butter then it knows it's a good butter knife. I was trying to use it as an analogue to perceiving ourselves, either individually or collectively. Like the cave allegory; because we can only see the shadows on the cave wall and we cannot turn our heads to see what's behind us, our perception is our reality, we can no more explain ourselves than the knife can cut itself. The paradox I guess is that the more we understand the more we realise how much we don't understand (DKE). Now we can take a zen approach and know we spread butter well and live happily ever after, though I suspect many of us continue to question who am I and what is reality even though we know we can never know. Head hurts even more! But DKE says that you reach a level where eventually you do know what you don't know. I never really had much time for the cave anology. Philosophy has a tendency to degenerate into semantic silliness. I much prefer psychology. I'm far more interested in reconciling the individual conscious, subconscious and collective knowledge, than worrying as i think that answers any meaningful question about who you are. " I'm happily on the other side of the fence with this. No time for the quackery of psychology. Total pseudoscience the lot of it. Much more into rational critical thought i.e philosophy. That's where the answers are. They're just traumatic troubling foggy answers that's all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would a knife need to cut itself? If a knife cuts butter then it knows it's a good butter knife. I was trying to use it as an analogue to perceiving ourselves, either individually or collectively. Like the cave allegory; because we can only see the shadows on the cave wall and we cannot turn our heads to see what's behind us, our perception is our reality, we can no more explain ourselves than the knife can cut itself. The paradox I guess is that the more we understand the more we realise how much we don't understand (DKE). Now we can take a zen approach and know we spread butter well and live happily ever after, though I suspect many of us continue to question who am I and what is reality even though we know we can never know. Head hurts even more! But DKE says that you reach a level where eventually you do know what you don't know. I never really had much time for the cave anology. Philosophy has a tendency to degenerate into semantic silliness. I much prefer psychology. I'm far more interested in reconciling the individual conscious, subconscious and collective knowledge, than worrying as i think that answers any meaningful question about who you are. I'm happily on the other side of the fence with this. No time for the quackery of psychology. Total pseudoscience the lot of it. Much more into rational critical thought i.e philosophy. That's where the answers are. They're just traumatic troubling foggy answers that's all "As I've explained to you before, psychology benefits from the scientific method which proves it is anything but quackery. Philosophy is mainly semantic nonsense, presenting false dichotomies and drawing conclusions off problems that don't exist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well, you two - did we enjoy our soggy biscuit game? Meanwhile I’ve had a lovely sleep. "Were you sleeping or awaking? Are dreams reality and reality dreams? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg?" The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex." Which came first the dinosaur or the egg? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex. Which came first the dinosaur or the egg?" Still the egg, they were used as reproduction method of many sea and land animals before dinosaurs evolved... unless dinosaurs didn't evolve or perhaps exist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex. Which came first the dinosaur or the egg? Still the egg, they were used as reproduction method of many sea and land animals before dinosaurs evolved... unless dinosaurs didn't evolve or perhaps exist? "Which came first the sea and land animals or the egg? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex. Which came first the dinosaur or the egg? Still the egg, they were used as reproduction method of many sea and land animals before dinosaurs evolved... unless dinosaurs didn't evolve or perhaps exist?
Which came first the sea and land animals or the egg?"Well creationist would argue that the animal was created first, with no reproduction required, most sane people would point to original life from which more complex forms evolved probably started as single celled animals that reproduced by division. So in that case the amoeba possibly came first, though there is no remaining proof. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex. Which came first the dinosaur or the egg? Still the egg, they were used as reproduction method of many sea and land animals before dinosaurs evolved... unless dinosaurs didn't evolve or perhaps exist?
Which came first the sea and land animals or the egg?
Well creationist would argue that the animal was created first, with no reproduction required, most sane people would point to original life from which more complex forms evolved probably started as single celled animals that reproduced by division.
So in that case the amoeba possibly came first, though there is no remaining proof."I object to the attribution of ‘sane’ there, but appreciate it is your opinion. Personally, I wouldn’t say either group had the definitive right to that word based on their beliefs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex. Which came first the dinosaur or the egg? Still the egg, they were used as reproduction method of many sea and land animals before dinosaurs evolved... unless dinosaurs didn't evolve or perhaps exist?
Which came first the sea and land animals or the egg?"If you ask the same question enough times but, dress it slightly differently each time (bit like the way evolution works but we're going backwards in time) the answer may eventually change! The original question, what came first the chicken or the egg was an interesting philosophical debate dating back to before The likes of Aristotle and continued to be an interesting philosophical question until the theory of evolution started to develop and science found the answer. One day, before the chicken was a chicken, a bird like animal that wasn't a chicken laid an egg and out of this egg came a chicken. Knowing this renders the question as a philosophical debate, sterile. As it does with the next question you asked, right back to before fish when single cells were the only life. If you ask a different question you would get a different answer, although not always. If you want the answer to be chicken, you could ask... what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg! Or, what came first, the T-rex or the T-rex egg? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex. Which came first the dinosaur or the egg? Still the egg, they were used as reproduction method of many sea and land animals before dinosaurs evolved... unless dinosaurs didn't evolve or perhaps exist?
Which came first the sea and land animals or the egg?
If you ask the same question enough times but, dress it slightly differently each time (bit like the way evolution works but we're going backwards in time) the answer may eventually change!
The original question, what came first the chicken or the egg was an interesting philosophical debate dating back to before The likes of Aristotle and continued to be an interesting philosophical question until the theory of evolution started to develop and science found the answer.
One day, before the chicken was a chicken, a bird like animal that wasn't a chicken laid an egg and out of this egg came a chicken. Knowing this renders the question as a philosophical debate, sterile. As it does with the next question you asked, right back to before fish when single cells were the only life.
If you ask a different question you would get a different answer, although not always.
If you want the answer to be chicken, you could ask... what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg!
Or, what came first, the T-rex or the T-rex egg?"So basically most of philosophy is semantic nonsense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never really had much time for the cave anology. Philosophy has a tendency to degenerate into semantic silliness. I much prefer psychology. I'm far more interested in reconciling the individual conscious, subconscious and collective knowledge, than worrying as i think that answers any meaningful question about who you are. I'm happily on the other side of the fence with this. No time for the quackery of psychology. Total pseudoscience the lot of it. Much more into rational critical thought i.e philosophy. That's where the answers are. They're just traumatic troubling foggy answers that's all
As I've explained to you before, psychology benefits from the scientific method which proves it is anything but quackery. Philosophy is mainly semantic nonsense, presenting false dichotomies and drawing conclusions off problems that don't exist. "Philosophy is the father of all science. It is what gives us the scientific method. Without philosophy science wouldn't exist. Psychology isn't even really a science. It has certainly glued a lot of sciencey stuff to itself in its quest to look legitimate. But it can't even prove its basic assumptions. It's just made up stuff with only clinical evidence to support it, much the same as reiki or crystal healing. It has no idea what its doing nor how it works (when it does). Psychology contributes little in the scheme of things (and may even be a negative agency in some situations). Philosophy is the basis of everything. If we want to move forward it will be through philosophy not psychology. Philosophy, for a start, will slowly corrode psychology until it finds something true in it. Then maybe psychology will rise to its rightful place above all the other sciences | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never really had much time for the cave anology. Philosophy has a tendency to degenerate into semantic silliness. I much prefer psychology. I'm far more interested in reconciling the individual conscious, subconscious and collective knowledge, than worrying as i think that answers any meaningful question about who you are. I'm happily on the other side of the fence with this. No time for the quackery of psychology. Total pseudoscience the lot of it. Much more into rational critical thought i.e philosophy. That's where the answers are. They're just traumatic troubling foggy answers that's all
As I've explained to you before, psychology benefits from the scientific method which proves it is anything but quackery. Philosophy is mainly semantic nonsense, presenting false dichotomies and drawing conclusions off problems that don't exist.
Philosophy is the father of all science. It is what gives us the scientific method. Without philosophy science wouldn't exist. Psychology isn't even really a science. It has certainly glued a lot of sciencey stuff to itself in its quest to look legitimate. But it can't even prove its basic assumptions. It's just made up stuff with only clinical evidence to support it, much the same as reiki or crystal healing. It has no idea what its doing nor how it works (when it does). Psychology contributes little in the scheme of things (and may even be a negative agency in some situations). Philosophy is the basis of everything.
If we want to move forward it will be through philosophy not psychology. Philosophy, for a start, will slowly corrode psychology until it finds something true in it. Then maybe psychology will rise to its rightful place above all the other sciences "Prophetic bullshit but points for effort | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex. Which came first the dinosaur or the egg? Still the egg, they were used as reproduction method of many sea and land animals before dinosaurs evolved... unless dinosaurs didn't evolve or perhaps exist?
Which came first the sea and land animals or the egg?
If you ask the same question enough times but, dress it slightly differently each time (bit like the way evolution works but we're going backwards in time) the answer may eventually change!
The original question, what came first the chicken or the egg was an interesting philosophical debate dating back to before The likes of Aristotle and continued to be an interesting philosophical question until the theory of evolution started to develop and science found the answer.
One day, before the chicken was a chicken, a bird like animal that wasn't a chicken laid an egg and out of this egg came a chicken. Knowing this renders the question as a philosophical debate, sterile. As it does with the next question you asked, right back to before fish when single cells were the only life.
If you ask a different question you would get a different answer, although not always.
If you want the answer to be chicken, you could ask... what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg!
Or, what came first, the T-rex or the T-rex egg?
So basically most of philosophy is semantic nonsense "There is a lot that isn't. If you go by the dictionary definition... 1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. 2. a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour. If people take part in some of the more serious topics in the forum's they are taking part in philosophical debate. Is it the debate that is nonsense or the opinions that one doesn't agree with? I think philosophy has played an important part in humankinds intellectual and moral development so wouldn't label it as semantic nonsense! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Forget chickens; what came first the egg layer or the egg from which the egg layer came from?" I can't forget chickens, I like chickens! So, what came first? The question or, the answer! One could argue the case for both but I would lean towards... The answer has always been out there but not yet discovered by the asker | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex. Which came first the dinosaur or the egg? Still the egg, they were used as reproduction method of many sea and land animals before dinosaurs evolved... unless dinosaurs didn't evolve or perhaps exist?
Which came first the sea and land animals or the egg?
If you ask the same question enough times but, dress it slightly differently each time (bit like the way evolution works but we're going backwards in time) the answer may eventually change!
The original question, what came first the chicken or the egg was an interesting philosophical debate dating back to before The likes of Aristotle and continued to be an interesting philosophical question until the theory of evolution started to develop and science found the answer.
One day, before the chicken was a chicken, a bird like animal that wasn't a chicken laid an egg and out of this egg came a chicken. Knowing this renders the question as a philosophical debate, sterile. As it does with the next question you asked, right back to before fish when single cells were the only life.
If you ask a different question you would get a different answer, although not always.
If you want the answer to be chicken, you could ask... what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg!
Or, what came first, the T-rex or the T-rex egg?
So basically most of philosophy is semantic nonsense
There is a lot that isn't. If you go by the dictionary definition...
1.
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
2.
a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.
If people take part in some of the more serious topics in the forum's they are taking part in philosophical debate. Is it the debate that is nonsense or the opinions that one doesn't agree with?
I think philosophy has played an important part in humankinds intellectual and moral development so wouldn't label it as semantic nonsense!
"I'm not writing off the entire field. I love Hobbes-Rousseau and Socrates-Thrasymachus. I just haven't seen anything decent written in the field in the last 200 years. I've seen a lot of complete crap (post-modernism) and I think that they must have run out of real debates to have. I absolutely loath the reductionist examples the wankers and hipsters love to debate, that are totally meaningless. Like that stupid shit about if a train was heading towards your husband / wife, would you divert it onto a track with 4 other people. That's an idiotic question frankly. Psychology on the other hand, has made great strides with practical applications that make the world wealthier, happier and safer. We understand more than ever about how to prevent crime, motivate workers, live longer and pick better life partners. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex. Which came first the dinosaur or the egg? Still the egg, they were used as reproduction method of many sea and land animals before dinosaurs evolved... unless dinosaurs didn't evolve or perhaps exist?
Which came first the sea and land animals or the egg?
If you ask the same question enough times but, dress it slightly differently each time (bit like the way evolution works but we're going backwards in time) the answer may eventually change!
The original question, what came first the chicken or the egg was an interesting philosophical debate dating back to before The likes of Aristotle and continued to be an interesting philosophical question until the theory of evolution started to develop and science found the answer.
One day, before the chicken was a chicken, a bird like animal that wasn't a chicken laid an egg and out of this egg came a chicken. Knowing this renders the question as a philosophical debate, sterile. As it does with the next question you asked, right back to before fish when single cells were the only life.
If you ask a different question you would get a different answer, although not always.
If you want the answer to be chicken, you could ask... what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg!
Or, what came first, the T-rex or the T-rex egg?
So basically most of philosophy is semantic nonsense
There is a lot that isn't. If you go by the dictionary definition...
1.
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
2.
a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.
If people take part in some of the more serious topics in the forum's they are taking part in philosophical debate. Is it the debate that is nonsense or the opinions that one doesn't agree with?
I think philosophy has played an important part in humankinds intellectual and moral development so wouldn't label it as semantic nonsense!
I'm not writing off the entire field. I love Hobbes-Rousseau and Socrates-Thrasymachus.
I just haven't seen anything decent written in the field in the last 200 years. I've seen a lot of complete crap (post-modernism) and I think that they must have run out of real debates to have. I absolutely loath the reductionist examples the wankers and hipsters love to debate, that are totally meaningless. Like that stupid shit about if a train was heading towards your husband / wife, would you divert it onto a track with 4 other people. That's an idiotic question frankly.
Psychology on the other hand, has made great strides with practical applications that make the world wealthier, happier and safer. We understand more than ever about how to prevent crime, motivate workers, live longer and pick better life partners. "The example you mention is often use to highlight the difference between Kantian and utilitarian theories of ethics. It seems to me a good way to get people to examine their previously unexamined ethical assumptions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex. Which came first the dinosaur or the egg? Still the egg, they were used as reproduction method of many sea and land animals before dinosaurs evolved... unless dinosaurs didn't evolve or perhaps exist?
Which came first the sea and land animals or the egg?
If you ask the same question enough times but, dress it slightly differently each time (bit like the way evolution works but we're going backwards in time) the answer may eventually change!
The original question, what came first the chicken or the egg was an interesting philosophical debate dating back to before The likes of Aristotle and continued to be an interesting philosophical question until the theory of evolution started to develop and science found the answer.
One day, before the chicken was a chicken, a bird like animal that wasn't a chicken laid an egg and out of this egg came a chicken. Knowing this renders the question as a philosophical debate, sterile. As it does with the next question you asked, right back to before fish when single cells were the only life.
If you ask a different question you would get a different answer, although not always.
If you want the answer to be chicken, you could ask... what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg!
Or, what came first, the T-rex or the T-rex egg?
So basically most of philosophy is semantic nonsense
There is a lot that isn't. If you go by the dictionary definition...
1.
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
2.
a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.
If people take part in some of the more serious topics in the forum's they are taking part in philosophical debate. Is it the debate that is nonsense or the opinions that one doesn't agree with?
I think philosophy has played an important part in humankinds intellectual and moral development so wouldn't label it as semantic nonsense!
I'm not writing off the entire field. I love Hobbes-Rousseau and Socrates-Thrasymachus.
I just haven't seen anything decent written in the field in the last 200 years. I've seen a lot of complete crap (post-modernism) and I think that they must have run out of real debates to have. I absolutely loath the reductionist examples the wankers and hipsters love to debate, that are totally meaningless. Like that stupid shit about if a train was heading towards your husband / wife, would you divert it onto a track with 4 other people. That's an idiotic question frankly.
Psychology on the other hand, has made great strides with practical applications that make the world wealthier, happier and safer. We understand more than ever about how to prevent crime, motivate workers, live longer and pick better life partners.
The example you mention is often use to highlight the difference between Kantian and utilitarian theories of ethics. It seems to me a good way to get people to examine their previously unexamined ethical assumptions. "Fair enough if you like it. I don't, I think it's meaningless and there must be better ways to examine the issue. I actually like ethical discussions but personally I think these kind of examples hinder more than they help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex. Which came first the dinosaur or the egg? Still the egg, they were used as reproduction method of many sea and land animals before dinosaurs evolved... unless dinosaurs didn't evolve or perhaps exist?
Which came first the sea and land animals or the egg?
If you ask the same question enough times but, dress it slightly differently each time (bit like the way evolution works but we're going backwards in time) the answer may eventually change!
The original question, what came first the chicken or the egg was an interesting philosophical debate dating back to before The likes of Aristotle and continued to be an interesting philosophical question until the theory of evolution started to develop and science found the answer.
One day, before the chicken was a chicken, a bird like animal that wasn't a chicken laid an egg and out of this egg came a chicken. Knowing this renders the question as a philosophical debate, sterile. As it does with the next question you asked, right back to before fish when single cells were the only life.
If you ask a different question you would get a different answer, although not always.
If you want the answer to be chicken, you could ask... what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg!
Or, what came first, the T-rex or the T-rex egg?
So basically most of philosophy is semantic nonsense
There is a lot that isn't. If you go by the dictionary definition...
1.
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
2.
a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.
If people take part in some of the more serious topics in the forum's they are taking part in philosophical debate. Is it the debate that is nonsense or the opinions that one doesn't agree with?
I think philosophy has played an important part in humankinds intellectual and moral development so wouldn't label it as semantic nonsense!
I'm not writing off the entire field. I love Hobbes-Rousseau and Socrates-Thrasymachus.
I just haven't seen anything decent written in the field in the last 200 years. I've seen a lot of complete crap (post-modernism) and I think that they must have run out of real debates to have. I absolutely loath the reductionist examples the wankers and hipsters love to debate, that are totally meaningless. Like that stupid shit about if a train was heading towards your husband / wife, would you divert it onto a track with 4 other people. That's an idiotic question frankly.
Psychology on the other hand, has made great strides with practical applications that make the world wealthier, happier and safer. We understand more than ever about how to prevent crime, motivate workers, live longer and pick better life partners.
The example you mention is often use to highlight the difference between Kantian and utilitarian theories of ethics. It seems to me a good way to get people to examine their previously unexamined ethical assumptions.
Fair enough if you like it. I don't, I think it's meaningless and there must be better ways to examine the issue. I actually like ethical discussions but personally I think these kind of examples hinder more than they help. "People tend to be able to understand abstract issues better if they are presented as practical problems rather than in their pure abstract form. Presenting them thus goes back to Socrates. The problem with a lot of philosophy after the linguistic turn in the early twentieth century was that it became increasingly abstract and mathematical and thus impenetrable to most people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" semantic nonsense " On the contrary perhaps when we hit that point of questioning if this is just semantics then maybe we have reached a wonderful place where we are on the cusp of learning or discovering something profound or fundamental, hard to explain because traditional Western (or Eastern) langauge/thought is breaking down. We will never capture that ultimate truth though; enlightenment is like a mirage which is so tantalisingly close we feel we can touch it, but never can. Out of interest was it a philosopher that came up with the idea of scientific method? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" People tend to be able to understand abstract issues better if they are presented as practical problems rather than in their pure abstract form. Presenting them thus goes back to Socrates. " It's not a practical problem though, it's a purely hypothetical one that's had so much of the relevant context removed, it doesn't mean anything. There's a reason politicians won't answer questions on hypotheticals. When i teach, I find overwhelmingly the participants respond better to empirical examples / real case studies where the full context can be explored. Nobody ever asked me to make one of those more abstract or hypothetical. " The problem with a lot of philosophy after the linguistic turn in the early twentieth century was that it became increasingly abstract and mathematical and thus impenetrable to most people. " Agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... which did come first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. The egg was an egg long before the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. Genetically, the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-rex. Which came first the dinosaur or the egg? Still the egg, they were used as reproduction method of many sea and land animals before dinosaurs evolved... unless dinosaurs didn't evolve or perhaps exist?
Which came first the sea and land animals or the egg?
If you ask the same question enough times but, dress it slightly differently each time (bit like the way evolution works but we're going backwards in time) the answer may eventually change!
The original question, what came first the chicken or the egg was an interesting philosophical debate dating back to before The likes of Aristotle and continued to be an interesting philosophical question until the theory of evolution started to develop and science found the answer.
One day, before the chicken was a chicken, a bird like animal that wasn't a chicken laid an egg and out of this egg came a chicken. Knowing this renders the question as a philosophical debate, sterile. As it does with the next question you asked, right back to before fish when single cells were the only life.
If you ask a different question you would get a different answer, although not always.
If you want the answer to be chicken, you could ask... what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg!
Or, what came first, the T-rex or the T-rex egg?
So basically most of philosophy is semantic nonsense
There is a lot that isn't. If you go by the dictionary definition...
1.
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
2.
a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.
If people take part in some of the more serious topics in the forum's they are taking part in philosophical debate. Is it the debate that is nonsense or the opinions that one doesn't agree with?
I think philosophy has played an important part in humankinds intellectual and moral development so wouldn't label it as semantic nonsense!
I'm not writing off the entire field. I love Hobbes-Rousseau and Socrates-Thrasymachus.
I just haven't seen anything decent written in the field in the last 200 years. I've seen a lot of complete crap (post-modernism) and I think that they must have run out of real debates to have. I absolutely loath the reductionist examples the wankers and hipsters love to debate, that are totally meaningless. Like that stupid shit about if a train was heading towards your husband / wife, would you divert it onto a track with 4 other people. That's an idiotic question frankly.
Psychology on the other hand, has made great strides with practical applications that make the world wealthier, happier and safer. We understand more than ever about how to prevent crime, motivate workers, live longer and pick better life partners. "I think psychology and philosophy are are both very valuable and wouldn't disagree with the recent gains made in psychology compared to philosophy but, I don't think they are comparable, it's like comparing rugby to football They are very different subjects that may cross over from time to time or regulate one another. I think questions like the train heading for a loved one are fairly pointless. There is more than one answer and the answers are probably far more interesting to a psychologist than they have philosophical merit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" semantic nonsense On the contrary perhaps when we hit that point of questioning if this is just semantics then maybe we have reached a wonderful place where we are on the cusp of learning or discovering something profound or fundamental, hard to explain because traditional Western (or Eastern) langauge/thought is breaking down. We will never capture that ultimate truth though; enlightenment is like a mirage which is so tantalisingly close we feel we can touch it, but never can. Out of interest was it a philosopher that came up with the idea of scientific method? " I think people use linguistic tricks to advocate ideas that they don't truly believe in. The easiest example of that is when people say it's always wrong to lie but it's ok to omit the truth. Bullshit 101. They stand there and argue that if a Nazi asked them if they were hiding a Jew, then they'd just stay silent rather than lie. Absolute poppycock. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" semantic nonsense On the contrary perhaps when we hit that point of questioning if this is just semantics then maybe we have reached a wonderful place where we are on the cusp of learning or discovering something profound or fundamental, hard to explain because traditional Western (or Eastern) langauge/thought is breaking down. We will never capture that ultimate truth though; enlightenment is like a mirage which is so tantalisingly close we feel we can touch it, but never can. Out of interest was it a philosopher that came up with the idea of scientific method? I think people use linguistic tricks to advocate ideas that they don't truly believe in. The easiest example of that is when people say it's always wrong to lie but it's ok to omit the truth. Bullshit 101. They stand there and argue that if a Nazi asked them if they were hiding a Jew, then they'd just stay silent rather than lie. Absolute poppycock. " Is that you using an hypothetical example to illustrate a moral point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We will never capture that ultimate truth though; enlightenment is like a mirage which is so tantalisingly close we feel we can touch it, but never can. " Answers lead to questions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" semantic nonsense On the contrary perhaps when we hit that point of questioning if this is just semantics then maybe we have reached a wonderful place where we are on the cusp of learning or discovering something profound or fundamental, hard to explain because traditional Western (or Eastern) langauge/thought is breaking down. We will never capture that ultimate truth though; enlightenment is like a mirage which is so tantalisingly close we feel we can touch it, but never can. Out of interest was it a philosopher that came up with the idea of scientific method? I think people use linguistic tricks to advocate ideas that they don't truly believe in. The easiest example of that is when people say it's always wrong to lie but it's ok to omit the truth. Bullshit 101. They stand there and argue that if a Nazi asked them if they were hiding a Jew, then they'd just stay silent rather than lie. Absolute poppycock. Is that you using an hypothetical example to illustrate a moral point. "No, I'm mocking another reductionist example philosophy types love. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" semantic nonsense On the contrary perhaps when we hit that point of questioning if this is just semantics then maybe we have reached a wonderful place where we are on the cusp of learning or discovering something profound or fundamental, hard to explain because traditional Western (or Eastern) langauge/thought is breaking down. We will never capture that ultimate truth though; enlightenment is like a mirage which is so tantalisingly close we feel we can touch it, but never can. Out of interest was it a philosopher that came up with the idea of scientific method? I think people use linguistic tricks to advocate ideas that they don't truly believe in. The easiest example of that is when people say it's always wrong to lie but it's ok to omit the truth. Bullshit 101. They stand there and argue that if a Nazi asked them if they were hiding a Jew, then they'd just stay silent rather than lie. Absolute poppycock. Is that you using an hypothetical example to illustrate a moral point.
No, I'm mocking another reductionist example philosophy types love. "I have never known anyone say that it is morally impermissible to lie in absolutely all circumstances. But the Nazi example is actually another good illustration. If you say it is generally wrong to lie, why would you think it OK to lie in those circumstances. It starts people examining their ethical presupposition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" if a Nazi asked them if they were hiding a Jew, then they'd just stay silent rather than lie " Oooh sounds like game theory and the opening of 'the prisoners dilemma' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I absolutely loath the reductionist examples the wankers and hipsters love to debate, that are totally meaningless. Like that stupid shit about if a train was heading towards your husband / wife, would you divert it onto a track with 4 other people. That's an idiotic question frankly. " I so totally posted a thread somewhat based on that scenario once. I’m such a wanker. Admittedly it wasn’t posted because I thought the question had merit other than to entertain me with people’s answers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" semantic nonsense On the contrary perhaps when we hit that point of questioning if this is just semantics then maybe we have reached a wonderful place where we are on the cusp of learning or discovering something profound or fundamental, hard to explain because traditional Western (or Eastern) langauge/thought is breaking down. We will never capture that ultimate truth though; enlightenment is like a mirage which is so tantalisingly close we feel we can touch it, but never can. Out of interest was it a philosopher that came up with the idea of scientific method? I think people use linguistic tricks to advocate ideas that they don't truly believe in. The easiest example of that is when people say it's always wrong to lie but it's ok to omit the truth. Bullshit 101. They stand there and argue that if a Nazi asked them if they were hiding a Jew, then they'd just stay silent rather than lie. Absolute poppycock. Is that you using an hypothetical example to illustrate a moral point.
No, I'm mocking another reductionist example philosophy types love.
I have never known anyone say that it is morally impermissible to lie in absolutely all circumstances.
But the Nazi example is actually another good illustration. If you say it is generally wrong to lie, why would you think it OK to lie in those circumstances. It starts people examining their ethical presupposition. "It's official Catholic doctrine that lying is always wrong. But refusal to answer is not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" if a Nazi asked them if they were hiding a Jew, then they'd just stay silent rather than lie Oooh sounds like game theory and the opening of 'the prisoners dilemma' "The prisoners dilemma is also reductionist shite and game theory is maths for the sake of maths with no practical application. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I absolutely loath the reductionist examples the wankers and hipsters love to debate, that are totally meaningless. Like that stupid shit about if a train was heading towards your husband / wife, would you divert it onto a track with 4 other people. That's an idiotic question frankly. I so totally posted a thread somewhat based on that scenario once. I’m such a wanker. Admittedly it wasn’t posted because I thought the question had merit other than to entertain me with people’s answers. " Ha ha philosophy wanker | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" semantic nonsense On the contrary perhaps when we hit that point of questioning if this is just semantics then maybe we have reached a wonderful place where we are on the cusp of learning or discovering something profound or fundamental, hard to explain because traditional Western (or Eastern) langauge/thought is breaking down. We will never capture that ultimate truth though; enlightenment is like a mirage which is so tantalisingly close we feel we can touch it, but never can. Out of interest was it a philosopher that came up with the idea of scientific method? I think people use linguistic tricks to advocate ideas that they don't truly believe in. The easiest example of that is when people say it's always wrong to lie but it's ok to omit the truth. Bullshit 101. They stand there and argue that if a Nazi asked them if they were hiding a Jew, then they'd just stay silent rather than lie. Absolute poppycock. Is that you using an hypothetical example to illustrate a moral point.
No, I'm mocking another reductionist example philosophy types love.
I have never known anyone say that it is morally impermissible to lie in absolutely all circumstances.
But the Nazi example is actually another good illustration. If you say it is generally wrong to lie, why would you think it OK to lie in those circumstances. It starts people examining their ethical presupposition.
It's official Catholic doctrine that lying is always wrong. But refusal to answer is not. "I suspect the vast majority of Catholics apply that doctrine with the same rectitude as they apply the churchs doctrine on contraception. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" semantic nonsense On the contrary perhaps when we hit that point of questioning if this is just semantics then maybe we have reached a wonderful place where we are on the cusp of learning or discovering something profound or fundamental, hard to explain because traditional Western (or Eastern) langauge/thought is breaking down. We will never capture that ultimate truth though; enlightenment is like a mirage which is so tantalisingly close we feel we can touch it, but never can. Out of interest was it a philosopher that came up with the idea of scientific method? I think people use linguistic tricks to advocate ideas that they don't truly believe in. The easiest example of that is when people say it's always wrong to lie but it's ok to omit the truth. Bullshit 101. They stand there and argue that if a Nazi asked them if they were hiding a Jew, then they'd just stay silent rather than lie. Absolute poppycock. Is that you using an hypothetical example to illustrate a moral point.
No, I'm mocking another reductionist example philosophy types love.
I have never known anyone say that it is morally impermissible to lie in absolutely all circumstances.
But the Nazi example is actually another good illustration. If you say it is generally wrong to lie, why would you think it OK to lie in those circumstances. It starts people examining their ethical presupposition.
It's official Catholic doctrine that lying is always wrong. But refusal to answer is not.
I suspect the vast majority of Catholics apply that doctrine with the same rectitude as they apply the churchs doctrine on contraception. "Put it this way, Italy has one of Europe's lowest birth rates so most Catholics know how to take Church teaching with a pinch of salt. But in every Church, there's one family with 8 kids who didn't get the memo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think psychology and philosophy are are both very valuable and wouldn't disagree with the recent gains made in psychology compared to philosophy but, I don't think they are comparable, it's like comparing rugby to football They are very different subjects that may cross over from time to time or regulate one another. " No, far too sensible, you gotta pick one of two established, valid fields and decide it's nonsense based on an extremely shallow understanding of it! For some reason! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
