Discussing ideas, not people

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: But is it about winning people over? Or is it about weeding out the weak? Survival of the fittest builds the strongest society and if we can let the weak go the strongest, most capable society will be the one that emerges.

In my experience, I've discovered that the whole approach of simplifying social reality to "survival of the fittest" is kind of a load of bullshit.

My brother had this mentality, spent years applying it to me. The effect it had was a drastic deficiency in self esteem and confidence while my potential was constantly under attack to "harden me up". It was only once I moved away from him and developed a circle of friends who socialized synergistically with me that it was restored, as well as an actively developed aptitude for pro-activeness under the stress of critical life changes.

The thing is, applying primitive philosophies of survival of the fittest across everyone is actually a very intellectually lazy way of approaching one's social reality among a modern society as complex as ours. While we as Humans do have many obvious psychological commonalities between us, we have even more differences individually because of DNA complexities that are important to take into account psychologically.

In any case, of course it comes down not to just winning people over, but actually having a productive communication process on both sides. If it's just an act of "I'm here to hammer the truth of reality on you whether you accept it or not", you've already seen how little comes of it. Social efforts are wasted on inefficient results.

I don't reckon that this temple is here to be a filter for "only the strong". I'm pretty sure there is an intention for helping those you might consider weak grow into being strong.

While we are indeed animals, as it would be most unwise to suggest otherwise, we are more complex and evolved than our lesser animal friends. We can't simply say survival of the fittest, as that seems to be what you are suggesting and feel free to correct me, and what are you suggesting we do with the weeded out people? What is the end goal of said weeding?

Tellahane wrote:

Gisteron wrote: I still believe that diplomatic solutions are both possible and preferable...

And how would you describe the process of achieving diplomatic solutions? what is your ideal methods between say two people of very opposing views?

Talking. It requires some recognition between them that they are indeed both human and not irredeemable wicked demons straight out of the pits of hell. Apparently that is a controversial notion these days, but it is a prerequisite for diplomacy, alas.

My point is (as if I expressed it poorly) that if we say that talking itself is the same as fighting, then why not skip the difficult talky phase of it and hop to the sword right away? I think we are better off seeing a difference... Call me crazy...

Manu wrote: But manners were meant for saving [strike]face[/strike] lives in a society where reputation is everything.

Fixed that for you. Look man, some people take respect very seriously. Life and death level seriously. Manners is just another word for respect and it allows serious people to interact with each other without anyone getting hurt.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Survival of the fittest builds the strongest society and if we can let the weak go the strongest, most capable society will be the one that emerges.

Im at least a little drunk but it seems to me even im ly inebriation that to speak with certainty on behalf of evolutionary selection requires either an extreme leap of faith or an extreme leap of arrogance.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Survival of the fittest builds the strongest society and if we can let the weak go the strongest, most capable society will be the one that emerges.

Raeganomics is not the natural order of our species; science and other fields filled with people who actually know more than us on this basic concept consistently show, yeah, we like to compete and push ourselves and others, but we also didn't make it this far by eating each other or abandoning the weak.

People suck, but we're also a lot better than you give us credit for.

To stay on topic: ideas versus people in discussion...

Sometimes ideas and assumptions say more about the person expressing them. How does one separate that in a discussion?

Stormcaller wrote: Sometimes ideas and assumptions say more about the person expressing them. How does one separate that in a discussion?

There is a whole new level of analysis and insight available when you can examine ideas on their own merits without moralizing or proselytizing or concerning yourself with what the ideas being expressed “say” about the person expressing them.

A nazi a communist and a nun all write out the same algebra problem and they all come up with the same answer: which one of them was right?

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Manu wrote: But manners were meant for saving [strike]face[/strike] lives in a society where reputation is everything.

Fixed that for you. Look man, some people take respect very seriously. Life and death level seriously. Manners is just another word for respect and it allows serious people to interact with each other without anyone getting hurt.

Just because some are too sensitive to handle a harsh tone of voice doesn't mean their lives actually depend on it nor that anyone's is saved by a polite one. Manners and respect are not the same thing either. People I respect I treat as equals. I don't walk on egg shells to preserve their life as it was fragile enough to break under any stress like those egg shells did. If anything, I find it rather disrespectful to assume that they couldn't handle the same kind of normal human treatment the rest of us can, that they are something genuinely lesser in that way.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Stormcaller wrote: Sometimes ideas and assumptions say more about the person expressing them. How does one separate that in a discussion?

There is a whole new level of analysis and insight available when you can examine ideas on their own merits without moralizing or proselytizing or concerning yourself with what the ideas being expressed “say” about the person expressing them.

A nazi a communist and a nun all write out the same algebra problem and they all come up with the same answer: which one of them was right?

All of them... for the algebra problem. This is a false equivalency fallacy.

Gisteron wrote:

Just because some are too sensitive to handle a harsh tone of voice.....

Theres no tone of voice on the internet. We’re all separated by distance and technology so its easy to pretend like youre so far above everyone else lol. However, in face to face interactions you know damn well theres a limit to how belligerent youll allow your tone of voice to become.

doesn't mean their lives actually depend on it...

We come from different places

nor that anyone's is saved by a polite one.

Have you ever seen someone get shot?

Manners and respect are not the same thing either.

Please do not split stupid hairs with me. Manners are the protocols we use to convey respect.

People I respect I treat as equals.

I have no equals. Theres always disparities of some kind or another. People i respect, i treat with courtesy.

I don't walk on egg shells

Thats not what i said, is it?

to preserve their life as it was fragile enough to break under any stress like those egg shells did.

Does chopping a straw man into pieces count as some kind of victory?

If anything, I find it rather disrespectful to assume that they couldn't handle the same kind of normal human treatment the rest of us can

You dont consider good manners to be normal, human treatement?

that they are something genuinely lesser in that way.

Youre countering a point that no one made, lol

Theres no tone of voice on the internet. We’re all separated by distance and technology so its easy to pretend like youre so far above everyone else lol. However, in face to face interactions you know damn well theres a limit to how belligerent youll allow your tone of voice to become.

Because there is no tone one shouldnt assume the level of belligerence.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Manu wrote: But manners were meant for saving [strike]face[/strike] lives in a society where reputation is everything.

Fixed that for you. Look man, some people take respect very seriously. Life and death level seriously. Manners is just another word for respect and it allows serious people to interact with each other without anyone getting hurt.

Can you offer an example of such a "life and death" situation within TotJO?

Manners and respect are different words, for a reason. Manners are commonly-held protocols to convey respect. Exactly what these protocols are vary according to relationship, setting and culture. For example, politics and religion are traditionally taboo topics at the dinner table. But I am sure most can agree that this place is designed to talk about those topics. A drill sergeant might yell at new recruits as part of their training, but he won't do the same to his five year old daughter at home.

I do agree with the general idea that a smart person makes a point of at least "reading" the overall culture before making a decision on how to approach conversation. But if we are talking about accepting that some people are "well-mannered" in their conversations, we should also accept that some people are not... and that is OK.

Proteus wrote: I don't reckon that this temple is here to be a filter for "only the strong". I'm pretty sure there is an intention for helping those you might consider weak grow into being strong.

Ahh, yes I agree. You are right, our society is much more complex than simple survival of the fittest dynamics. We are a social species and we care for the well being of others. But by that same token we cant help everyone. Some are beyond help, others do not want help. What do we do with those? If we coddle those sorts of people it will only serve to drive our societies further into mediocrity rather than excellence. Promising economic security to those unwilling to work for it is just not a way forward. So those people must be let go. That's what I'm talking about, the acceptance of the natural social hierarchy every species on this planet participates in. There is a balance there that must be respected.

FollowerOfDeimos wrote: While we are indeed animals, as it would be most unwise to suggest otherwise, we are more complex and evolved than our lesser animal friends.

You do not understand evolution. Evolution has no goal and complexity is not its paramount. In fact we are not the most complex animal on earth. We have one of the most complex brain structures and it has allowed us to thrive in our niche. But emotionally speaking we are not the most complex. Dolphins and chimps also express as complex an emotional and intellectual prowess as we do. But were we to be thrown into nature naked and toolless most of us would not survive. As far as biological complexity actually the most complex animal on earth is a tiny water fly. It has 31,000 genes, which is about 25% more than ours and it can adapt its body to cope with stresses that it frequently undergoes by forming helmets as well as spines or teeth as a defense mechanism against other predators.

Stormcaller wrote:
Raeganomics is not the natural order of our species; science and other fields filled with people who actually know more than us on this basic concept consistently show, yeah, we like to compete and push ourselves and others, but we also didn't make it this far by eating each other or abandoning the weak.

Interesting comment from a person that told me not two days ago that they wanted me to just go away because I was a liar and full of shit.

Altruism and reciprocal altruism feature often in evolutionary behaviour models. If I recall correctly, vampire bats are known for sharing blood from hunts, but as a collective, will refuse to share with greedy bats who don't share.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Stormcaller wrote:
Raeganomics is not the natural order of our species; science and other fields filled with people who actually know more than us on this basic concept consistently show, yeah, we like to compete and push ourselves and others, but we also didn't make it this far by eating each other or abandoning the weak.

Interesting comment from a person that told me not two days ago that they wanted me to just go away because I was a liar and full of shit.

Indeed, I have specifically been nasty to you, but does that in itself invalidate my argument in this, a different discussion? (It certainly reminds me that an apology is in order; I hold my ground that you're misinformed and just plain wrong about a lot of things outside your actual area of knowledge, but you didn't actually deserve what I gave you, anymore than other people deserve what you give to them. That's the best olive branch you'll get from me, and the promise that I'm going to just leave you alone, going forward)

Stormcaller wrote: Indeed, I have specifically been nasty to you, but does that in itself invalidate my argument in this, a different discussion? (It certainly reminds me that an apology is in order; I hold my ground that you're misinformed and just plain wrong about a lot of things outside your actual area of knowledge, but you didn't actually deserve what I gave you, anymore than other people deserve what you give to them. That's the best olive branch you'll get from me, and the promise that I'm going to just leave you alone, going forward)

How very magnanimous of you. But I have a question, what exactly is it that I "give to them"? [others] I have had my moments on this board but I can honestly say I have never called another person on this board a liar or full of shit. So I would equate your behaviour far worse than anything I could ever muster.

As to the topic, not sure how you would even know what my area of knowledge is, but if you feel that I am wrong about things, I expect you to challenge me with that idea and in that challenge present facts and data to back it up. I do not expect things to devolve into ad hominem attacks on my person just because you have decided you don't like me for whatever reason I'm still hoping to understand. You can hate my ideas and you can hate my positions but you have no standing to hate me. You don't even know me nor have you ever bothered to get to know me. So I am baffled by all your hostility.

ironic turn of events... discussing people over ideas in a thread thats supposed to have the topic of discussing ideas, not people. :blink:

I don't know when 'discussing people' appeared. There's inherently nothing wrong about it.

In my rather old post in the journals section, I mention the golden rule of discussing ideas, not PERSONALITIES.