On Wed, 9 Oct 2013, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> That's fine; you are allowed to have a wrong opinion.
Is that a fact? Can't be, since, no "opinion" is "wrong." What's "wrong"
are opinions or intentional distortions that are presented as if proven
facts (example I gave was the set of remarks discussed in the Yahoo news
article I cited).
Don't lose your cool here-- this is just a discussion about how
communication takes place, not about any particular individuals.
> you're selecting the semantics *for* me rather than trying to clear
> them.
I selected a particular definition of a word in order to avoid semantic
misunderstanding.
> I think it's fairly obvious that I judge "revolutions" on more complex
> notions of pre, during and post events.
That kind of complexity allows practically any interpretation, including
"fallacious" ones, such as: "The need for change was there, so a
revolution was a good thing", or "Positive post events occurred, so the
revolution itself was a positive event."
Social revolutions are destructive forms of confrontation. They may
result from the need to change institutionalized forms of confrontation,
or they may result from giving too much power to an irrational,
self-serving minority (or etc.). The result is simply to perpetuate the
idea that confrontation is the best way to solve problems. Whatever you
may think of desegregation, M.L.K had the right idea-- make confrontation
look really, really, irrational in order to get rid of it.
> I even said they are good even if the methods are not.
What I said above was nothing is good that perpetuates bad methods.
> It's called progress, even if it means the revolution happened for all
> the wrong reasons and had terrible results.
I absolutely disagree-- progress is made despite revolutions. Using
confrontation and destabilization as problem-solving mechanisms keeps the
one main stumbling-block preventing progress in place-- confrontation
instead of critical thinking and collaboration to solve problems. Of
course, I'm not talking about making some people wealthy or powerful, I'm
talking about improving living standards in general. Libraryworld may not
be involved in either of course, which is atypical.
> any breakup of established patterns of fundamentals are good
So you favor "terrorism"? :)
> even if I by that don't mean good for the people involved at the time.
Ah, the proverbial Flood concept. Did that really work out so well?
Should we work together to encourage cataclysm, or work together to
mitigate it?
> RDA is considered a good thing? I thought it was too little, waaaaaaaay
> too late?
What would you have done and when (and why)?
Opposition to the RDA "revolution" appeared in part because the reasons
why some folks confronted with it might be destabilized were not
discussed. Of course you can ignore "the people involved at the time", and
the revolution will take root-- not because revolutions are good, but
because of "social amnesia."
Nothing is ever written in cement, so it's never too late to remedy
problems, or would you prefer to trash RDA altogether?
> You are not being specific again.
It's pretty easy to present evidence (which I did) to support a "working
hypothesis" that a lot of people prefer to be confrontational just because
fighting (predation) feels good, rather that to pursue knowledge or solve
problems (which may require some control over emotions).
> Your observations, I take it? Or do you have any research to back you
> up?
In true librarian-style, I won't spoon-feed you an answer. Search the
research on "bullying", "manipulation", "logical fallacy", "psychopathy",
"social amnesia", "human intraspecies predation", "neuropsychology" and
the threads that lead to related topics. Try to come up with correlations
between those topics.
Psychologists conclude that there really are people who have no genuine
emotions (unless cornered). Neurophysiologists and geneticists agree that
there are physical explanations for the problem. I conclude that there are
behavioral and physical parallels between human "psychopathy" and animal
"predation."
> I'm one of those who don't buy the whole "the world is going in
> direction X" in terms of human behaviour, like the world is today a more
> violent place than "the good ol' days" or today people are less social
> than before or today people are trapped in the wheels of commercialism
> unlike before, and so on.
I agree, in that humans are becoming better informed and more capable of
producing resources to permit movement away from animal behaviors, but
human predators today have more tools to instill confrontational behavior
(considered "entertaining") than ever before also. If we follow your
advice ("any breakup of established patterns ... are good even if [not]
for the people involved at the time"), we can say that, practically, the
predators are exposing themselves to eventual destruction, but meanwhile
I'd rather not see all the poor, the intellectuals, the scientists, the
librarians, and the idealists go to their deaths (and there are plenty of
historical examples of that).
> I think cultures change, and certainly the culture, but I don't think
> human behaviour and social patterns are that different.
Well, we are doing better in some places, reasons for behaviors and
patterns are being explored successfully, and constructive changes need to
be implemented (I'm hypothesizing that "education" can affect that).
> I want some research to back up such big statements
Since such "big statements" are "working hypotheses" (theories that can
be tested), that research is in progress all the time. You'll find a lot
of it on the Internet. What's missing is correlation between diverse
specialized aspects of related research
> You have to cover a lot of historic ground in order to make
> your point, so I wouldn't be sure about it.
I'm 70, so I'm running out of time for doing the such detailed
correlations as between history and the "working hypotheses" of
"aggressive narcissism" and "human intraspecies predation." But I'd pay
for the supercomputer, the programmers, and the data analysts to do it if
I could. Meanwhile, I'll pay my taxes and ask for equal respect with
astronomers.
> Again; based on what?
Data gathered to test a "working hypothesis." Data disproving the w.h. is
also welcome.
> A need is a subjective thing
You mean like food? :)
The desire to prevent destruction is not a subjective concern either,
except to predators who can't see beyond their own ("subjective") needs.
> thinking you can figure that out is ignorant.
IMHO, that comment is just plain obstructive. My approach is to find
common threads that can be connected to create a relatively simple way of
explaining to the prey how to neutralize predatory behaviors.
> Critical thinking, eh? I'm reminded of a survey of philosophers of
> Ethics recently done whether they acted more ethical than other people.
> Quite the contrary.
The philosophers probably reached their conclusion through implementing
critical thinking. Ethics is a different topic altogether, although
debunking critical thinking outright *could* have unethical intents. The
real question is: why would philosophers of ethics NOT want to study how
to act more ethically than they presently perceive themselves as acting?
> Critical thinking is one of those things that sounds brilliant on paper
> and when you say it out loud, but in practice is littered with problems.
Let's work 'em out!
> Sure, we should strive towards it, but I see more human folly than
> serious practitioners.
The folly is proof of the need to strive. Let's gradually change the
balance.
> It's a utopian dream, an ideal; I'd be careful holding it up as the
> shining sword that makes us "better" than animals.
Not what I said. I said having the *potential* (the capability) to be
critical thinkers makes us more *potentially* capable of solving problems
than *other* animals. It's not utopian at all to *want* to stop "human
intraspecies predation" any more than it would be to *want* to meet a
deity's expectations of His/Her "creations." We just need to increase our
level of *will* to approximate that of predators to imepede progress.
>> Information overload is a form of over-stimulation.
> No, it's not. Information overload just means too much information.
Again, disagreement, and it is important-- central to the problem.
"Overload" is individually based-- it results from one having an emotional
reaction to being overloaded (over-stimulated)-- feelings of inadequacy,
incompetence, and anxiety (fear). There is no "overload" if one doesn't
feel "overloaded." Therefore, the solution is to train people to fight off
the negative feelings, not to restrict information.
You could, dangerously, even encourage incompetence by using the
"information overload" argument to restrict the free-flow of information--
somebody's bound to come along (if they haven't already) to say: "Let's
save pubic money by catering only to the lowest common denominators of
competence [in the prey]." Example-- limit college education to the
wealthy and people with high IQs (and people more interested in business
than philosophy).
>>> How is neuroplasticity suppose to fix the problem of information
>>>overload?
Brain structures result in emotions and behaviors. Education changes
brain structures.
Train humans to control overstimulation (both cause and effect) and
engage in practical critical thinking, and the "overload" problem no
longer exists for those trained.
> Have you got this training? Is it available? Can we see it?
I've got mediation training.
I've got a decade of research under my belt.
Search "Critical thinking--Study and thinking."
Design a class covering the logical and cognitive fallacies.
Read "Teaching about hegemony" by Paul Orlowsky.
Research ways to use the behaviors used to diagnose "psychopathy"
("aggressive narcissism") to explain "human intraspecies predation" in
general.
> Educating [everybody] is a hopeless endeavour.
No, it's inevitable. Why, predatory talking heads in the media do it
every day! :) Ask yourself why they might not consider what they do
hopeless (my theory-- because emotionless predators don't ever think that
way--if something predatory doesn't work, they just go on to other
methods-- predation is compulsive!).
Of course, predators want the prey to think it would be hopeless to try
to teach critical thinking or power and control would be lost.
And mankind can never fly. Thank goodness he/she tried. Now, maybe we can
even dispense with the TSA and the HSA someday (if people get educated to
consider "terrorism" [predation] a mental illness that can be prevented).
Hey-- we can at least educate everybody about the ineffectiveness of
cynicism.
> Most of the time we're lucky to get a modicum of the population above
> high-school levels. And you want to train them further in some mental
> ability program? You must be extremely well funded. :)
In that sense it's everyman, not just me.
>> let's create information environments that neutralize the causes and
>> effects of overstimulation and instill critical thinking.
> Like?
Required high school (or maybe earlier) courses (and library-taught
course for adults) in: Mediation, Neutralizing bullying, Recognizing
logical and cognitive fallacies, Discourse analysis, The nature of
propaganda, Historical precedents for contemporary social problems,
Defining and identifying glib speech, manipulation, absence of empathy,
and sociological strategies and tricks used to deceive, and Application of
collaboration in the classroom (instead of competition) in discussing each
of these topics.
No grades, no absolutely correct answers, just venues for students to
interrelate with each other in performing critical thinking.
> How many thousands of models of the mind and grading of mental
> capacities have we come up with so far? Are they ... correct? Or
> useful when scrutinized?
All are "working hypotheses" to be tested. Testing for practical
applications to improve the human state is more sensible that trying to
prove any models "correct" outright.
> How would that work?
See my astronomy reference.
> What models?
Any that function as testable "working hypotheses. Mine is that the
concept of "psychopathy" is the compulsive human equivalent of compulsive
animal predation and that it can be mitigated by brain restructuring
through education of the potential prey.
> Who's paying for it?
Everybody. Even the predators that would try to prevent it.
>> we tend to employ doubt before we employ confidence;
> How does that trouble us?
It impedes progress by discouraging action. Predators don't have that
problem, so the prey have to work at it.
>> we could program computers to identify *effectively* predatory
>> behaviors on the part of humans and causes of those behaviors along
>> with vulnerabilities to them (as the information becomes available).
> Then you must define what those patterns are. The power of this is in
> the model and in the people creating it, and not in how right it might
> be.
See "Hare Psychopathy Checklist" articles for behaviors patterns and
possible physical causes.
> Aren't you just shifting the problem from one domain into another?
No, I'm integrating domains.
>> Don't forget: "The medium [message] IS the massage."
> That's library-speak for the status quo without sounding like there's
> a revolution in need of happening.
No, it's saying that HOW something is said can be more effective
(affective) that WHAT is said: body language, tone, intimidation,
manipulative rhetoric, etc. Right now, there is a "revolution" of
self-obsession out there approaching advocacy of anarchy that need to be
*stopped*! ASAP.
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
californiastop_at_hushmail.com
** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just
consider what goes on in between. **
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Wed Oct 09 2013 - 19:08:11 EDT