Awareness of my limitations
It is a bit masochistic of me to deal with trolls and religious wing-nuts. I've tried to see if it has made me miss any opportunities and I admit they have. Although I've gotten better in putting my ideas on "paper" and learning the intricacies of discussion.
In the SJGames forum mega thread I learned that several people who are practically in the same side got at each other's necks because of how they failed to see their strong commonalities and focus on their environmentally shaped differences.
When I think about the times I assume I'm unique or that my Ideas and methodologies are special it leads me to misinterpret the value of another person's input. In that mega thread, people who have a very similar GMing style didn't see the differences between their style and the other GM was the circumstances that surrounded them.
The way Dawkins talks about Land-based Mammalian Skeletons being the same, but each bone shaped differently is how I visualize these differences in mental processes that are very similar but only key factors of economy are different.
It would have been more constructive if people looked at the environmental factors affecting a particular GM's play style than to assume one method was better than another. Assuming the other person your Intellectual Equal or greater is always a good starting strategy, until signals confirm that he/she is not (which I reserve for douche bags).
Going back in the title topic, I was made aware by this argument at the tendency that 2 people who are of the same position will spiral into an argument because of reactivity (from the "differentiation" of one's methodologies) and escalating commitment (which is worsened when the argument is pedantic and laborious).
So I finally got into my own argument of pedantry here. Since this is my blog I point the finger at the tunneling vision of the person I'm arguing with into trying to prove himself in the Physics Niche of the group. (I was guiltily of this kind of pedantry before but quickly backed down when Frank pointed it out. It helped that Frank and I worked together in the FF Odoy Relief services.)
My fault lies in being too stubborn and too obsessive to ignore his harmless hasty generalizations. The fact that it was harmless should have made me change my strategy, but compulsion prevailed and I got into an escalating commitment.
My side of the argument is despite Scientific Theory is practically a Law, the "theory" aspect still remains to maintain the intellectual discipline to be open to new data that can disprove it. It can happen in a quantum level or it can happen as a human mental "blind side".
The argument that Math is PURE science and that it is the BEST tool. I contested this because such a statements take for-granted the "humility" of science. It generalizes to a point of absolutism in so far as to fail to make any "disclaiming" attachments that can befound by those who keep in mind the limitations of the scientific method (Dawkins repeating it quite often in Greatest Show on Earth and Scots P. Stevens clearing it up in many points in his Game Theory Lectures).
This awareness of limitations is what got me to thinking of why it is a dominant strategy. Consider what would happen if Scientific Theory is reclassified as a Law, for the sake of definition. What are the consequences of having ideas, despite how rigorously tested, made unchallengeable.
This strategy seems more rooted in human nature than the methodology of empiricism. Any idea that leaves no room for debate, argument or question limits the options of dealing with it. Ideas that cannot be question begin to take a more sinister shape... like that of religion and ideologies.
Moods. First thing in the morning, in the internet, I stumble on to the Anti-Reproductive Health page and another objectivist is asking me to do the legwork again. I don't think I'm alone in getting pissed off when having done the work only to have another religious wing-nut ignore evidence and cycle their dogma.
One thing I can observe from these interactions is the gross level of Compartmentalization that allows people to deal with suffering and tragedy as well as prevent them connecting ideas they already possess.
In this case, most of the people I deal with in these arguments are rational in so far they are not clinically abnormal, but the brain's ability to compartmentalize allows them not to use basic problem solving skills they already posses to be functional human beings to look at the irregularities of their circumstance.
Breaking down compartmentalization will have some very negative consequences, since everything is a trade off. I guess for me, since I've been trying to apply all these new skills in my processing I've become less committed to any strategy that has my full attention. So my actions are determined by activities that have a more immediate feed back, as compared to long term goals where I lose track when I narrow view to deal with the more immediate demands.
Trolls in sheep's clothing. I notice the strategy of some trolls to ask you to do the legwork and won't do any preliminary reading beyond 2 clicks away from when you ask them. They don't exactly understand the rules of "burden of proof", which works for them since practically everyone doesn't know that it lies on the person affirming or goes against "current wisdom" (which is science fact).
Reading Dawkin's Greatest show on earth, reminds me of my encounters with the same kind of crazy people who don't have the education to know what is fact and how to interpret high-school level scientific datum. As a side effect (of my lack of compartmentalization) I get infuriated at our education system > the government > corruption > the religious bigots > and moving towards the logical source of all this BS... Ack! lack of compartmentalization is getting me too distracted by compulsively bothering with far-gone implications.
In the SJGames forum mega thread I learned that several people who are practically in the same side got at each other's necks because of how they failed to see their strong commonalities and focus on their environmentally shaped differences.
When I think about the times I assume I'm unique or that my Ideas and methodologies are special it leads me to misinterpret the value of another person's input. In that mega thread, people who have a very similar GMing style didn't see the differences between their style and the other GM was the circumstances that surrounded them.
The way Dawkins talks about Land-based Mammalian Skeletons being the same, but each bone shaped differently is how I visualize these differences in mental processes that are very similar but only key factors of economy are different.
It would have been more constructive if people looked at the environmental factors affecting a particular GM's play style than to assume one method was better than another. Assuming the other person your Intellectual Equal or greater is always a good starting strategy, until signals confirm that he/she is not (which I reserve for douche bags).
Going back in the title topic, I was made aware by this argument at the tendency that 2 people who are of the same position will spiral into an argument because of reactivity (from the "differentiation" of one's methodologies) and escalating commitment (which is worsened when the argument is pedantic and laborious).
So I finally got into my own argument of pedantry here. Since this is my blog I point the finger at the tunneling vision of the person I'm arguing with into trying to prove himself in the Physics Niche of the group. (I was guiltily of this kind of pedantry before but quickly backed down when Frank pointed it out. It helped that Frank and I worked together in the FF Odoy Relief services.)
My fault lies in being too stubborn and too obsessive to ignore his harmless hasty generalizations. The fact that it was harmless should have made me change my strategy, but compulsion prevailed and I got into an escalating commitment.
My side of the argument is despite Scientific Theory is practically a Law, the "theory" aspect still remains to maintain the intellectual discipline to be open to new data that can disprove it. It can happen in a quantum level or it can happen as a human mental "blind side".
The argument that Math is PURE science and that it is the BEST tool. I contested this because such a statements take for-granted the "humility" of science. It generalizes to a point of absolutism in so far as to fail to make any "disclaiming" attachments that can befound by those who keep in mind the limitations of the scientific method (Dawkins repeating it quite often in Greatest Show on Earth and Scots P. Stevens clearing it up in many points in his Game Theory Lectures).
This awareness of limitations is what got me to thinking of why it is a dominant strategy. Consider what would happen if Scientific Theory is reclassified as a Law, for the sake of definition. What are the consequences of having ideas, despite how rigorously tested, made unchallengeable.
This strategy seems more rooted in human nature than the methodology of empiricism. Any idea that leaves no room for debate, argument or question limits the options of dealing with it. Ideas that cannot be question begin to take a more sinister shape... like that of religion and ideologies.
Moods. First thing in the morning, in the internet, I stumble on to the Anti-Reproductive Health page and another objectivist is asking me to do the legwork again. I don't think I'm alone in getting pissed off when having done the work only to have another religious wing-nut ignore evidence and cycle their dogma.
One thing I can observe from these interactions is the gross level of Compartmentalization that allows people to deal with suffering and tragedy as well as prevent them connecting ideas they already possess.
In this case, most of the people I deal with in these arguments are rational in so far they are not clinically abnormal, but the brain's ability to compartmentalize allows them not to use basic problem solving skills they already posses to be functional human beings to look at the irregularities of their circumstance.
Breaking down compartmentalization will have some very negative consequences, since everything is a trade off. I guess for me, since I've been trying to apply all these new skills in my processing I've become less committed to any strategy that has my full attention. So my actions are determined by activities that have a more immediate feed back, as compared to long term goals where I lose track when I narrow view to deal with the more immediate demands.
Trolls in sheep's clothing. I notice the strategy of some trolls to ask you to do the legwork and won't do any preliminary reading beyond 2 clicks away from when you ask them. They don't exactly understand the rules of "burden of proof", which works for them since practically everyone doesn't know that it lies on the person affirming or goes against "current wisdom" (which is science fact).
Reading Dawkin's Greatest show on earth, reminds me of my encounters with the same kind of crazy people who don't have the education to know what is fact and how to interpret high-school level scientific datum. As a side effect (of my lack of compartmentalization) I get infuriated at our education system > the government > corruption > the religious bigots > and moving towards the logical source of all this BS... Ack! lack of compartmentalization is getting me too distracted by compulsively bothering with far-gone implications.
Comments
Post a Comment