Discussing ideas, not people

I think these kinds of things most often come down to presentation (how you communicate "truth" / "correction" / etc). If the intent is to get through to someone, your best chances of success is often learning more about how the other person(s) socially works and learning how to speak their language. If they are someone who you find is more sensitive to approval acknowledgment for example, then learn how to convey your messaged to them with that consideration (as doing the opposite you find makes them just reinforce their position). If someone is more thick-skinned you find, then obviously no need to sugarcoat your communication to them. It's basic social psychology. The point is, if you find yourself baffled and wondering why you keep getting so much flack when you post, it's rarely about who's got the more correct points, but about if your using the correct method to get a through to your audience.

I remember a quote that paraphrased, said that something along the lines of "people will not remember what you say as much as they will remember how you make them feel." Making someone feel willing to listen to your points, therefore seems like a key prerequisite to convincing them to genuinely consider them.

Trying to nudge the topic away from the problem being discussed to dilute the problem seems disingenuous..... but I'm not discussing the people doing it, rather what they are doing. By the same margin misrepresenting what is being said by someone to pivot more criticality for the sake of argumentative momentum seems to be another way some are trying to marginalize a person who is trying to explore a topic.

I'd say, if they were discussing the ideas and beliefs it would be less of an issue. The problem isn't that people are too sensitive about being questioned, but rather when that creeps over to criticizing the person holding them it just frankly inappropriate in something like a workplace for example. If TotJO just wants to be an internet forum then have at it, but if it ever wanted to be an actual functioning 'organization' then it would have to get past the animal farm level of faux intellectualizing - they are not hard realizations.

Pretending it's the victims fault of abuse for being too sensitive is an old trick. The whole raft of BS thrown around here by some is just run of mill decades old internet trolling. I really doubt anyone is paying that much attention to it, but its a shame its from people in this particular community, for it in particular is vulnerable to being seen as childish to begin with. This doesn't help.

Many here would push for using better manners in conversation.

But manners were meant for saving face in a society where reputation is everything.

I find my best friends are those who skip manners and can tell me straight what they think (“dude, gross, you have brocoli in your teeth” is better than a bunch of people smiling and pretending they didn’t notice).

Manners are ONLY useful in protecting negatively affecting the persona.

But mature individuals know the difference between “wearing the persona” and “being the persona”.

I have always found how a person reacts to being called out in public as a good test of character (of course, what I value as good character: self-responsibility, resiliency, and emotional intelligence).

Reputation is not found in manners. Its found in hard work and in action and in perseverance and the willingness to do things that others are not willing to do, to make the sacrifices others never will. It's an ugly job but it's a necessary job. This is because freedom, either physical, spiritual, mental or psychological will never be found in some socially uniform, politically correct, coddling safe space. Do you know why? Because nature... life itself, does not give a fuck about your wellbeing. That is something each of us has to earn on his or her own and that can only be accomplished by growing a giant rock hard pair and taking extreme responsibility for ourselves.

Not sure anyone is disagreeing with you Kyrin, as its more about how its done not if its done. The whole Temple seems suited to creating an environment of stepwise pressuring for growth; initial contact area, pipeline to engage commitment, then personalized focus through that mode. Failing that process for whatever reason doesn't mean it doesn't work, cannot work, or be a good foundation for making it work. The no rules open slather approach is not really the best way to go IMO.

I always go by the rule of, "It's not what you say, but How you say it". That being said, I'm not saying sugarcoat every single thing, but if you know someone is an emotional person, saying something in, what they will perceive as, a rude or aggressive tone is not gonna win them over. If anything it will simply perpetuate the argument. I support discussions and debates, but the problem is some people do go too far on BOTH sides. Look at the Trump example given earlier. Some people hate Trump just to hate him but it goes both ways. That exact same concept could be applied for all arguments. It takes two to fight.

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.

The strongest societies are actually the most diverse ones, if we're talking about human society, AFAIK going by history. At least after moving into agricultural civilizations. It is different for animals IMO, with reduced faculties because the level of interaction is much lower (as far as would seem evident), in relative terms.

At the risk of being insulted again because of sharing my view on things, I'm not into modelling the peak experience of humanity around animals, rather I think animal models serve more usefully as 'compressed' processes. If we're all thinking at the same speed then its an issue of bandwidth, but since we can multi-task we can segment our bandwidth to functional smaller bands of overall width. So in that regard they are convenient simplifications, but much like thinking gods are human like, it seems just like another anthropomorphising to me and therefore inaccurate.

The problem in this becomes in trying to arrogantly believe we are actually not animals. The reality is we are just animals, evolved to a specific niche to be sure, that has allowed us to thrive, but we are still only animals. And we function best in competition with our environment and with others of our species and those outside our species. It's why capitalism is the best form of government ever conceived of and why we have gone to the moon and why the United states has become the most powerful nation on the planet.

These are the things that define us as a species and the losers of these competitions are trying to convince us that this is not the most advantageous system available to us. They dont want equal opportunity but equal outcome and that simply goes against the laws of nature that we all not only must abide by but must realize is required for the species to thrive into the future.

Yeap, which is why I think we can effectively think at different speeds. Not the bioelectricity as much as the information processing. Some reduced models work better when speed is required. Without going all Eight-Circuit Model of Consciousness.

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