STOP ARGUING!!

[FemMecha]

I aspire to debate in "idea space" that is free from social context and the endless needs of human ego. Argument and conflict that occur in the earthy, human realm of ego, the reliving and projecting of personal harm, social dominance and image, etc. is something I'd rather leave to others. People enjoy that realm and so there is no reason I should inhibit them in that pursuit, but I'd rather be left out of it.

Maybe it is because my own judgment has been clouded by certain experiences in life, and maybe because a more distilled reason has been a saving grace for me that I don't want to reinforce in myself or others any thinking that is clouded by its nature. I try to shed the outer skins of ego, personal projection, attachment, etc. in myself so that my own lens is less distorted and so that I can see reality more clearly to better identify and solve problems. If a debate triggers an emotional response in me, I leave. I typically will not engage in problem solving of any sort - personal or online - if I sense clouded judgment in myself.

 

[Laurie]

Most of you have no intellectual life and the quality of your 'arguments' rarely exceeds those commonly seen on Jerry Springer. Out of mere confusion and self-pity you presume yourselves to have some kind of intellectual abilities which are attested to by your 'arguments' or posts of low-brow invectives against one another that consist mostly of one-liners and chat-speak codes. (Tl'dr, LOL, ESTJ! INFJ! INTJ! ISTJ! SJ! Sensor! Insert emoticon here)

It's interesting that I would think someone with a superior intellect wouldn't need to point out how inferior everyone else is. If your intellect is actually superior I would think you would feel comfortable knowing that and not make a show of it. Obviously, I have to rethink that because you just proved me so very wrong.

I know people on the forum that I respect who appreciate you but I have a hard time seeing past your "smarter than" attitude. It definitely lessens the impact you might be able to have.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

SolitaryWalkerThe only way that we can get around this problem is for adults to become self-actualizing self-learners so that they can comprehend the situation that we are in and thus change it..

I challenge the viability of this course of action on evolutionary grounds. It is simply a fact that the intellect is a rather new feature of the human identity and it will not flourish for thousands of years. I doubt that you, or many professional psychologists and biologists who specialize in a study of human nature would dispute the assertion that on average people are much more instinctual than intellectual. Group-thinking and whimsical behavior influence the decision-making process of an average person by far more than any independent thinking does. As you and I would agree, most people have no intellectual life.

I can see my views challenged on the account that most people are capable of doing much better than they do currently. Surely they will not become outstanding critical thinkers, but they could become slightly more reflective. The evolutionary challenge that I see is that at this point people find it deeply unnatural to think for themselves. Their urges to act on impulses countervail any desires they may have for critical thinking which suggests that they are unlikely to be motivated to develop an inner life on their own endeavor.

However, evolution has taught us a great lesson regarding human adaptability; people will go very far to survive and will engage in actions that are deeply unnatural to them if they realize that they need to do so in order to survive or be content. We can solve this problem by gradually socializing education where a great emphasis will be placed on independent thinking. People will be required to get a 'degree' to attain a formiddable income, but in this case their schooling program will be much more demanding than it currently is.

I'd say the first step to this is ensuring that Universities receive greater funds from the state. This does not mean that we must abolish all private institutions of 'higher education', but merely give public universities greater liberty to force students to learn. Today they depend on the business the students offer them too much; in order to survive, the universities must render the kind of a service that the public will be willing to pay for. The public is obviously not interested in education, they are interested in getting the accolade that allows them to make money. The majority of University officials are highly educated people with a deep interest in ideas. I am certain that if they had their way, they would gladly abrogate the current educational program that allows students to pass while having learned almost nothing and institute a program that forces students to think critically and creatively.

I can almost see the Republican propagandists decry this program as unconstitutional and a pathway to Communism. Non-sense, the government is not going to control the educational program, it will liberate the educators from the tyranny of the philistines by granting the scholars an opportunity to set up an educational program that they think is the most fitting.

 

[Salomé]

People by their nature have much more in common with apes than the epitome of a rational human being. Our intellect is still a rather new cognitive feature and for this reason history generally depicts people as more vulgar, thoughtless and impulsive rather than reflective. Similarly to animals, when people have their territory invaded, they feel uncomfortable. As you mentioned, the metaphors of argument are literal rather than figurative. So, when people have their wisdom questioned, they display the same visceral, impetuous reaction that a monkey displays when a beast enters its territory.

In order to appreciate argument in an edifying sense, or a collection of thought experiments that are meant to educate, people need to have cognitive faculties that are much further developed than they are today. Most people would not even dream of spending their leisure time reading a challening book or solving puzzles. In fact, they have no concept of what it means to have an intellectual challenge or even less to appreciate it.

In short, they aren't interested in learning, only in affirming their prejudices. You mentioned that on this forum people tend to see arguments as verbal altercations. The explanation for this is that people of our community do so for the same reason the common-place, vulgar folk do. However, typologycentral members have a special incentive to see arguments as combative. Most of them have 'N' in their MBTI code which they equate with intelligence, so their animalistic instincts of self-preservation tell them that not only is their territory invaded, but that one of their most prized virtues also is.



Most of you have no intellectual life and the quality of your 'arguments' rarely exceeds those commonly seen on Jerry Springer. Out of mere confusion and self-pity you presume yourselves to have some kind of intellectual abilities which are attested to by your 'arguments' or posts of low-brow invectives against one another that consist mostly of one-liners and chat-speak codes. (Tl'dr, LOL, ESTJ! INFJ! INTJ! ISTJ! SJ! Sensor! Insert emoticon here)

tl;dr

 

[coberst]

SolitaryWalker


We were born smart enough but we weren’t born intellectually sophisticated enough to handle this high tech world we have invented.

What is the difference between “being smart” and “being sophisticated”? I would say that we can use the handyman and his tool box as a good analogy for comprehending this difference. The number and quality of the instruments in a handyman’s tool box is a measure of his smartness and his experience using those tools is a measure of his sophistication.

If a handyman has only a hammer then every job is a job that will get hammered on. If that handyman has a great tool box but has experience only with a hammer then that handyman will look for things that can be hammered into place.

 

[Oberon]

STOP ARGUING!!

NO, DAMMIT!!!

 

[Mycroft]

I'd say the first step to this is ensuring that Universities receive greater funds from the state. This does not mean that we must abolish all private institutions of 'higher education', but merely give public universities greater liberty to force students to learn. Today they depend on the business the students offer them too much; in order to survive, the universities must render the kind of a service that the public will be willing to pay for. The public is obviously not interested in education, they are interested in getting the accolade that allows them to make money. The majority of University officials are highly educated people with a deep interest in ideas. I am certain that if they had their way, they would gladly abrogate the current educational program that allows students to pass while having learned almost nothing and institute a program that forces students to think critically and creatively.

This would only work if the state were disallowed from exercising any influence whatsoever over the hiring practices and curricula of the universities it funded.

Not a particularly realistic scenario.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Not a particularly realistic scenario.

Why not? A law could be passed that disallows the state from doing so. Germany for example seems to have socialized education which is why students pay little for courses. I am unsure if they have the problem with the state interfering with the hiring practices of universities, it does not seem so, or do they?

Similarly, in the case of Health-care, most of democratic nations socialized it, but do they all have a problem with the state interfering with the hiring practices of hospitals? It seems to me that in a democratic society, when a government funds a certain institution, it does not always follow that the government dictates its practices.

 

[Mycroft]

Why not? A law could be passed that disallows the state from doing so. Germany for example seems to have socialized education which is why students pay little for courses. I am unsure if they have the problem with the state interfering with the hiring practices of universities, it does not seem so, or do they?

Similarly, in the case of Health-care, most of democratic nations socialized it, but do they all have a problem with the state interfering with the hiring practices of hospitals? It seems to me that in a democratic society, when a government funds a certain institution, it does not always follow that the government dictates its practices.

Believe me: I find your idea perfectly congenial. Unfortunately, no matter how good the intentions, the establishment of an elite authority able to control the destinies of the people of an entire nation on the basis of its own thinking and philosophies doesn't, as a methodology, have the best track record, and even if we allow for the lip-service of government non-interference, politicians would certainly find some way to be included in an elite group that wields that sort of power.