Q-reeus's feedback (original title "Intellectual humility")

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by wegs, Feb 7, 2021.

  1. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,167
    James R in #16 wrote:
    ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
    As far as admitting you're wrong goes, in my experience it usually works out to be a point of strength in an argument, rather than a point of weakness. A lot of people assume the exact opposite, of course. On sciforums, time and again, I have discussions with people who won't concede the slightest bit of ground in a discussion. They start by arguing points A, B and C, say. Point A is shown to be mistaken, or misguided, or just wrong, clearly and unambiguously. But even though points B and C don't necessarily stand or fall on whether point A is correct, such people nevertheless spend all of their time and energy refusing to admit that point A has been demolished, and continue to defend it long after any such defence has become untenable. The results are: (a) they make themselves look idiotic, because they are unable to acknowledge their own errors, and (b) they never get to discuss points B and C, which may or may not be stronger arguments than A, because they're still stuck on point A.

    When I'm arguing with somebody and I have points A, B and C, then when somebody demolishes point A, I try to say "Okay. That's a good point you have there. I was wrong about that. Now, what about points B and C?" I find that saves a lot of time and effort that I might otherwise waste trying in vain to salvage point A, when my better arguments might actually be B or C. It also sends an important signal to my adversary in the debate that I'm a reasonable person who is willing to concede a point when I am shown to be wrong about something. I am willing to learn new things. I'm willing to change my mind if somebody gives me a persuasive reason to do that.
    ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

    James R loves to write such noble treatises. So full of wisdom and righteousness. Too bad he often flagrantly violates his own professed standards. Compare above sophistry with the first two pages in particular here:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/traveling-toward-a-light-source.160434/
    I come in p1 #3, giving from the start a clear explanation contrary to answer in #2. James R challenges that in #4, beginning with his 'not quite right' which is simply a polite way of saying I was wrong in #3. He continues there with a 'true explanation' that is in fact confused and contradictory. Which I pick up on in #5, elaborating on #3 just to make it crystal clear what is actually happening. James R comes back in #6, outright claiming I was the one confused!
    I come back in #8 to give even further elaboration, even though my initial #3 was perfectly adequate.

    A third party comes in in #11 - note the first sentence. This gives James R in #15 a way out of admitting I was clearly right from the start - by engaging exclusively with the third party. I naturally take offense in #16 that he did not have it in him to openly apologize for claiming in #4 and persisting in #6 that I was the one who had it wrong.

    Recalling what he wrote here in #16, in particular 3rd and 4th paras, note his attitude and tactics in #17 the other thread, ending with trying to get me to make an 'admission'. My #18 doesn't hold back anymore. The rest of that thread gets nasty because of an initial confusion from another third party, which then reveals the true nature of a departed member.
    In #31 James R comes back, starting by outright asserting my #3 'was not very clear', then goes on to claim a phony 'equality' of 'not quite rights'. BS. The rest to #35 concluded our dialog there. I think the by then clearly characteristic attitudes and tactics of James R there speak for themselves.

    Noticing the You Tube link in #14 there is 'Video unavailable' for certain countries, I here link to the PBS site version which should not have that issue hopefully:
    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-fabric-of-the-cosmos-the-illusion-of-time/
    Relevant passage: 15:05 to 16:30 minute marks.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,574
    Lol ^^ There’s a strange irony in dragging disputes from other threads into this one.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,167
    What irony? To illustrate hypocrisy in #16, how is it 'ironical' to contrast the lofty words there against a clear example of quite contrary behavior elsewhere?
    Let's see if James R accuses you of exhibiting 'nervous laughter' with that 'Lol'. He in effect claimed god-like omniscience - the ability to peer into my mind and read my thoughts retrospectively - in outright accusing me of 'nervous laughter' with my 'Ha ha ha' here: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3662668/
    (8th line from top, inclusive of quotes). I'm confident you will get a pass though. James R lays ridiculous accusations against me because I stand up to him. A rarity at sycophant overcrowded SF.
    Anyway, please do answer my initial question this post.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,030
    Growth ...
    financial
    intellectual
    Social
    Societal
    Cultural

    sibling rivalry
    systems

    different society's reward wrongness in different ways
    Those societys that re-write history to fake the wrongness to be rite0ness tend to reject wrongness as being a lack of skill, ability & power.

    you can directly compare that to military dictators & mass murderers, narcissistic murder/suicide offenders etc.

    if we take something easily identified
    the poem girl(affectionate term)


    is she right or wrong ?
    is she an intellectual genius or an artist ?

    The sad intellectual irony is the Cultural & Ego(self worth & personal value system) calamity that most face in being incapable of looking past their own greed & lust for power & popularity.
    Which is the very heart of the thread subject.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2021
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,890
    Wegs, I hope that answers your question.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    wegs likes this.
  9. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,874
    I suspect it answers every question. A kind of multi-coloured magic 8-ball.
     
    Seattle likes this.
  10. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,574
    That he (James) might say the same about you. Usually when two people find themselves always at odds, having ''spirited debates,'' it's likely that at any given moment, they find one or the other...wrong. The irony being that this is often an inevitable place we come to, hence the desperate need among us (and within) for intellectual humility. Unless there's room for two winning ''sides'' in any given argument? Must all arguments have winners and losers?

    I'm not dismissing your grievances with James, but it seems that you both have different world views...value systems, in general. (from the little I've skimmed of your debates) But, are you saying that James has never conceded during an argument with you?

    I think there's always a polite way to tell someone he/she is wrong, not that we always have to aim for politeness. Maybe sandwiched between compliments, being told we're wrong wouldn't sting so much.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2021
  11. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,167
    Happens a lot, but imo never justified, just assertions mainly as mind-games tactics. He likes to shit-stir, wait for an indignant reaction, then further shit-stir with 'grow up' type barbs calculated to get further indignant responses and so on. A nasty-minded favorite hobby imo. Especially prevalent over in the UFO threads, where MR used to cop it a lot.
    Not always, but in the situation covered in #21 here, one had to be right, the other wrong. I could have bitten my tongue and let it pass sure, but that would be at minimum contrary to answering correctly the OP query.
    That much is made painfully obvious in #21.
    He has conceded in a nice way on iirc at least two occasions in the past. On those occasions he had made an erroneous statement that I chimed in to set straight. Easier to concede in that case whereas as per #21 he had lept in to claim I was in error. Having staked out a position, much harder to then admit error. That kind of situation tends to reveal ones true character.
    I agree with that sentiment but wouldn't you agree my #5 and #8 that thread was of a polite not confrontational tone? Anger only came in on my part following his imo outrageous tactics in #17 and following. Well that's my pov on this.
     
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,030
    claytons socio-cultural revolution to symbolically kiss whos ass ?
    the elitists who are in control ?

    capitalism ?(social community fundamental construction & design of systems & laws)

    elitist power shares all aspects
    when the democracy is a dictatorship of oligarchy classicism all ideologies of the ruling class become standardized with moral impunity toward self factualising social law.

    so if your going to assert society must change to change the classicist dictators, then you have it a bit backwards unless your suggesting a concept of a peoples revolution.
    one not supported at its core by anarchists & wanna'b serial killers like those who stormed the us capital building
     
  13. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,030
    American culture
    only the #1 is an acceptable position
    there is no system of 2nd 3rd etc as values of society rule

    at its very heart is sibling rivalry & how that is mechanized through childhood by the culture & what that is tooled into as a personality.

    sibling rivalry requires the family member to be rendered to lesser state
    yet words around ideas is the concept of family being held equally important as a core structure of ideological frame work for psycho-social construction of the psyche & personality, through religious & societal values.

    mass murderer Christians versus suicidal mass murdered Muslims ?

    most people cant form the question that they never want to answer but demand society obey to service their own wants & desires.


    USA society ... (you the reader)
    you are angry at yourself
    but you cant admit it
    and you dont want to change it
    because the anger is your last grasp on a feeling of power
    but the power is a power of creating fear & suffering in others
    so its a never ending spiral of destruction & psychosis
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2021
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Readers will notice that I remained polite in that thread, in spite of Q-reeus's usual testiness.

    Q-reeus treats every discussion as if it is a boxing match.

    In that thread, I acknowledged my error. I agreed with the correct analysis of the situation. I helped to clarify the points of confusion.

    The rest was just Q-reeus whining in his habitual way.

    And here we are, a full 3 years after that, and he's still apparently carrying a huge chip on his shoulder about that thread.

    Let it go, Q-reeus. You'll be a lot happier if you can stop carrying the burden of all these personal grudges. Realise that most people aren't out to get you. You'll find that if you can be friendly to other people, they will usually be friendlier towards you. If you assume bad intentions from the start, and act belligerently, don't be surprised if you provoke a fight.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Good point.

    It's ironic in a thread on "intellectual humility" that somebody feels the need to come in to show how right there were about something that happened 3 years ago.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    No. I just point out when you're being ridiculous - like now. And you hate that.
     
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,030
    speaking of which
    for around 25 seconds thought i had genuinely seen one the other day.
    until around 35 to 40 seconds in as my brain started to compute variables
    it was the puff of white smoke as a smoke ring coming out of the top of a large ship as they started up the engine on a clear blue sky background

    not to say 100% it was NOT a UFO, but my theory is that what i saw as a round disc like object the size of a small car suddenly appear & fly straight up & disappear , seemed to be the most likely conclusion.

    i have read "countless"[= hundreds of web sites, possibly at a rough guess maybe 400 or soo & thats web sites NOT pages ] & personal reports & biography's of people whom claim to have been abducted, seen UFO's and all manner of things.
    i have spoken face to face with 1 or 2 who claim to have seen something that appeared to have no other logical explanation.
     
  18. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,167
    No you just twist things to always make yourself look good. And your opponent look bad. Ditto for your following two posts. Ego driven. A travesty that someone utterly unworthy holds a position of power and responsibility at SF.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    The readers will judge for themselves.

    Who is worthy, then? You?

    Want to apply for the job? What virtues would you bring to the role?
     
  20. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,167
    Privately most will acknowledge your bad character. Publicly, your loyal sycophants and various others are afraid to ever cross you regardless of what they really think. Others simply find it entertaining to follow.
    I'm certainly not after your job. Adopting your MO on a one-off here: Why are you paranoid at the prospect of being deposed? Let such fearful thoughts go James R. They cloud your judgement.
     
  21. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,574
    If you both could think back to when this ''rivalry'' first began, what was the topic?
     
  22. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,167
    Too far back to know now. Certainly well before what I linked to in #21. And btw rivalry is not the correct term. Ideology is one input but the chief one from my pov is personal integrity. Enough said on that.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Nah. You and your mates will grumble and gripe about it, of course.

    My loyal sycophants (whoever they are) wouldn't want to, presumably, being sycophants and loyal.

    There might be others who fear the power of the regime. It's good they have brave souls like you to fight the good fight, eh, with no regard for your personal safety. [Cue cries of "Ooh ooh! Now he's making threats, mom! See! I told you!"]

    No doubt. Pass the popcorn!

    Why not? Couldn't you do it far better than me? Wouldn't you be a paragon of fair play, showing no fear or favor to your loyal sycophants?

    All dictators are paranoid about that, Q-reeus. That's Totalitarianism 101. Goes with the job.

    Do you have any of those scented candles you can give me? I've heard they can help with relaxation.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2021

Share This Page