Attitudes towards intelligence

econ41

Senior Member
To belong to a group where there's a sort of group identity of being the smart ones ridiculing either overtly or covertly the stupider or the more gullible types. Seeking this type of self-serving emotional payoff (of feeling special and smarter) can sometimes create toxicity, unnecessary divisiveness and inability to reflect on one's own biases and blind spots.
In 2007 I first entered into the online debate of the 9/11 WTC collapses. The forum I chose was not mainstream 9/11 debate and I was the only engineer posting on the single thread dedicated to 9/11 CT. The single thread was intended to prevent "woo" from spreading to 'contaminate" the remainder of a high-standard biological and evolutionary science forum.
I identified what I thought was the obvious problem with claims and misunderstandings. Posted this crude graphic.
003c350.jpg
A year or so later - early 2009 - I moved onto a "mainstream forum for 9/11". Posted the same graphic. I did not realise that I was going against the prevailing and errant wisdom of a "...sort of group identity of being the smart ones ridiculing either overtly or covertly the stupider or the more gullible types". A "truther" researcher put the same issue into mainstream discussion early in 2009. And all hell broke loose as the "group identity of being the smart ones" set to " ridiculing either overtly" the truther who was correct. There followed four or five YEARS of episodic recycling of the false claims of the debunkers in face of the true claims of the truthers. With me supporting the truther on those things where he was correct against the most professional engineers and academic scientists who were wrong on the same key points. The recognition of where the real truth lay came mostly from persons of "lesser" academic qualification. Especially those from a trade or practical construction background.

The phenomenon of social or group dynamics and maintaining status and elitist "cliques" is not unique.
And hence is not helpful to the otherwise laudable discussions we have here on MB amongst the members.
So true.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
With me supporting the truther on those things where he was correct against the most professional engineers and academic scientists who were wrong on the same key points.

Investigating the truth independently as you do is notoriously difficult and yet indispensably important. You set a great example of the scientific spirit, my Oz brother from another mother.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Investigating the truth independently as you do is notoriously difficult and yet indispensably important. You set a great example of the scientific spirit, my Oz brother from another mother.
Thank you. I never deliberately set out to be an iconoclast but.... I see little benefit in supporting false explanations. if nothing it makes it hard to get the logic of any explanation coherent.

And I decided to never rely on NIST or Bazant as authorities very early in my online posting career. Not for reasons of disagreeing with authority. Jusr pragmatic tactics when dealing with "truthers" who would confuse and conflate and keep switching between the two different goals. Viz (1) explain what happens and (2) accept NIST as the correct version. And acceptance of the "Papally Infallibility" of both NIST and Bazant still acts as a limiting "glass ceiling" on most debates.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
While not always succeeding, I was raised by my mother from the earliest childhood to always see the strengths of another person rather than focus on their failures, and to recognize the elements of truth in their statements rather than over-scrutinize their mistakes. And doing it while not being blind to the latter.

This has proven to be indispensable not only as a 'diplomatic' rule but as a genuinely constructive approach to truth-seeking, where it's seen as a group effort. Consultatively arriving at an awareness of truth is ultimately broader and deeper than anything I can achieve on my own. Most of the 'truths' (for me) I cling to have been arrived through such a joint effort of constructive collegial study, despite always preserving independent judgment and often involving animated debate.

We (read: at least me) get so caught up in stressing our own little points that we sometimes forget to demonstrate the respect the other interlocutors deserve. So, for the record:

I see in @Rory a truly sunny soul full of compassion and goodwill, and an intuitive explorer of the universe.

I see in @deirdre an excellent enunciator of terse but sharp insights, and a raunchy humorist who appeals to my own sick sense of humour.

I see in @Mendel a cool customer usually more than capable of intelligently pinpointing relevant pieces evidence and to help newbies willing to learn about the MB SOP.

@econ41 I will not credit you twice, I already dedicated a whole post for it. ;)

I find @Ann K to be experienced about society and life, and always on point and extremely lucid in her succinct articulations.

@Woolery, in addition to what Rory wrote, I sense in you decency and groundedness of the sort that's getting far too rare in the world, and the lack of which has made most social platforms that much more hostile and insane. Thank you for being you.

And so on and so forth. I'm sorry if I can't list everyone in one post. My apologies if I'm not always able to convey my appreciation for all your good contributions that definitely haven't escaped me. I find myself also far too rarely taking a step back and giving credit to an argument and its proponent as often as I would like to.

The following verse is from the religious tradition I was raised in. Its chief message was drummed into me. Even if it doesn't always look like it. I still consider it as a great standard to uphold and to always check myself against:

"Blessed are the learned that pride not themselves on their attainments; and well is it with the righteous that mock not the sinful..."
 
Last edited:

Ann K

Senior Member.
@LilWabbit
<** blushing modestly **>

I'm always impressed by the people who are smarter and better informed than I am, and count it a privilege to be able to rub shoulders with them.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. I strongly associate any kind of thinking with intelligence, particularly critical thinking (the objective evaluation and analysis of issues) and consider intelligence its most important component.

I think it’s a romantic notion to think that anybody can learn to think critically. I just don’t see evidence of that. I can’t think critically. Every thought I have is wrapped up in some preconceived notion or swayed by some perceived indignancy or narrowed by my own selfish preferences. And it’s taken me nearly all my adult life just to recognize as much, let alone do anything about it.

I think this is why members will often go on about specific definitions*, it seems you see/use (which is fine and good to know in a conversation) the concept of skepticism or critical thinking much more concretely? than i do.

MY opinion:
EVERYONE
's every thought is wrapped up in some preconceived notion or swayed by some perceived indignity or narrowed by their own selfish preferences. That's why the new political forum on MB makes everyone look so bad :)


Real critical thinking is recognizing those biases. period.
So you CAN think critically. and you do think critically.

I think (aside from some intellectual disabilities) everyone can learn to be a critical thinker, but it's not something people will learn on their own..they need to be exposed to the concept. They didn't teach the concept at all when i was i school. And i didn't really even think about the concept until i stumbled on MB years ago.

I was always a pessimistic inputer..meaning i didn't believe anything anyone said "fully". I'm an introvert so i noticed all the inconsistencies early in life. But that's only half of critical thinking, the rest is recognizing your own biases.

Aside from a handful or two people in the world (and maybe not even that), noone is a critical thinker 24/7. For instance I consciously reject religious, mystical, some cryptozoological subjects from my critical thinking. Because life as a pure critical thinker would suck.

Many, many critical thinkers dismiss politics from their critical thinking. Just like me with the above, they dont care about the actual FACTS about topics because sometimes the ideal is more important than the facts to them.
I'm only neutral on politics because I dont really care, and every "side" and every country is exactly the same. And humans are exactly the same regardless of generation or culture. (that pessimistic input stuff i learned as a child). Everything "good" we do (or good we think we are doing) has a negative effect in the long run or to some group of people. I wont depress you by going into any details.

Many people aren't critical thinkers when it comes to impoliteness :)

Point being, almost noone is a critical thinker 24/7 or across all subjects.
You dont even need to look stuff up to be a critical thinker or skeptic, in my opinion. To me just knowing "my/his thinking might be factually untrue or biased so i should temper my judgement" is skepticism and critical thinking.
Debunking is the [part of critical thinking] using tools to investigate and analyze.



PS i think you are quite intelligent. I'm always thrilled when you speak up and put my thoughts in well structured sentences that people can understand more easily then when i try! And yes, most self proclaimed skeptics..esp the high tier ones, are elitist snobs. But that probably happens in any "field", like the Hollywood elite, or musicians, or famed politicians etc who their accomplishments "go to their heads" and they look down on the little people.

i like this definition:
Article:
Critical Thinking Defined
Critical thinking means making reasoned judgments that are logical and well-thought out. It is a way of thinking in which you don't simply accept all arguments and conclusions you are exposed to but rather have an attitude involving questioning such arguments and conclusions. It requires wanting to see what evidence is involved to support a particular argument or conclusion. People who use critical thinking are the ones who say things such as, 'How do you know that? Is this conclusion based on evidence or gut feelings?' and 'Are there alternative possibilities when given new pieces of information?'

Additionally, critical thinking can be divided into the following three core skills:

Curiosity is the desire to learn more information and seek evidence as well as being open to new ideas.
Skepticism involves having a healthy questioning attitude about new information that you are exposed to and not blindly believing everything everyone tells you.
Finally, humility is the ability to admit that your opinions and ideas are wrong when faced with new convincing evidence that states otherwise.


Article:
Examples of Critical Thinking
The circumstances that demand critical thinking vary from industry to industry. Some examples include:

A triage nurse analyzes the cases at hand and decides the order by which the patients should be treated.
A plumber evaluates the materials that would best suit a particular job.
An attorney reviews evidence and devises a strategy to win a case or to decide whether to settle out of court.
A manager analyzes customer feedback forms and uses this information to develop a customer service training session for employees.



I think this is why members will often go on about specific definitions*
*although how they couldn't tell my meaning of "republic" in the context of my absolutely fine sentence (or after i explained it the first time) i have no idea. :) And i dont think there needs to be a consensus on how someone uses a word. You started this thread, and however YOU are defining these things is all that matters, to me, in this particular conversation.

That said i am likely using terms differently from how you are using them in your head, so apologies if my post is confusing.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. I strongly associate any kind of thinking with intelligence, particularly critical thinking (the objective evaluation and analysis of issues) and consider intelligence its most important component.

I think it’s a romantic notion to think that anybody can learn to think critically. I just don’t see evidence of that.

Reading this it occurs to me that part of my problem might be that I don't actually know anyone I would consider un-intelligent. So probably I'm not qualified to talk on the subject since, at best, I'm only seeing half the picture (and most likely less than that).

I’m very surprised that in the UK there aren’t any smaller semi-pro clubs than fifth-tier English soccer.

Yep, there are lots of semi-pro clubs. Sometimes in the FA Cup you get one of these teams of bankers and builders playing one of the top teams. And sometimes they win.

That’s not losing money, it’s investing it.

There's some truth in that for sure, though we'd have to look at individual cases to see if they make money in the long run after all the years of funding transfers, etc. I just think it's more of a status and excitement thing than a money-making thing.

I think Woolery is absolutely on point in saying that sometimes the 'skeptical tribe' (if I may) attracts individuals who're less interested in truth than they are in feeling smarter than others.

And sometimes individuals get into it for truth and feeling smarter than others in equal measures. ;)

(Ridicule and denigrating not a necessary component in the latter either.)

although how they couldn't tell my meaning of "republic" in the context of my absolutely fine sentence (or after i explained it the first time) i have no idea. :)

Point to the posts containing: a) your absolutely fine sentence; and b) your first explanation and I'll see if I can help (on that thread, of course).

you CAN think critically. and you do think critically.

Yep, agree with that. I think you're a lot more intelligent than you think you are @Woolery.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I can’t think critically.
I don't think that these 4 words were more relevant than 10 other things you said
in this thread. I'm just using them as kind of a theme I wanted to respond to.

Can't say I ever read your posts and thought:
"Geez, this guy seems intellectually challenged." FWIW.
 

captancourgette

Active Member
Yep, agree with that. I think you're a lot more intelligent than you think you are @Woolery.
Yep, being able to recognize you are not smart, takes smarts.
Personally I've found my intelligence has greatly decreased in the last few years. Not exactly whats caused it.
I'm a game programmer thus things either work or they don't, though of course you have degrees of how well a thing works, but its like now say I have to calculate a linear algebraic equation I have to slowly work through it, or algorithms just take way longer I'ld have to work them through with paper. Before I didnt think, the answers just popped into my head. eg I could code for an hour straight 200 lines of code and it would run perfectly first time, not even a syntax error, i.e. I would code with a zen like flow state. Now its a struggle
 

Mauro

Senior Member
Yep, being able to recognize you are not smart, takes smarts.
Tbh, @Woolery looks to me to be much smarter than he wants us to think.

Personally I've found my intelligence has greatly decreased in the last few years. Not exactly whats caused it.
I'm a game programmer thus things either work or they don't, though of course you have degrees of how well a thing works, but its like now say I have to calculate a linear algebraic equation I have to slowly work through it, or algorithms just take way longer I'ld have to work them through with paper. Before I didnt think, the answers just popped into my head. eg I could code for an hour straight 200 lines of code and it would run perfectly first time, not even a syntax error, i.e. I would code with a zen like flow state. Now its a struggle
I understand you!
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Tbh, @Woolery looks to me to be much smarter than he wants us to think.
I think he is comparing himself to a specific subset of people on MB. specifically, the ones that tend to insult people's intelligence as a tactic.

I think also he is describing a certain TYPE of intelligence. ex: I'm a total airhead who can't do math or figure out a graph easily, i constantly have to look up vocabulary words..but i'm smarter than alot of the specific subset, i believe, @Woolery is using as a comparative.

"Intelligent" is Rory being able to figure out the % of uk vote needed to win an election in like 4 hours. or to understand half of the recent threads on MB (all that technical stuff about ufos and banking angles on some weird graph)
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I think he is comparing himself to a specific subset of people on MB. specifically, the ones that tend to insult people's intelligence as a tactic.

Does that happen? Like directly. I guess so. Though I also think it's just as likely that people feel less intelligent in comparison - as I do on the really technical threads - and then perhaps imagine the other people are doing that to them (maybe like how drinkers sometimes think tee-totallers are judging them when they're really not; it's all in their head).

"Intelligent" is Rory being able to figure out the % of uk vote needed to win an election in like 4 hours

Was actually about 4 minutes. ;)

But I'm really not all that smart; embarrassing really how unsmart I am.

or to understand half of the recent threads on MB (all that technical stuff about ufos and banking angles on some weird graph)

Now that's the REAL smart stuff!
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Senior Member
But I'm really not all that smart; embarrassing really how unsmart I am.

You're modest. But very intuitively smart. You view yourself as formally not-so-educated and seem to accept that as a measure of your intelligence. Which is a common error the society has taught us to make.

I think you can pick up vibes about people brilliantly and extremely quickly. Much better than many of the 'technically smart' ones. How's that anything but intelligence? But of a different kind.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
You view yourself as formally not-so-educated and seem to accept that as a measure of your intelligence.

I don't know if I'd say I'm not formally educated - I do have a BA and an MA and have read plenty - but perhaps you mean with regard to the more technical subjects that I know nothing about (coding, engineering, how planes bank and ATFLIR cameras work, etc) and could perhaps, in another lifetime, have learned (I know I still could; but it's not where my interest is pointed).

I think you can pick up vibes about people brilliantly and extremely quickly. Much better than many of the 'technically smart' ones. How's that anything but intelligence? But of a different kind.

Well you're very kind - and perceptive too. :)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Does that happen? Like directly. I guess so. Though I also think it's just as liking that people feel less intelligent in comparison - as I do on the really technical threads - and then perhaps imagine the other people are doing that to them
ah we're all imagining it? imagine that.

I personally don't feel less intelligent, because the threads it mainly happens in are not intelligence-needed threads.

But if you dont care about impoliteness towards fellow posters, that is fine. Absolutely seems like you are part of the majority (the majority who actually speak up on the subject anyway. I dont believe the real majority supports it.).
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I don't know if I'd say I'm not formally educated - I do have a BA and an MA and have read plenty - but perhaps you mean with regard to the more technical subjects that I know nothing about (coding, engineering, how planes bank and ATFLIR cameras work, etc) and could perhaps, in another lifetime, have learned (I know I still could; but it's not where my interest is pointed).



Well you're very kind - and perceptive too. :)

Thanks, but in my case it doesn't take much perception to see that you've picked up 'my' vibes early on very well and hence it doesn't result in constant misunderstandings of my motives or attitudes, nor misrepresentations which I would need to 'correct' all the time. It can be frustrating.

And since we're on personal stuff (no need to answer if you don't want to!), how is it that you're a Brit but you're also a New Yorker? And if you're partly Somali-Iranian, what's the other part? Pleasure to make an acquaintance with such a rich mongrel of a gangrel!
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
but you're also a New Yorker?
do i really need to correct this misrepresentation?

ps. you have a fantastic vibe, until you turn into Mr. Hyde. Try to lose the passive-aggressive language or direct aggressive language (which you recently admitted to). Do you really want to be exactly like me? (which you are).
 

Rory

Senior Member.
ah we're all imagining it? imagine that.

Well I did say "I guess so" (ie, "I guess it does happen").

"Does 'insulting people's intelligence as a tactic' happen?" is in invitation to say something like "yes it does; here are a couple of examples".

I may have seen them and not recognised them as insults of people's intelligence; or I may have seen them and felt they weren't insults; or I may have missed them (I don't read every post or thread) or scanned over them (I don't read every post as carefully as I could/should).

But if you don't care about impoliteness towards fellow posters, that is fine.

I don't think I've said that. I would say I prefer it without impoliteness.

Absolutely seems like you are part of the majority (the majority who actually speak up on the subject anyway. I dont believe the real majority supports it.)

I'm not being deliberately obtuse here but:
  • What is the majority I seem like I'm a part of?
  • What is the subject this majority speaks up on? Not being impolite?
  • Who are the real majority? The non-members who browse?
  • What is it that they don't support? Impoliteness?
And since we're on personal stuff (no need to answer if you don't want to!), how is it that you're a Brit but you're also a New Yorker? And if you're partly Somali-Iranian, what's the other part? Pleasure to make an acquaintance with such a rich mongrel of a gangrel!

Oh, lol: that's just my terrible British humor [sic] - I'm 100% Yorkshire born and bred. Though I did live in New York aged 20 (during 5 years in the States) and have also lived about 6 years in Mexico, 2 years in Canada, as well as Sweden, Spain, France, and Ireland, plus travels hither thither. Never been to either Iran (would like to) or Somalia (probably not) nor the Southern Hemisphere (assuming it exists).
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Senior Member
do i really need to correct this misrepresentation?

ps. you have a fantastic vibe, until you turn into Mr. Hyde. Try to lose the passive-aggressive language or direct aggressive language (which you recently admitted to). Do you really want to be exactly like me? (which you are).

I'll just bite my tongue and content myself with this response:

I love you too, Dr. Jekyll. *big hug and all that warm fuzzy stuff* :)
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Oh, lol: that's just my terrible British humor [sic] - I'm 100% Yorkshire born and bred.

Exotic.

(British humour reciprocated)

Though I did live in New York aged 20 (during 5 years in the States) and have also lived about 6 years in Mexico, 2 years in Canada, as well as Sweden, Spain, France, and Ireland, plus travels hither thither.

It shows you're well-travelled. In a good way.

Never been to either Iran (would like to) or Somalia (probably not) nor the Southern Hemisphere (assuming it exists).

You do realize that the term hemisphere implies a sphere. You might rile some people up by your uncritical acceptance of popular lies.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
You do realize that the term hemisphere implies a sphere. You might rile some people up by your uncritical acceptance of popular lies.

Hopefully they will understand I'm only joking when I say that the Earth might not be flat. ;)

well they are.

Which incident springs to mind when you think of times this has happened?
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Which incident springs to mind when you think of times this has happened?
well... the 5 pages of you accusing me of being too stupid to read your sentence:quote correctly. and the plethora of little passive-aggressive jokes and comments pasted into others comments (for no reason) insinuating the same thing.

NoParty's victimization post. (impolite on a multitude of levels) when econ's been whining about his "victimization" over his constitution thing for years now, but noone says boo about that.

You telling me (and Woolery) that it's likely "all in our heads" ie we're stupid.
Though I also think it's just as liking that people feel less intelligent in comparison - as I do on the really technical threads - and then perhaps imagine the other people are doing that to them (maybe like how drinkers sometimes think tee-totallers are judging them when they're really not; it's all in their head).


stuff like that.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Born here - delivered in 'tfront room by the village midwife.

Ah, Methley - I was born just over 4 miles from there (not as glamorous as 'tfront room - Pontefract hospital).


Thanks for answering the question. I was thinking more of like one specific incident and a direct quote that I could look at - though I have now had a look around and seen some examples of members directly insulting other commenters' intelligence in ways that are pretty clear.

In response to the above, there's nowhere that I said about you and Woolery that "it's all in your heads - ie, you're stupid". I wasn't talking about the two of you and I acknowledged that it probably happens in reality. But I'll also stand by that a fair percentage of perceived attack/denigrating (not just you) is most likely imagined (a completely commonplace human experience as far as I can see).

I certainly didn't spend 5 pages telling you you were too stupid to read a sentence correctly. Though I'll stand by saying there are occasions when you appear to have not read comments carefully enough before responding to them.

NoParty's comment was certainly direct and without varnish - but also not inaccurate in my opinion, and not even insulting if taken objectively.

Anyway, I don't mind looking at where I've gone wrong but I think I'd prefer accurate representations of what I've said and done.

And I can certainly apologise for the jokes. I do enjoy poking fun at people and for some reason I thought you quite liked them - the New York comment, for example - but it sounds like I'd probably best refrain somewhat.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
Ah, Methley - I was born just over 4 miles from there (not as glamorous as 'tfront room - Pontefract hospital).
Lower Mickletown actually - the outlying village of Methley towards Castleford. 10 Moor View - coal miners' terrace houses. I grew up to age 11 in Rothwell. Grand dad, mam's side, worked "down 'tpit" ditto 2n oldest uncle. Both died in their early 60s - lung diseases. I took my wife, daughter and grandsons to see that house in 2014. Was able to tell the current residents the history of the house.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Though I'll stand by saying there are occasions when you appear to have not read comments carefully enough before responding to them.
you say "i think you misunderstood that comment", not "you have not read that comment carefully enough".

see the difference?

but also not inaccurate in my opinion
Article:
The above applies regardless of if it is true or not.


the insult was the word victimization. raped women and beaten women are victimized, i realize that the word has lesser meanings but that is what the word conjures. to suggest i equate a bs warning strike or double standards on MB with that is impolite.

note: you wouldnt believe how far you would have to stretch your imagination to decide that most of my warning strike comments were impolite.

I do recognize that one is probably outside the realm of what your brain (or the mods) can recognize.

Anyway, I don't mind looking at where I've gone wrong but I think I'd need accurate representations of what I've said and done.
well then you got a new project to dive into. just meditate a few days then read your old posts. easy as pie.

And I can certainly apologise for the jokes.
i'm ok with the sarcasm jokes. thats why i pointed them out..to let you know i recognized them as sarcasm. (i doubt all others did recognize them as such, but i dont care about that either)


And ive certainly been giving back on MB when i get pushed or i see someone else get insulted i push more quickly. I actually do care more about other members being insulted then myself. I absolutely would have striked? lil wabbit for calling Mendel pro-russia and if he did it the second time he'd be banned for 24 hours. I was always a hard ass on impoliteness on MB because i know how quickly it can turn into Thunderdome.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Lower Mickletown actually - the outlying village of Methley towards Castleford. 10 Moor View - coal miners' terrace houses. I grew up to age 11 in Rothwell. Grand dad, mam's side, worked "down 'tpit" ditto 2n oldest uncle. Both died in their early 60s - lung diseases. I took my wife, daughter and grandsons to see that house in 2014. Was able to tell the current residents the history of the house.
I was born in Greenock, in a hospital in which my mother could look out the window at the unexploded bomb in the adjacent field. My parents lived in a row house, since demolished, within the dotted line delineating (incorrectly) as a "tank factory" - on a German map!
 

Rory

Senior Member.
you say "i think you misunderstood that comment", not "you have not read that comment carefully enough".

see the difference?

There's a difference, yes. The former is the better, even if the latter is true.

See the difference between what I actually said/did and what you said I said/did?

The above applies regardless of if it is true or not.

I'm amazed you would reference the guidelines right after delivering one of metabunk's greatest paraphrases! :D

But, yes, you're right. Though, like I say, I don't think it necessarily is insulting, given objectivity.

the insult was the word victimization

I don't see it as an insult, I see it as an observation of a common phenomenon. I was once told I should "stop being a victim" - and after the initial indignity had been conquered I came to realise they were right. Turned out to be one of the most useful things anyone has ever said to me.

i realize that the word has lesser meanings but that is what the word conjures

Don't forget the words "to me" - it doesn't conjure that to everyone.

I do recognize that one is probably outside the realm of what your brain (or the mods) can recognize.

There's actually probably more potential for insult in that sentence than in anything you've mentioned here. You think there's something about my brain and/or understanding (and theirs) that's too small to grasp the implications?

If only we could all do a projection workshop together. Or Byron Katie's 'The Work'. :)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
See the difference between what I actually said/did and what you said I said/did?
yea you said "appear to", i dont see how that makes it any better.

I'm amazed you would reference the guidelines right after delivering one of metabunk's greatest paraphrases! :D
sigh. it wasnt a paraphrase as i quoted you. i am not arguing in my comment about what you said, i was using it as a jump board to give you an EXAMPLE of what would be considered polite vs impolite.

don't see it as an insult,
i'm sure you don't.

I was once told I should "stop being a victim" - and after the initial indignity had been conquered I came to realise they were right. Turned out to be one of the most useful things anyone has ever said to me.
I'm happy for you.
you asked me for examples of impoliteness. i gave them to you.

There's actually probably more potential for insult in that sentence than in anything you've mentioned here.
see? you CAN recognize it easily when its directed at you. yay!

Bottom line: i'm happy you think MB is not an impolite forum. which is what i originally said. There's obviously nothing left to discuss with you.
Absolutely seems like you are part of the majority (the majority who actually speak up on the subject anyway. I dont believe the real majority supports it.).
 

Rory

Senior Member.
yea you said "appear to", i dont see how that makes it any better.

I think you're misunderstanding. What you said I said/did is what you wrote in post 64 (and I quote in the list below). What I actually said/did is whatever you were referring to.

it wasnt a paraphrase as i quoted you

You think this is quoting?
  • "5 pages of you accusing me of being too stupid to read your sentence:quote correctly"
  • "the plethora of little passive-aggressive jokes and comments pasted into others comments (for no reason) insinuating the same thing"
  • "You telling me (and Woolery) that it's likely 'all in our heads' ie we're stupid"
That's 100% paraphrase.

see? you CAN recognize it easily when its directed at you.

Kind of. I said "potential for insult" - but I don't feel insulted because the words you wrote aren't saying anything about me, they're saying something about you.

you asked me for examples of impoliteness. i gave them to you.

Not quite. I asked you for the incident (ie, one) that springs to mind when you think of times people have insulted other people's intelligence.

I guess since the question wasn't answered I kind of forgot what I'd actually asked for and because of all the paraphrasing - which I see as almost completely inaccurate - I went into explaining why you were wrong mode.

Probably by the time you got to the 'victimisation' reference I'd forgotten what we were actually supposed to be talking about and carried on with the same track, which in hindsight wasn't the best approach. And at least that one pointed to something concrete that I could look at, even if it wasn't an example of "someone insulting someone else's intelligence".

I kind of feel I could have done better there. But I also see that it wouldn't have happened if the actual question had been answered. So I guess I don't feel too guilty.

i'm happy you think MB is not an impolite forum

It's pretty good on the whole, though obviously not great in parts.

Also, that's quite an interesting sentence when in the last few hours I responded directly to you:

I have now had a look around and seen some examples of members directly insulting other commenters' intelligence in ways that are pretty clear.

I still don't understand the paragraph about "the majority". Did you see the questions I asked about it?
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
...the insult was the word victimization. raped women and beaten women are victimized, i realize that the word has lesser meanings but that is what the word conjures...
The context in which I used the word was nowhere near this.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
You think this is quoting?
well not if youre going back 10 posts. no i dont think that is quoting.

youre right i should not have answered your question. my bad. i said yesterday i would stop answering your questions, but i forgot.
 

econ41

Senior Member
I was born in Greenock, in a hospital in which my mother could look out the window at the unexploded bomb in the adjacent field. My parents lived in a row house, since demolished, within the dotted line delineating (incorrectly) as a "tank factory" - on a German map!
One of my childhood toys was the tail fin section from a German Incendiary bomb. A vegetable growing field near my grandfather's home was next to an "S" bend in the river. 7 miles upstream, a similar shaped "S" bend, the same river, the site of the "Yorkshire copper Works" - the largest manufacturer of copper tubing in the country. For "copper tubing" read "steam-driven warships". One night the vegetable field was hit hard by a focused German incendiary bombing raid. All the vegies were roasted. My uncle souvenired the tailpiece of the bomb. Guess what the real target was. Wrong "S" bend in the river. Predates GPS.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
well you could have informed me you changed hemispheres! wth :)

True! There were a whopping two lines between the paraphrase post and the reference to the posting guidelines.

My bad! I hope you'll accept my apology. :)
 
Top