|
What the hell do you actually want to talk about? Accelerationism or self-criticism of one's own ideas or how to convince others who are bad thinkers that they're bad thinkers, or just get them to change? If it's the former, in simple terms, explain why the hell you think accelerationism will work. Useful tidbits here would be : Any times accelerationism has ever worked before, the mechanism of action whereby accelerationism would work. If it's the latter, then do you want to talk about how to combat your own intellectual 'vices' (which has a weird moral tone to it, by the way), or other people's? The two things have very little to do with each other. It is insanely difficult to tell what conversation you want to have here. It mostly just seems like frustration spilling out in rhetoric. I don't really have any problems with the article, but it's pretty long-winded for stuff that's basically common sense. I don't think that the idea he's presenting--that Oliver believes what he does partially because he's a bad thinker--is in the least bit controversial. It is, instead, as he says, common sense and intuitive. The author makes this claim: "Usually, when philosophers try to explain why someone believes things (weird or otherwise), they focus on that person’s reasons rather than their character traits." but doesn't bother backing that up with any sort of evidence that this is true. It also is very, very unlikely that the author has done the necessary research to comment on what philosopher's 'usually' do; he gives a couple of examples. That's all. And then it turns out that he's actually taking a position in the middle, by acknowledging that situation plays an important role in decision-making, along with 'intellectual character.' Which is, again, common sense. Teal Dear: The article is a mess and your OP is a mess.
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:I'm thinking Walter Cronkite times. You had a three-channel media, and people still read the same newspapers. Vetted, legitimate information was stored in libraries. Access to non-mainstream ideas took real work, and people with weird, out-there ideas were isolated, rather than connected by the internet. Impressions are pretty worthless. Actual research is cool. Do you think that black Americans during that time period felt that they weren't getting lied to? Do you think that the fact that newspapers, magazines, etc. were vastly more diverse back then versus now should be taken into account? For gently caress's sake you had Murray Kempton writing for the Post every week. The media was less consolidated back then, not more. You did not have a three-channel media, you had tons more independent newspapers where people got their news.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:
The thing is that most people I know already do this poo poo. It's the basis of intellectual inquiry, self-doubt and self-criticism. It is not some amazing awakening to go "Hey, maybe I'm not always right, maybe I should re-examine my positions!" It's something that you should be doing all the time and anyone who studies stuff seriously already does this. You don't actually appear to be doing it even now, which is ironic. I mean, you just shat out a post about your 'impressions' about what media was like historically versus now without bothering to think it through or do any research. You also quoted an article that makes a claim about what 'most philosophers' do. Before ever making a claim about what 'most philosophers' do I would have to, y'know, actually read a statistically significant sample of philosophers (the creation of which set would be incredibly daunting intellectually challenging) and then do the complex task of analyzing how they feel about his particular subject--which is not something most philosophers directly address--how people form bad opinions. I do not believe that the author has done this work, because he gives no evidence of having done it and it would be an incredibly challenging task that would take years and goddamn years.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:So, Vermain asked me a question about my thoughts about media in the 50s and 60s. I answered. Everyone isn't just telling me I'm wrong, they're getting nasty about it. Is this just about making GBS threads on me at this point? Why did you answer with anything other than "I don't actually know anything about media in the 50s and 60s, so I shouldn't speculate off of my vague assumptions"? We're trying to help you overcome your intellectual vices, OP. Actually, no, I'm trying to help others not fall into your intellectual vices: You are Oliver, to me. I don't know how to get through to people like you, because to me it is very clear that there is an emotional heart to your stance, not an intellectual one. I am, actually, trying to research how to convince people like you of certain things--specifically, to immunize their kids and take antibiotics and stuff--and it is really hard and it generally requires cultural hooks to work and there is nothing that will work in any sort of broad category. Most of what I have studied has indicated that education is prophylactic rather than curative. If you get terrible ideas, you can then get educated and not have those ideas educated out of you. If you get educated first, you are less likely to get the terrible ideas. The original bad ideas are not held out of intellectual conviction but because of emotional need or group identity, and those are very hard to dislodge once in place. To put it another way, it is far harder to convince a conservative to become a conservationist by means of convincing him about the science of global warming than it is to convince a conservative to become a conservationist by reframing it as a conservative value.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 22:23
|
|