The topic is... "opinion", "data", and "reality"
I posted a seed the other day, under Red Rules, with an explicit topic. The result was fascinating.
There hasn't been a single Reply addressing the topic.
There have been quite a few Vandal posts -- with the obvious intention of destroying the conversation... but those are of no interest. Their posters are showing themselves for what they are, and I wish them pleasure when they look in the mirror.
But the interesting posts were more numerous.
First ... it seems clear that several people posted without having read the seed or the first Reply (where I posted the Red Rules and carefully defined the topic). This is fascinating! What are these people doing? What are they thinking? Apparently, they see a word in a headline, and then simply post whatever that word provokes, in a sort of "free association"!
Imagine a dinner party. Someone starts talking about the Orion rocket test. The conversation should logically roll on toward space exploration, Mars, et cetera. But some guy wanders in, hears "NASA" and screams "climate science"! The conversation becomes the usual unending dialog of the deaf that no one in their right mind would bring up in a dinner party!
Serious conversation -- as opposed to verbal food fights -- requires discipline from all participants. If each participant does whatever they want, "serious" just isn't possible. Obviously .
Online is the same. The first requirement for serious conversation is "stay on topic". There should be no need to lay out the topic explicitly. It should be clear from the seed/article. The topic of the conversation is the subject of the seed/article.
The topic is not random. Identifying the topic requires:
1) reading the seed/article
2) thinking about the seed/article
Just because "Obama" appears somewhere in the seed/article does not mean that "Obama" is the topic and that a visitor may post "whatever" concerning Obama.
Staying on topic requires effort! But if a visitor does not want to make that effort... then they should go elsewhere, to a seed/article where the author invites visitors to a food fight. Food fights can be fun... but they are not "serious". Kinda by definition...
Second ... it became apparent to me that some visitors do not understand the meanings of "opinion", "data", and "reality".
Before the conversation began, I stipulated:
The reality of xxxxxxxx is NOT to be questioned, unless newer and more credible data is supplied.
No one asked any questions about that rule. It seemed pretty straightforward to me, too.
A number of visitors posted their personal experience. This is indeed a form of "data", but when the topic is national policy in a nation of 300 million people... personal experience is of no statistical significance.
This is hard! Personal experience is intimate and it is real. "I felt it, I heard it, I smelled it..." It is very hard for me to accept, viscerally , that my personal experience is of no importance in the larger scheme of things. But for some topics, like this one, that acceptance is necessary.
There are other topics where personal experience is everything: "How to have the best barbecue ever!" is not going to be answered statistically. (Don't worry... I won't be the author in any case...)
Several visitors spoke of my "opinion" on the topic... although I never gave any at all. Apparently... the clear, hard data in the seed was perceived as "my opinion", rather than "everyone's reality".
Others did not distinguish between their own opinion and reality. One spoke of "your reality is White House reality", as though each and every one of us has our own personal reality.
(I have heard of the "multiverse", but I don't think this is it...)
To avoid any silly semantic debates, here are Google's definitions. They're good enough for me:
opinion (noun):
-
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
reality (noun):
-
the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Everyone can have any "opinion" they like, about any subject they like. Arguments about opinions are silly, because opinions usually cannot be proved, as they are "not ... based on fact or knowledge". Arguing with a flat-Earther is time-consuming and pointless...
But! Everyone cannot have any "reality" they like. Reality is what it is -- it is the same for all of us. Some folks can deny reality, of course... but that's a different subject. My Uncle Joe refused for years to recognize that his wife had died. "She's on a trip," he said. Uncle Joe was kinda crazy...
So... in the end... that seed was very useful. It showed how hard it is to have a serious conversation. Thanks to all who participated. Well... except for the Vandal, of course...
Tags
Who is online
59 visitors
No particular rules on this one.
I would hope that everyone can see that it is not in invitation to a food fight...
Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful contribution. I'm sure everyone will appreciate it at it's true value.
Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful contribution. I'm sure everyone will appreciate it at it's true value.
Thank you for another valuable and thoughtful contribution. I'm sure everyone will appreciate it at it's true value.
Things aren't so tightly wrapped around here. It's more free flow conversation you never know what interesting turns the conversation will take. Think of it like improvisational jazz just go with the flow.
What if I want to play classical?
I thought Seven of Nine was a well rounded character too...Squirrel!
Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful contribution. I'm sure everyone will appreciate it at it's true value.
Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful contribution. I'm sure everyone will appreciate it at it's true value.
Your welcome, but I'd rather hear it from them, thank you.
Such eloquence...
"You're"
I read thru the comments and frankly Bob, I think you spent a lot of time splitting hairs.
You post a seed about the success of Obamacare compared to the negative political opinions. Did you really expect people to not discuss Obamacare ?
Shh...I think Bob is sensitive about his hairs!
You'r "rite"
From you?? You're joking, right?
You've been firing torpedoes since the first second.
Who is "we"... and "hopeful" about what?
That's an interesting choice of words. I would like to understand in what way I "failed". What was the test? What were the criteria? Who ("we"??) did the grading?
Yes.
Obamacare is a bore. It has been hashed out a zillion times.
On the other hand, a disconnect between reality and popular perception -- a common definition for madness -- is VERY interesting.
I assumed that others would feel the same.
Second grade?
I just think you went over-board with your rules about staying on topic. You create a verbal mine field.
You're probably right. I could have found a different background subject, less radioactive than Obamacare, but showing the same disconnect.
But I was surprised that anyone wanted to re-visit Obamacare for the umpteenth time.
How'd you guess? Damn your' good.
I don't trust anyone who doesn't laugh.
Maya Angelou
Or, in our context... "if you don't laugh at my jokes, I'll smack you!"
Great way to demonstrate your good humor...
Guess you told me huh?
Well I need a snack, nap and recess. So, I bid you adieu.
Sleep well.
Actually, they just came to pull your strings - worked too.
badfish,
Did you read this article? If you did, then you saw
Now re-read your post
Do you see what I mean? You are expressing an opinion, devoid of fact.
When an intelligent person supplies no facts... it's probably because s/he has none...
(Note that I am presuming you to be an intelligent person... Lacking in class, perhaps -- "jackassery" -- but intelligent.)
D'ya think??
Personally, if I see such a rule, I'll stay away. The author wants a circle-jerk. Leave him/her to it!
I look at it this way. If the author or seeder wants RBR rules for his/her article, they are entitled to set the rules.
I, personally don't agree, but it isn't my article. It will keep some of the wacko's off the article (a good thing), but it also can inhibit good discussion. Granted at times, article go off track, but again that off track can be very interesting.
IMO
flameaway,
As I already answered your twin:
I presume you are referring to your dear buddy, right below you? Inseparable, hmmmm??
No. I am 6'5", and around 280 lbs.
I'll accept "funny", though. Thank you.
Yyyyeeewwwwww.......
I've always associated misapprehension of "facts and reality" with a conservative mindset. Wingnut, really.
So you're kind of an odd duck. You're supposedly a liberal, but your way of just makin' stuff up... inventing whatever alternate reality is useful... has a decided taste of wingnut!
What's really important to you, flame? So far, you've been defending your right to destroy, without any constructive input at all. That's Tea Party tactics!
Just who are you, really??
Trying to control what other people think and do can be frustrating.
What are you guys going to do now, spam the forum with old bob nelson articles ?
Why not just be normal for once?
Fact: The photo of the Afghan girl appeared on the cover of an issue of National Geographic magazine.
Opinion: Looking at her eyes causes an emotional response.
Reality: There is no good reason for me to have written that. (That could be fact or opinion.)
BF,
My goodness!This is remarkable.
Everyone has surely long since observed that you stalk my activity on NT... but this is truly stunning! You've reached back nearly a year!
How long did it take to find this old article? Howfixatedon me must you be to have taken this time?
And how oblivious must you be to make such a public demonstration of your fixation?
Stunning!