Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Self Esteem, Notoriety and Culture

YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 1:20:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Positive reinforcement, "A's for effort" and participation trophies are perplexing to me. If, for instance, notoriety is given without regard to merit or effort what does that say of merit and effort? Ostensibly, it says that merit and effort are good, but everyone has to be "good" because the notion that "some" are better than "others" is alienating to the others -and that is a bad thing. Where it was once the case that those who were exceptional were the only recipients of some form of notoriety, whatever recognition is granted to those who excel is purposed for the recognition of their efforts and only their efforts. Where it is rather the case in the present that recognition is handed out with an even hand, even if those who excel above the norm are more significantly recognized than those who are merely average -mediocrity is still celebrated.

If mediocrity is celebrated, if people are rewarded for performing only what is minimally adequate to be a member of a team, if people are granted recognition for doing only that which they must -for what reason is the exercise of competition even performed? Competition is itself a necessarily discriminatory activity insomuch as the talented emerge over the untalented. But if the untalented are to stand side by side with those who excel, what does excelling mean? It means nothing to excel, if not to alienate others. By it's nature, being "better" than someone else at something is alienating to the inferior -and it should be. But why?

Failure is a good thing to the extent that it motivates he who has failed to improve, and to the extent that failure does not motivate he who has failed to improve it is an equally good thing for competitive activity. This is the case because only the person who understands failure as inspiration to try harder in the future is worthy of improving, or may have the potential to merit recognition that comes with improvement -but only when he who has failed excels does he merit recognition.

Failure is and ought to be destructive, corrosive and at the expense of one's self esteem. It is right and proper that when someone fails, that they feel ashamed for doing so. In that way, failure is a purifying thing which is good in and of itself. But when failure, or even mediocrity is met with the notoriety of participation awards, when it is celebrated with positive reinforcement (for example: "you didn't do that bad!" or "[the person who beat you] only got lucky") that which is less than exceptional, which is to say that which is less than deserving of recognition is recognized.

Is constructive criticism the polite thing to do? To the extent that not telling another person the truth is polite, sure. Perhaps feelings and sentiments will be preserved -but he who failed will loose his incentive to improve. He will aspire only toward mediocrity at best, or become complacent with destitution at worst. In a culture that values the preservation and enhancement of individual self esteem through the recognition of failure or mediocrity, any prospect for genuine satisfaction, for real, tangible accomplishment is lost as the opportunity cost of not alienating those who have not achieved greatness. Or worse, greatness is looked upon with scathing rebuke -as something to be ostracized.

In the moment that a culture celebrated the individual rather than the results of an individual's efforts is when narcissism overtakes the pursuit of excellence -because such a culture demands only of individuals that they be individuals, not that as individuals they focus their efforts towards genuine accomplishment. It is the mark of a weak people where "A's for effort" are given out. If an A is to mean anything, it cannot be given to the undeserving -and the mediocre are undeserving.

Those who argue for the celebration and recognition of only greatness are heralded as elitists, and properly so, but the notion that there is something wrong with being an elitist is absurd. To not be an elitist is to accept less than what is exceptional at the expense of true accomplishment.
Tsar of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 5:51:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah, good luck convincing people that they should worship "the great". Recognition is wholly contingent on the value that others place on you, and this is unlikely to be larger than the value they place on themselves. I see no reason for them to willingly sacrifice their modicum of mental happiness so that you can feel good about yourself. It's actually psychologically unhealthy. "The great" deserve no more recognition than the mediocre because everyone is valuable insofar as they are rational agents. This value needs to be respected.

On top of this, many of those whom we deem to be great are mediocre in other fields. There is no reason to define an individual's social status wholly in terms of her ability to succeed at one particular thing.

Nobody gives out "As" for effort.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 1:55:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem inlies with who exactly you consider part of the elite. Most equate elitism with considering only the wealthy as being part of the elite.

However, this post does remind me of a fascinating difference between Western and Eastern cultures' perceptions of "intelligence", or being smart.

In the West, the things that you have a natural talent or capacity for are what you are described as being "smart" in. Those who have natural intelligence are called intelligent.

However, in the East, intelligence is derived from effort at improvement. If a person naturally has difficulty learning things and struggles at it until they learn it, then that person is described as being intelligent or smart. If everything comes naturally, then you are NOT seen as intelligent--or, if you are, it is to a lesser degree than those who improved to get to your level.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 6:03:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think that self-esteem, ideally, should be contingent on any external evaluations. We should teach children to be self-critical, rather than to rely on external metrics, because external metrics often are unreliable. I remember the 'smart' kids in school; I wasn't one of them. They were usually pompous, and passed off shoddy reasoning and sloppy work through bravado and charisma, and earned their accolades through doing pointless busy work rather than actually working to familiarize themselves with the material on any real level. Yet they had a terribly inflated sense of esteem earned through honors and praise, and would sometimes browbeat children who were, in reality, much more intelligent than them. One was a very quiet boy with discalculia whom I tutored, who was brilliant with engines. He could hold conversations with my father, a self-trained mechanic and engineer for a large manufacturing plant, on mechanics at the age of thirteen. But the so-called 'smart kids', the honors society members, would belittle him terribly, calling him a retard on several occasions. And it's because the whole system of honors is steeped in social dominance, not any sort of recognition of real talent. I think that any hierarchy like this doesn't correspond to people's real abilities, which are varied and often specific, while favoring those who are socially endowed rather than those who are intellectually endowed. I'll close with some cogent thoughts on the matter by the physicist Richard Feynman:
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 9:54:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 5:51:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yeah, good luck convincing people that they should worship "the great". Recognition is wholly contingent on the value that others place on you, and this is unlikely to be larger than the value they place on themselves. I see no reason for them to willingly sacrifice their modicum of mental happiness so that you can feel good about yourself. It's actually psychologically unhealthy. "The great" deserve no more recognition than the mediocre because everyone is valuable insofar as they are rational agents. This value needs to be respected.

On top of this, many of those whom we deem to be great are mediocre in other fields. There is no reason to define an individual's social status wholly in terms of her ability to succeed at one particular thing.

Nobody gives out "As" for effort.

A few things to note:

I didn't talk about worshiping anyone. That's not what I said and I really dislike that phraseology.

I didn't mention respect at all. And while I think all people have human dignity and therefore are worthy of respect, that is not to say that all are worthy of notoriety. Notoriety is not respect, nor should it be understood as such.

I didn't say I was among those worthy of notoriety, nor do I expect people to put me on a pedestal. I mean, perhaps at some point I'll do something worthy of notoriety but I'm 21 right now. I have done nothing really profound as of yet, and I take considerable issue with your implying that I even insinuated -which I categorically did not- that this was about me.

Your claim that "The great" deserve no more recognition than the mediocre because everyone is valuable insofar as they are rational agents" and premise that "This value needs to be respected" is absurd. I'm not talking about respect. I'm talking about notoriety.

Your further claim that "the great" are mediocre in other fields is tangential to the point I was making. For example: I don't care that J. Robert Oppenheimer may have been a lousy fisherman or painter, I care that he led the Manhattan project.

So, things to learn from this exercise:

(1) Don't read into what I -or anyone- writes, some meaning other than precisely what they say. If you ever take the LSATS, or any other reasoning-based standardized test, you will get every question wrong if you do. Btw, the SAT's don't count.

(2) Don't confuse words. Respect, for example, does not mean notoriety.

(3) Don't make assumptions or bring in tangential information when rebutting something. There were errors in my argument (I wrote it after I took my ambien, while watching a documentary on the Manhattan Project -rofl).

But, this may be a learning experience. Salutary and productive, indeed.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 9:59:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 1:55:04 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
The problem inlies with who exactly you consider part of the elite. Most equate elitism with considering only the wealthy as being part of the elite.

The problem, then, is with the cultural perception of elitism and being exceptional -not with elitist values or the celebration of the exceptional in and of itself.

However, this post does remind me of a fascinating difference between Western and Eastern cultures' perceptions of "intelligence", or being smart.

Interesting.

In the West, the things that you have a natural talent or capacity for are what you are described as being "smart" in. Those who have natural intelligence are called intelligent.

However, in the East, intelligence is derived from effort at improvement. If a person naturally has difficulty learning things and struggles at it until they learn it, then that person is described as being intelligent or smart. If everything comes naturally, then you are NOT seen as intelligent--or, if you are, it is to a lesser degree than those who improved to get to your level.

Interesting. While I would agree that it is a good thing to be naturally intelligent, a MENSA member who does nothing with their life but eat chips and drink soda is still a worthless human being. Just my thoughts though. As a rule, I would say that only those who work hard, who exert considerable effort towards a goal they have are worthy of even being considered "elite." I am also skeptical about connecting socioeconomic status with a state of being "elite." Money does not mean that you are an exceptional person, that you are a productive, contributing member of society or even that you matter. Fun fact: Most of the very wealthy people I have known, though, are nice people -although they raise terrible kids.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:04:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 6:03:22 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I don't think that self-esteem, ideally, should be contingent on any external evaluations.

I agree, and at no point suggested that self esteem should be contingent on external evaluation.

We should teach children to be self-critical, rather than to rely on external metrics, because external metrics often are unreliable.

I agree.

I remember the 'smart' kids in school; I wasn't one of them. They were usually pompous, and passed off shoddy reasoning and sloppy work through bravado and charisma, and earned their accolades through doing pointless busy work rather than actually working to familiarize themselves with the material on any real level.

Interesting.

Yet they had a terribly inflated sense of esteem earned through honors and praise, and would sometimes browbeat children who were, in reality, much more intelligent than them.

Among the college freshman I have taught or tutored, many who came out of AP/IB programs with very high GPA's in high school are just as ignorant/insular/myopic/immature as the kids who were in regular classes I've taught or tutored. Really exceptional intelligence is exceptionally rare; people forget that entirely too often.

One was a very quiet boy with discalculia whom I tutored, who was brilliant with engines. He could hold conversations with my father, a self-trained mechanic and engineer for a large manufacturing plant, on mechanics at the age of thirteen. But the so-called 'smart kids', the honors society members, would belittle him terribly, calling him a retard on several occasions.

What a band of fuckwits.

And it's because the whole system of honors is steeped in social dominance, not any sort of recognition of real talent.

I think this is probably the case in many American high schools. PM me if you'd like to discuss that more, because I have a few theories on (1) what's going on and (2) why.

I think that any hierarchy like this doesn't correspond to people's real abilities, which are varied and often specific, while favoring those who are socially endowed rather than those who are intellectually endowed. I'll close with some cogent thoughts on the matter by the physicist Richard Feynman:



I haven't watched the video yet, but I will at some point.
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:30:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ha, it's so odd that this post was inspired by a documentary on the Manhattan Project, and I posted a video by one of the scientists that worked on it!
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:50:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 10:30:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Ha, it's so odd that this post was inspired by a documentary on the Manhattan Project, and I posted a video by one of the scientists that worked on it!

I tried to come up with a joke about gay guys and atom bombs, but I'm too tired to think creatively tonight.
Tsar of DDO
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 2:22:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm of the mind to support most of what YYW has said. Real achievement ought to be the only thing that is rewarded. One might, in rare circumstances, create some limited number of awards for very substantial improvement, but real ability should be the focus of honours.

At my school awards ceremonies every year has a set of awards. Although it does vary, there's always an award for the top of the year. Following that there's an award for the top student in every class. Got 7 English classes? 7 awards. There's such a deluge of awards that these awards become absolutely meaningless, especially given that many classes are ranked. I came 4th out of about 180 students in English, but I got no award. Why? My class had 9 of the top 10 students in English, and yet there's buffoons who rank 30th who might get an award. Or, what about the inability to distinguish between award recipients? I've topped history outright 3 years running (along with other subjects of course) yet you would never know based on our award nights.

That's the sort of farce that I think should be disposed of. Top 3 in the year, and top of each subject should get something. Maybe 1 award for improvement. One can tinker with this system (perhaps top 5 in the year...) and determine what awards are to be conferred, but mediocrity ought not to be praised, especially when actual achievement is glossed over. Ie. I led my school's chess team to it's greatest ever result in it's history, yet no mention was ever made.

Of course, the matter is more complex than what I've outlined for various reasons. The inability to quantify 'achievement' , what to confer awards upon, the utility of conferring awards etc. A few statements I wish to address:

Failure is and ought to be destructive, corrosive and at the expense of one's self esteem. - YYW

While I do see merit in this statement, I think that it's far too absolute. Should one be humbled by failure? Absolutely. It's essential for reflection and learning. Failure can make one change their course and discard false hubris; failure can do a great deal.

However, words like 'destructive' are very strong. Do you want to destroy a person? Failure can sometimes be detrimental to well being. As ana analogy, in certain sessions of fitness training (a school recreational sport at my school) we occasionally mutter about how we'd 'break' certain people with certain fitness routines. I'm glad we don't do it though. There are certain lines of punishment that one should not cross.

I remember the 'smart' kids in school; I wasn't one of them. They were usually pompous, and passed off shoddy reasoning and sloppy work through bravado and charisma, and earned their accolades through doing pointless busy work rather than actually working to familiarize themselves with the material on any real level. - Skepsikyma

It's disconcerting that I see shades of my own reflection in this statement. I used to be fairly quiet, but I've gradually evolved into a person who uses bravado and charisma... on occasion. I can play the charismatic fellow very well, but I also seep into sullen detachment at times. That said, I'd like to think that I do familiarise myself with material - memory retention is one of the foremost goals of education, as many seem to forget.

As to my current experience, having a partially selective school partially mitigates the severity of the effect you describe. Also, I'd say that this effect more applies to those in the sciences or those with one particular strength. Many people are often overlooked for their intelligence due to this, and I am the first to note this. However, these people with bravado and charisma -- in my limited experience -- do tend to have a certain flair for the social sciences and humanities. I'd say that this is another topic in and of itself though.

As to your comment about the merit of honours, I agree that internal evaluation is preferable by far. The extent to which external honours are effective is something I'm sure about though. I certainly think the system of honours needs to be reworked, but how this reworking ought to manifest itself is a subject of complexity.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 6:47:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 5:51:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yeah, good luck convincing people that they should worship "the great". Recognition is wholly contingent on the value that others place on you, and this is unlikely to be larger than the value they place on themselves. I see no reason for them to willingly sacrifice their modicum of mental happiness so that you can feel good about yourself. It's actually psychologically unhealthy. "The great" deserve no more recognition than the mediocre because everyone is valuable insofar as they are rational agents. This value needs to be respected.

On top of this, many of those whom we deem to be great are mediocre in other fields. There is no reason to define an individual's social status wholly in terms of her ability to succeed at one particular thing.

Nobody gives out "As" for effort.

This is absurd. Let's first set up a base point that I presume you agree with, otherwise you are a blithering idiot or better have a good refutation to this statement:

The world only cares about what it can get out of you

Those who contribute more get more positive recognition, those who contribute less don't get as recognized. Why is that such a vile concept?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 6:51:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 1:20:16 AM, YYW wrote:
Positive reinforcement, "A's for effort" and participation trophies are perplexing to me. If, for instance, notoriety is given without regard to merit or effort what does that say of merit and effort? Ostensibly, it says that merit and effort are good, but everyone has to be "good" because the notion that "some" are better than "others" is alienating to the others -and that is a bad thing. Where it was once the case that those who were exceptional were the only recipients of some form of notoriety, whatever recognition is granted to those who excel is purposed for the recognition of their efforts and only their efforts. Where it is rather the case in the present that recognition is handed out with an even hand, even if those who excel above the norm are more significantly recognized than those who are merely average -mediocrity is still celebrated.

If mediocrity is celebrated, if people are rewarded for performing only what is minimally adequate to be a member of a team, if people are granted recognition for doing only that which they must -for what reason is the exercise of competition even performed? Competition is itself a necessarily discriminatory activity insomuch as the talented emerge over the untalented. But if the untalented are to stand side by side with those who excel, what does excelling mean? It means nothing to excel, if not to alienate others. By it's nature, being "better" than someone else at something is alienating to the inferior -and it should be. But why?

Failure is a good thing to the extent that it motivates he who has failed to improve, and to the extent that failure does not motivate he who has failed to improve it is an equally good thing for competitive activity. This is the case because only the person who understands failure as inspiration to try harder in the future is worthy of improving, or may have the potential to merit recognition that comes with improvement -but only when he who has failed excels does he merit recognition.

Failure is and ought to be destructive, corrosive and at the expense of one's self esteem. It is right and proper that when someone fails, that they feel ashamed for doing so. In that way, failure is a purifying thing which is good in and of itself. But when failure, or even mediocrity is met with the notoriety of participation awards, when it is celebrated with positive reinforcement (for example: "you didn't do that bad!" or "[the person who beat you] only got lucky") that which is less than exceptional, which is to say that which is less than deserving of recognition is recognized.

Is constructive criticism the polite thing to do? To the extent that not telling another person the truth is polite, sure. Perhaps feelings and sentiments will be preserved -but he who failed will loose his incentive to improve. He will aspire only toward mediocrity at best, or become complacent with destitution at worst. In a culture that values the preservation and enhancement of individual self esteem through the recognition of failure or mediocrity, any prospect for genuine satisfaction, for real, tangible accomplishment is lost as the opportunity cost of not alienating those who have not achieved greatness. Or worse, greatness is looked upon with scathing rebuke -as something to be ostracized.

In the moment that a culture celebrated the individual rather than the results of an individual's efforts is when narcissism overtakes the pursuit of excellence -because such a culture demands only of individuals that they be individuals, not that as individuals they focus their efforts towards genuine accomplishment. It is the mark of a weak people where "A's for effort" are given out. If an A is to mean anything, it cannot be given to the undeserving -and the mediocre are undeserving.

Those who argue for the celebration and recognition of only greatness are heralded as elitists, and properly so, but the notion that there is something wrong with being an elitist is absurd. To not be an elitist is to accept less than what is exceptional at the expense of true accomplishment.

Very good reasoning, it's too bad that the few who are against this can't come up with a logical, substantiated response
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 6:59:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 9:54:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/29/2013 5:51:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yeah, good luck convincing people that they should worship "the great". Recognition is wholly contingent on the value that others place on you, and this is unlikely to be larger than the value they place on themselves. I see no reason for them to willingly sacrifice their modicum of mental happiness so that you can feel good about yourself. It's actually psychologically unhealthy. "The great" deserve no more recognition than the mediocre because everyone is valuable insofar as they are rational agents. This value needs to be respected.

On top of this, many of those whom we deem to be great are mediocre in other fields. There is no reason to define an individual's social status wholly in terms of her ability to succeed at one particular thing.

Nobody gives out "As" for effort.

A few things to note:

I didn't talk about worshiping anyone. That's not what I said and I really dislike that phraseology.

Oh, so what does "notoriety" mean for you then?

The dictionary defines it as: : generally known and talked of; especially : widely and unfavorably known

So, are we not supposed to know people (in an unfavorable manner, no less) unless they are "great"? What makes a person great? "Greatness" is contingent upon an orientation of values, and I don't see why I should orient my values in such a way that I glorify someone else at my expense.
I didn't mention respect at all. And while I think all people have human dignity and therefore are worthy of respect, that is not to say that all are worthy of notoriety. Notoriety is not respect, nor should it be understood as such.

What is the point of your post? I assumed you were trying to make a point, but obviously you were not. We're supposed to not know of people unless they are "great"? You do realize that greatness only comes through mass recognition of greatness, right?
I didn't say I was among those worthy of notoriety, nor do I expect people to put me on a pedestal. I mean, perhaps at some point I'll do something worthy of notoriety but I'm 21 right now. I have done nothing really profound as of yet, and I take considerable issue with your implying that I even insinuated -which I categorically did not- that this was about me.

What? I never implied that you wanted to be worshiped.
Your claim that "The great" deserve no more recognition than the mediocre because everyone is valuable insofar as they are rational agents" and premise that "This value needs to be respected" is absurd. I'm not talking about respect. I'm talking about notoriety.

Notoriety is mass recognition.
Your further claim that "the great" are mediocre in other fields is tangential to the point I was making. For example: I don't care that J. Robert Oppenheimer may have been a lousy fisherman or painter, I care that he led the Manhattan project.

I don't. I care that he was a poor fisherman. Why should I orient my values such that I give him any degree of recognition? He doesn't deserve anything from me.
So, things to learn from this exercise:

(1) Don't read into what I -or anyone- writes, some meaning other than precisely what they say. If you ever take the LSATS, or any other reasoning-based standardized test, you will get every question wrong if you do. Btw, the SAT's don't count.

LOL, yeah, the SATs don't count because you didn't do well on them. Ok.
(2) Don't confuse words. Respect, for example, does not mean notoriety.

Don't make meaningless posts then. I was assuming that you had some point to make. Can you name one person who is not great but has notoriety? Greatness is entirely contingent on mass recognition: if you have mass recognition, you are great at something

Also, what do participation trophies have to do with notoriety? I'm sorry, but I've never heard of people who get participation trophies having a mass following or whatever. Usually the players who get the good trophies have notoriety. This is what made me think you were discussing respect and recognition. If you weren't obviously you need to learn how to craft an argument more clearly and to include examples that are pertinent to your claims. You might confuse the reader if you do not do this. I apologize for making mistakes as a result of your terrible argument construction.
(3) Don't make assumptions or bring in tangential information when rebutting something. There were errors in my argument (I wrote it after I took my ambien, while watching a documentary on the Manhattan Project -rofl).

I'm not making assumptions. I read your idiotic post, which seems to include information that has absolutely nothing to do with your point, and made attacks on the basis of the material that you included. It is not my fault that you constructed your argument poorly.
But, this may be a learning experience. Salutary and productive, indeed.

I agree. Learn how to construct an argument so that people are not confused about your point.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 7:01:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 6:47:59 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/29/2013 5:51:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yeah, good luck convincing people that they should worship "the great". Recognition is wholly contingent on the value that others place on you, and this is unlikely to be larger than the value they place on themselves. I see no reason for them to willingly sacrifice their modicum of mental happiness so that you can feel good about yourself. It's actually psychologically unhealthy. "The great" deserve no more recognition than the mediocre because everyone is valuable insofar as they are rational agents. This value needs to be respected.

On top of this, many of those whom we deem to be great are mediocre in other fields. There is no reason to define an individual's social status wholly in terms of her ability to succeed at one particular thing.

Nobody gives out "As" for effort.

This is absurd. Let's first set up a base point that I presume you agree with, otherwise you are a blithering idiot or better have a good refutation to this statement:

The world only cares about what it can get out of you

Those who contribute more get more positive recognition, those who contribute less don't get as recognized. Why is that such a vile concept?

What we get out of someone or what we care about is wholly contingent upon our values. I think that our values are corrupt, so the people we currently recognize deserve absolutely no recognition.

Also, you might be a sociopath who only cares about what you can get from others, but most people are not like this.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 7:09:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 6:59:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/29/2013 9:54:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/29/2013 5:51:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yeah, good luck convincing people that they should worship "the great". Recognition is wholly contingent on the value that others place on you, and this is unlikely to be larger than the value they place on themselves. I see no reason for them to willingly sacrifice their modicum of mental happiness so that you can feel good about yourself. It's actually psychologically unhealthy. "The great" deserve no more recognition than the mediocre because everyone is valuable insofar as they are rational agents. This value needs to be respected.

On top of this, many of those whom we deem to be great are mediocre in other fields. There is no reason to define an individual's social status wholly in terms of her ability to succeed at one particular thing.

Nobody gives out "As" for effort.

A few things to note:

I didn't talk about worshiping anyone. That's not what I said and I really dislike that phraseology.

Oh, so what does "notoriety" mean for you then?

The dictionary defines it as: : generally known and talked of; especially : widely and unfavorably known

So, are we not supposed to know people (in an unfavorable manner, no less) unless they are "great"? What makes a person great? "Greatness" is contingent upon an orientation of values, and I don't see why I should orient my values in such a way that I glorify someone else at my expense.
I didn't mention respect at all. And while I think all people have human dignity and therefore are worthy of respect, that is not to say that all are worthy of notoriety. Notoriety is not respect, nor should it be understood as such.

What is the point of your post? I assumed you were trying to make a point, but obviously you were not. We're supposed to not know of people unless they are "great"? You do realize that greatness only comes through mass recognition of greatness, right?
I didn't say I was among those worthy of notoriety, nor do I expect people to put me on a pedestal. I mean, perhaps at some point I'll do something worthy of notoriety but I'm 21 right now. I have done nothing really profound as of yet, and I take considerable issue with your implying that I even insinuated -which I categorically did not- that this was about me.

What? I never implied that you wanted to be worshiped.
Your claim that "The great" deserve no more recognition than the mediocre because everyone is valuable insofar as they are rational agents" and premise that "This value needs to be respected" is absurd. I'm not talking about respect. I'm talking about notoriety.

Notoriety is mass recognition.
Your further claim that "the great" are mediocre in other fields is tangential to the point I was making. For example: I don't care that J. Robert Oppenheimer may have been a lousy fisherman or painter, I care that he led the Manhattan project.

I don't. I care that he was a poor fisherman. Why should I orient my values such that I give him any degree of recognition? He doesn't deserve anything from me.
So, things to learn from this exercise:

(1) Don't read into what I -or anyone- writes, some meaning other than precisely what they say. If you ever take the LSATS, or any other reasoning-based standardized test, you will get every question wrong if you do. Btw, the SAT's don't count.

LOL, yeah, the SATs don't count because you didn't do well on them. Ok.
(2) Don't confuse words. Respect, for example, does not mean notoriety.

Don't make meaningless posts then. I was assuming that you had some point to make. Can you name one person who is not great but has notoriety? Greatness is entirely contingent on mass recognition: if you have mass recognition, you are great at something

Also, what do participation trophies have to do with notoriety? I'm sorry, but I've never heard of people who get participation trophies having a mass following or whatever. Usually the players who get the good trophies have notoriety. This is what made me think you were discussing respect and recognition. If you weren't obviously you need to learn how to craft an argument more clearly and to include examples that are pertinent to your claims. You might confuse the reader if you do not do this. I apologize for making mistakes as a result of your terrible argument construction.
(3) Don't make assumptions or bring in tangential information when rebutting something. There were errors in my argument (I wrote it after I took my ambien, while watching a documentary on the Manhattan Project -rofl).

I'm not making assumptions. I read your idiotic post, which seems to include information that has absolutely nothing to do with your point, and made attacks on the basis of the material that you included. It is not my fault that you constructed your argument poorly.
But, this may be a learning experience. Salutary and productive, indeed.

I agree. Learn how to construct an argument so that people are not confused about your point.

I see your point, but it's still ultimately flawed royal.

The main thing that interests me is how you say you would focus on someone's flaws more then their achievements, even if their achievement was great and their flaws were small. It doesn't matter if I am bad at everything else, but I am good at accounting and managing budgets. If I use those skills to bail a huge business out of debt and save millions of jobs, I gave something significant to the world. There are the average, who we still need who won't get recognition for fishing, because there are millions of fishers around the world. Fishing is not something that takes extreme talent compared to being a great lawyer or athlete. Once you learn to fish, you have some room for improvement, but not much. There aren't fishing competitions on TV for a reason, it would be mundane, and most fishers have equal skill.

The creator of the Manhattan project contributed something extremely significant, there are mediocre people who study science, they become high school science teachers, there are great people who study science, they create weapons that end massive wars.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 7:12:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 7:01:24 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/30/2013 6:47:59 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/29/2013 5:51:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yeah, good luck convincing people that they should worship "the great". Recognition is wholly contingent on the value that others place on you, and this is unlikely to be larger than the value they place on themselves. I see no reason for them to willingly sacrifice their modicum of mental happiness so that you can feel good about yourself. It's actually psychologically unhealthy. "The great" deserve no more recognition than the mediocre because everyone is valuable insofar as they are rational agents. This value needs to be respected.

On top of this, many of those whom we deem to be great are mediocre in other fields. There is no reason to define an individual's social status wholly in terms of her ability to succeed at one particular thing.

Nobody gives out "As" for effort.

This is absurd. Let's first set up a base point that I presume you agree with, otherwise you are a blithering idiot or better have a good refutation to this statement:

The world only cares about what it can get out of you

Those who contribute more get more positive recognition, those who contribute less don't get as recognized. Why is that such a vile concept?

What we get out of someone or what we care about is wholly contingent upon our values. I think that our values are corrupt, so the people we currently recognize deserve absolutely no recognition.

That isn't necessarily true, do you care that your waiter is a good father, or that he is serving you food? You don't care about him as a person necessarily, just that he is capable of giving you a service, which is giving you food to shove in your piehole.

Also, you might be a sociopath who only cares about what you can get from others, but most people are not like this.

"a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."

http://dictionary.reference.com...

try another ad hom bro k?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 7:16:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The entire claim that people are getting recognized for no reason is just bogus. I have never been in a single class in which people have received awards or grades for no reason. This sentiment is nothing more than myopic selfishness.

An "A" is not some prize that you achieve for being the top student in a class. It is simply a mark that indicates that you have succeeded in completing the work at a level that the professor has found satisfactory. I see no reason that everyone who achieves this level of work should not receive the grade regardless of who the best candidate is. For example, in my Organic Chemistry class this past semester, there was a postbac who had already completed a PhD in Chemistry but was enrolled in the program because she wanted to pursue a degree in medicine. She obviously aced all of the exams. I was not nearly as competent as she was, but my level of work was enough to receive an A. I fail to see why I should not have received an A just because I was not the best in the class. The professor set a standard for receiving an A, and I met it. Therefore, I should receive the grade. The grade is not a prize for being a genius in the field; it is just a goal that people are supposed to strive for as a motivation for learning the material.

In addition, I see nothing wrong with having multiple awards in accordance with class. Logic says that most of the best students were in his class. So what? The students were not competing with you for grades/the awards; they were competing with other people. There is nothing wrong with giving them recognition for doing well in the contexts that they were in. Why should we restrict awards to schools in your scenario? Why not just give awards to people in provinces/states-after all, your school might be easy in comparison to other schools in your area, so why should you get an award? But wait, maybe there is a richer province that is more difficult, so only give the awards to them. Hmm, I'm fairly certain that Australia doesn't have the best education system in the world, so why should its students receive awards that I don't get to receive? Make Australians compete with Americans or with the British for history prizes. Does that sound fair?

Finally, our culture seems to have cultivated apathy as a result of the fact that only a few people really have the opportunity to succeed. Giving awards for effort (I've never personally seen it happen, but conservatives like whining about this, so I'll pretend it does) actually recognizes a good thing-a motivation to succeed that seems rare in our materialistic culture.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 7:27:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 7:09:11 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/30/2013 6:59:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/29/2013 9:54:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/29/2013 5:51:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yeah, good luck convincing people that they should worship "the great". Recognition is wholly contingent on the value that others place on you, and this is unlikely to be larger than the value they place on themselves. I see no reason for them to willingly sacrifice their modicum of mental happiness so that you can feel good about yourself. It's actually psychologically unhealthy. "The great" deserve no more recognition than the mediocre because everyone is valuable insofar as they are rational agents. This value needs to be respected.

On top of this, many of those whom we deem to be great are mediocre in other fields. There is no reason to define an individual's social status wholly in terms of her ability to succeed at one particular thing.

Nobody gives out "As" for effort.

A few things to note:

I didn't talk about worshiping anyone. That's not what I said and I really dislike that phraseology.

Oh, so what does "notoriety" mean for you then?

The dictionary defines it as: : generally known and talked of; especially : widely and unfavorably known

So, are we not supposed to know people (in an unfavorable manner, no less) unless they are "great"? What makes a person great? "Greatness" is contingent upon an orientation of values, and I don't see why I should orient my values in such a way that I glorify someone else at my expense.
I didn't mention respect at all. And while I think all people have human dignity and therefore are worthy of respect, that is not to say that all are worthy of notoriety. Notoriety is not respect, nor should it be understood as such.

What is the point of your post? I assumed you were trying to make a point, but obviously you were not. We're supposed to not know of people unless they are "great"? You do realize that greatness only comes through mass recognition of greatness, right?
I didn't say I was among those worthy of notoriety, nor do I expect people to put me on a pedestal. I mean, perhaps at some point I'll do something worthy of notoriety but I'm 21 right now. I have done nothing really profound as of yet, and I take considerable issue with your implying that I even insinuated -which I categorically did not- that this was about me.

What? I never implied that you wanted to be worshiped.
Your claim that "The great" deserve no more recognition than the mediocre because everyone is valuable insofar as they are rational agents" and premise that "This value needs to be respected" is absurd. I'm not talking about respect. I'm talking about notoriety.

Notoriety is mass recognition.
Your further claim that "the great" are mediocre in other fields is tangential to the point I was making. For example: I don't care that J. Robert Oppenheimer may have been a lousy fisherman or painter, I care that he led the Manhattan project.

I don't. I care that he was a poor fisherman. Why should I orient my values such that I give him any degree of recognition? He doesn't deserve anything from me.
So, things to learn from this exercise:

(1) Don't read into what I -or anyone- writes, some meaning other than precisely what they say. If you ever take the LSATS, or any other reasoning-based standardized test, you will get every question wrong if you do. Btw, the SAT's don't count.

LOL, yeah, the SATs don't count because you didn't do well on them. Ok.
(2) Don't confuse words. Respect, for example, does not mean notoriety.

Don't make meaningless posts then. I was assuming that you had some point to make. Can you name one person who is not great but has notoriety? Greatness is entirely contingent on mass recognition: if you have mass recognition, you are great at something

Also, what do participation trophies have to do with notoriety? I'm sorry, but I've never heard of people who get participation trophies having a mass following or whatever. Usually the players who get the good trophies have notoriety. This is what made me think you were discussing respect and recognition. If you weren't obviously you need to learn how to craft an argument more clearly and to include examples that are pertinent to your claims. You might confuse the reader if you do not do this. I apologize for making mistakes as a result of your terrible argument construction.
(3) Don't make assumptions or bring in tangential information when rebutting something. There were errors in my argument (I wrote it after I took my ambien, while watching a documentary on the Manhattan Project -rofl).

I'm not making assumptions. I read your idiotic post, which seems to include information that has absolutely nothing to do with your point, and made attacks on the basis of the material that you included. It is not my fault that you constructed your argument poorly.
But, this may be a learning experience. Salutary and productive, indeed.

I agree. Learn how to construct an argument so that people are not confused about your point.


I see your point, but it's still ultimately flawed royal.

The main thing that interests me is how you say you would focus on someone's flaws more then their achievements, even if their achievement was great and their flaws were small. It doesn't matter if I am bad at everything else, but I am good at accounting and managing budgets. If I use those skills to bail a huge business out of debt and save millions of jobs, I gave something significant to the world.
You only give something significant to a world that values those things. If I don't care about unemployment or if I live in Australia, you have given nothing to me. In fact, if you don't save my job, you've done nothing for me either, and therefore do not deserve my recognition.

Plus, I doubt you actually believe that we should give respect to people who "contribute a lot to the world". Should we give respect to people who clean the streets? (I think so, but I know you don't). Their jobs are critical to stifling the spread of diseases-they literally save more lives every year than doctors do, yet they receive no recognition even though they have critical social functions.
There are the average, who we still need who won't get recognition for fishing, because there are millions of fishers around the world. Fishing is not something that takes extreme talent compared to being a great lawyer or athlete.
LOL, this is such biased nonsense.
Once you learn to fish, you have some room for improvement, but not much. There aren't fishing competitions on TV for a reason, it would be mundane, and most fishers have equal skill.

Actually, there are fishing competitions on TV; it should take you 2 seconds to find one on Google. In fact, according to Google, they are sometimes on ESPN. Just because you do not know about something does not mean it does not exist. It just means that you are stupid and need to educate yourself.
The creator of the Manhattan project contributed something extremely significant, there are mediocre people who study science, they become high school science teachers,
They get education degrees, not science degrees.
there are great people who study science, they create weapons that end massive wars.
LOL, that weapon murdered millions of people. If Japan had used it on the US to end the war, would you have been praising it. Nope. As long as you get to murder people, the murderer is great. I sincerely hope that something like this happens to you and history remembers the person who did it to you as "great"-it would be justice. I'm done with you. I'm just fed up wi
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 1:58:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 6:59:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Oh, so what does "notoriety" mean then?

Mass recognition.
What makes a person great? "Greatness" is contingent upon an orientation of values, and I don't see why I should orient my values in such a way that I glorify someone else at my expense.

I wondered how long it would take before we got to this point.

So, things to learn from this exercise:

(1) Don't read into what I -or anyone- writes, some meaning other than precisely what they say. If you ever take the LSATS, or any other reasoning-based standardized test, you will get every question wrong if you do. Btw, the SAT's don't count.

LOL, yeah, the SATs don't count because you didn't do well on them. Ok.

Oh yes... rofl. It's a widely known fact that I'm profoundly stupid. Btw. the reason I said that the SAT's don't count is because one can study for them and see dramatic improvements. The LSAT's test comprehension and reasoning ability, which is fairly static.

(2) Don't confuse words. Respect, for example, does not mean notoriety.

Don't make meaningless posts then.

So here, and above you've said I've made a meaningless post.

you weren't obviously you need to learn how to craft an argument more clearly and to include examples that are pertinent to your claims.

And here you've faulted me for failing to write in a way that you're capable of understanding.

You might confuse the reader if you do not do this. I apologize for making mistakes as a result of your terrible argument construction.

But here, finally, you've recognized the possibility that you have misinterpreted, but still blames your failure to understand on me.

And yet, you're the only one in the thread who's actually failed to understand what I've said. Is the problem me? Possibly. I do have a pretty professorial writing style, but I don't think that's what's gone on in this case.

I'm not making assumptions. I read your idiotic post, which seems to include information that has absolutely nothing to do with your point, and made attacks on the basis of the material that you included. It is not my fault that you constructed your argument poorly.

It seems that what makes this a "poor argument" in your view is that you misunderstood it, and to the extent that you do, you really don't like what it says. I can understand that, and yours really is exactly the kind of response I would expect from an average millennial.

But, this may be a learning experience. Salutary and productive, indeed.

I agree. Learn how to construct an argument so that people are not confused about your point.

If by people, you mean yourself, I would suggest reading something a few times before rebuking it.
Tsar of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:26:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
YYW, your claim that I just didn't understand your argument is bogus, and you know it. I noticed that you very conveniently left out the point that I made that nobody gives anybody notoriety for participation trophies and consolation prizes. If I didn't understand your pathetic argument, why did you leave this point out? Please deign to explain to me, oh wise one: this "average millennial" who earned all of her grades as consolation prizes for efforts (while you didn't earn them because you were just so brilliant and unrecognized) doesn't understand why you dropped this crucial point.

The problem is that your argument was not organized and your examples are unrelated to your claims. I bet you are the type of student who claims that if a professor argues against your points on an essay, the professor is dumb because he didn't understand your argument. No, the professor is not dumb, YYW; rather, you are dumb if you cannot explain your argument in a concise, logical manner. It is not my fault that you think that people gain notoriety for obtaining participation prizes (in fact, the entire claim is just contradictory-participation prizes are for everyone, and since mass recognition requires some form of distinction, nobody can be recognized for having a participation prize); it is your fault for making this foolish claim without any evidence.

I can guarantee that you have not studied for the LSAT. I know this because I was considering being a lawyer last year, and I asked older students for advice. One girl that I talked to told me that when she took her first LSAT practice exam, she did not do well. She then proceeded to provide me with a list of specific books and videos to practice with for each section. She claimed that at first, everyone finds the Logical Games section to be difficult, but that it is actually the easiest section because there are many excellent guides that explain how to solve it. She received a near-perfect score on her LSAT and is going to attend a top-six law school next fall. Similarly, people claim that you cannot study for the reasoning section on the COGAT (a standardized intelligence test administered to elementary school students), but the same visual reasoning section also appears on the DAT (Dental Admissions Test) and there are guidebooks and courses that teach students how to ace it. People also seem to believe that SAT scores are correlated with IQ, but according to you, anybody can study and do well on it.

Also, I noticed that you basically conceded that you did not do well on the SAT. You also implied that I must have studied for it and improved my score, which is nonsensical because I only took the exam once and did not have any time to study for it because I was busy with 5-6 extracurricular as well as my AP and post-AP classes.

I'm sorry that you think that you are smarter than everybody thinks you are, but you have provided no output to prove this. You have neither the social distinctions (elite college admissions, exam scores, grades, etc.) that indicate that you are exceptionally intelligent nor the output on this website that indicates that you are intelligent. Insofar as this is true, I am going to consider your whining about how people only do well because they study to be nothing more than sour grapes. If you are too stupid to study, that is not our problem, and your laziness should not be rewarded.
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:49:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:26:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
[a lot of nonsense]

RP, here's the deal:

You went from not understanding, to personally attacking me, to making yourself look like a child. If you want to have a civil conversation, that does not involve you acting like a child, feel free to type up another response and try again. For the moment, I could care less what you think because you so obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Grow up. Until then, peace out.
Tsar of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:55:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I do think that Royal raises an important point--in essence, contributions to society are completely dependent on the value of a society. Looking to the example in my first post, we see this paralleled: Western cultures tend to value dispositional factors in attributing others' behaviors, whereas Eastern tend to value the situational and systemic factors.

Applying this to some of the things you've said, this would be an effective rebuttal. You cannot essentially generalize about certain careers and jobs as being inherently worth more praise than others.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:56:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:49:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:26:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
[a lot of nonsense]

RP, here's the deal:

You went from not understanding, to personally attacking me, to making yourself look like a child. If you want to have a civil conversation, that does not involve you acting like a child, feel free to type up another response and try again. For the moment, I could care less what you think because you so obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Grow up. Until then, peace out.

Right, so basically you had no response, so you decided to act in your normal condescending manner and claim that you are ignoring me because I insulted you, ignoring the fact that you very clearly insulted me. I guess it's ok to insult people if you are an "unrecognized genius" (lmao) though.
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:58:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:55:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I do think that Royal raises an important point--in essence, contributions to society are completely dependent on the value of a society. Looking to the example in my first post, we see this paralleled: Western cultures tend to value dispositional factors in attributing others' behaviors, whereas Eastern tend to value the situational and systemic factors.

The west v. east thing is indeed interesting, though I'm inclined to believe that those differences are due more to cultural differences and differences in value structures than to societal utility -which seems to be itself contingent upon cultural values.

You cannot essentially generalize about certain careers and jobs as being inherently worth more praise than others.

I wasn't talking about certain jobs or careers, I was talking about those with ability, generally.
Tsar of DDO
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:00:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:56:35 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:49:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:26:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
[a lot of nonsense]

RP, here's the deal:

You went from not understanding, to personally attacking me, to making yourself look like a child. If you want to have a civil conversation, that does not involve you acting like a child, feel free to type up another response and try again. For the moment, I could care less what you think because you so obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Grow up. Until then, peace out.

Right, so basically you had no response, so you decided to act in your normal condescending manner and claim that you are ignoring me because I insulted you, ignoring the fact that you very clearly insulted me. I guess it's ok to insult people if you are an "unrecognized genius" (lmao) though.

Royal, this is off-topic, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on this question: http://www.debate.org...
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:01:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:58:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:55:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I do think that Royal raises an important point--in essence, contributions to society are completely dependent on the value of a society. Looking to the example in my first post, we see this paralleled: Western cultures tend to value dispositional factors in attributing others' behaviors, whereas Eastern tend to value the situational and systemic factors.

The west v. east thing is indeed interesting, though I'm inclined to believe that those differences are due more to cultural differences and differences in value structures than to societal utility -which seems to be itself contingent upon cultural values.

You cannot essentially generalize about certain careers and jobs as being inherently worth more praise than others.

I wasn't talking about certain jobs or careers, I was talking about those with ability, generally.

Well then maybe I got confused and misinterpreted your argument surrounding comparison between science teachers and the researchers of the Manhattan Project. Could you kind of explain where you were going with that?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:01:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:56:35 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:49:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:26:22 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
[a lot of nonsense]

RP, here's the deal:

You went from not understanding, to personally attacking me, to making yourself look like a child. If you want to have a civil conversation, that does not involve you acting like a child, feel free to type up another response and try again. For the moment, I could care less what you think because you so obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Grow up. Until then, peace out.

Right, so basically you had no response, so you decided to act in your normal condescending manner and claim that you are ignoring me because I insulted you, ignoring the fact that you very clearly insulted me. I guess it's ok to insult people if you are an "unrecognized genius" (lmao) though.

Yes, RP. I am wrong, you are right and you've perfectly sized me up. Is that what you want me to say? Here's the thing: I never, at no point in time, said that I am among those worthy of notoriety. I don't think I am. I never said that I thought I was. That bullsh!t assumption was entirely yours. Now, you're still acting like a child. Again, when/if you'd like to actually talk about what I said feel free -but until then I'm entirely apathetic to what you have to say in this thread.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:02:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 9:01:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:58:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:55:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I do think that Royal raises an important point--in essence, contributions to society are completely dependent on the value of a society. Looking to the example in my first post, we see this paralleled: Western cultures tend to value dispositional factors in attributing others' behaviors, whereas Eastern tend to value the situational and systemic factors.

The west v. east thing is indeed interesting, though I'm inclined to believe that those differences are due more to cultural differences and differences in value structures than to societal utility -which seems to be itself contingent upon cultural values.

You cannot essentially generalize about certain careers and jobs as being inherently worth more praise than others.

I wasn't talking about certain jobs or careers, I was talking about those with ability, generally.

Well then maybe I got confused and misinterpreted your argument surrounding comparison between science teachers and the researchers of the Manhattan Project. Could you kind of explain where you were going with that?

Where did I talk about science teachers?
Tsar of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:05:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 9:02:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/30/2013 9:01:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:58:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:55:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I do think that Royal raises an important point--in essence, contributions to society are completely dependent on the value of a society. Looking to the example in my first post, we see this paralleled: Western cultures tend to value dispositional factors in attributing others' behaviors, whereas Eastern tend to value the situational and systemic factors.

The west v. east thing is indeed interesting, though I'm inclined to believe that those differences are due more to cultural differences and differences in value structures than to societal utility -which seems to be itself contingent upon cultural values.

You cannot essentially generalize about certain careers and jobs as being inherently worth more praise than others.

I wasn't talking about certain jobs or careers, I was talking about those with ability, generally.

Well then maybe I got confused and misinterpreted your argument surrounding comparison between science teachers and the researchers of the Manhattan Project. Could you kind of explain where you were going with that?

Where did I talk about science teachers?

Oops. That was ConservativeAmerican.

My bad.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:07:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 9:05:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 5/30/2013 9:02:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/30/2013 9:01:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:58:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:55:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I do think that Royal raises an important point--in essence, contributions to society are completely dependent on the value of a society. Looking to the example in my first post, we see this paralleled: Western cultures tend to value dispositional factors in attributing others' behaviors, whereas Eastern tend to value the situational and systemic factors.

The west v. east thing is indeed interesting, though I'm inclined to believe that those differences are due more to cultural differences and differences in value structures than to societal utility -which seems to be itself contingent upon cultural values.

You cannot essentially generalize about certain careers and jobs as being inherently worth more praise than others.

I wasn't talking about certain jobs or careers, I was talking about those with ability, generally.

Well then maybe I got confused and misinterpreted your argument surrounding comparison between science teachers and the researchers of the Manhattan Project. Could you kind of explain where you were going with that?

Where did I talk about science teachers?

Oops. That was ConservativeAmerican.

My bad.

It's fine. No worries =)
Tsar of DDO