Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Sociological idea up for criticism.

themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 5:57:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have been formulating an idea related to the way certain demographics of society are viewed by other/the rest of society, and I would like you to find flaws in it, whether it be outright disproving it, or pointing out minor logical errors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before the 1990"s, if I, or anyone else for that matter, wanted to speak to someone in Europe, I would have to either A: Call a friend who currently resides in Europe, or B: Spend hundreds of dollars on a plane ticket over to the continent. The former meant that the person I was talking to had a good disposition towards me, and the latter generally meant that I would talk to someone of relative importance, as few are generally willing to just speak to a random stranger, especially one that may not speak his/her own language. However, when the 1990"s came, a revolution happened that has forever changed the way the human race communicates, and as such, causing some to call this great revolution: "The Greatest Thing That Mankind Has Ever Invented". This thing... was the Internet.

Now, even though the Internet has been such a great asset to our modern everyday life, spanning more uses than I could ever hope to list in this paper, there has been a major problem in the way that many Americans, and Europeans, have perceived each other"s culture. In both cases, people in each of these groups have come to despise the others for the apparent fact that those who have the most attention drawn to them are the ones with the least amount of intelligence.

When I go on the Internet, head over to YouTube to embrace the thousands of documentaries that have been uploaded for everyone"s educational benefit, I find that many times, while on matters relating to U.S. history, and even more so with the foreign affairs of the U.S., I see a slew of comments that have to do with how "idiotic" Americans are, and anytime a person states something that isn"t true, a host of ignorant (in both meanings of the term) Europeans angrily reply to how they are being "such an American", and "go back to drinking beer, and being lazy", and so on and so forth when the fact of the matter is, is that the general population of the United States has an average intelligence (it wouldn"t be called "average" for no reason). These results in the reverse happening, whereby Americans (including myself at one point in time) have therefore been given the assumption that all Europeans are just as arrogant and ignorant as they think all Americans are.

Now, to get to my point, the explanation for such action would appear to be due to the fact that while there is an equal distribution of introverted people, and extroverted people, and due to a lack of hard scientific data, which therefore has to be assumed that the distribution of intelligence is also equal amongst introverts and extroverts, extroverts are the ones who tend to get more attention drawn to them, since as extroverts, they are more outspoken. It is also apparent that when someone is correct about something, whether it be in a face-to-face discussion, grading a test, or in the case of the Internet, on a forum or comment section of a piece of media, there are rarely any replies, or acknowledgements that they have done correctly. On the other hand, when someone is wrong, whether to insult them, or tell them why they were wrong, they are given more responses, and in the case of the Internet, this in essence, copies-and-pastes their own philosophy or "fact" over, and over again. On sites like YouTube, you can click on a button to see what comment a user is replying to, or on forums, whereby the way you reply to someone is by quoting them in your reply, and then replying underneath the quote. Both of these ways of proliferating the original person"s text causes more and more people to view it, and therefore causing more and more people to have an opinion about that person. On the other hand, the introvert sits and things in detail about what is being said, and may not even reply whatsoever, keeping their opinion from the Internet, and therefore not contributing to the opinion of anyone on the site at the given time.

What all of this ends up resulting in, is as follows: An extroverted person who is ignorant of the facts replies on a site claiming to be right, while at the same time an introverted person who is also ignorant of the facts states what they think is right, however having thought about it in more detail, and perhaps seeing other viewpoints beforehand will therefore have a lower number of posts on a site, and therefore have their viewpoint be less spread across the Internet than the extrovert. The extrovert is now given a reply by someone stating why the extrovert is wrong, which results in the extrovert responding instantly without first thinking completely about the content, and context of the argument. The introvert on the other hand, thinks about what is being said in detail, and due to the fact that their character causes them to view things in more detail throughout their entire life may either admit they are wrong, or give an intelligent, or at least a well thought-out response to the person that they are in a debate with.

Now, while the entire above paragraph is going on, various people will see this argument, may reply, but for the most part will keep their opinions to themselves, and watch the video/comment on the forum thread. The extrovert"s less thought-out viewpoint is seen with a much more negative view than the introvert"s, since the introvert"s is more likely to contain actual facts as they are more likely to spend more time thinking about this issue at hand. In more extreme cases that can be found on the Internet, the extroverted American is simply someone using the "argument": ""cause we"re "murica" (rarely is it ever spelled/punctuated correctly though, I just spelled it correctly for the reader"s sake), the extroverted European is stating that: "Stop being an American, and listen", while the introvert, seeing no rational to debate against, says nothing, and as far as the "debate" is concerned, doesn"t exist.

The above paragraphs have been using the example of the Internet to show my point, however there is another demographic of people that are negatively affected by this, and that is the "Y" generation. Many people consider the "Y" generation to be the failure of society, pointing to shows like Jersey Shore, which show a lack of intelligence and educational value. However, the level of intelligence that goes on in modern students in competitions like the United States Academic Decathlon, whereby thousands of students from around the nation compete in various objective (test-based), and subjective (speech/essay) academic areas.

In conclusion, I feel that the Internet, while should be used to greatly expand our knowledge of world-wide cultures, by communicating with those cultures directly, has caused a massive divide, because the viewpoints of those who are wrong are proliferated across the world, while those who are right are forgotten. I also believe that the "Y" generation has also been viewed upon incorrectly, because of the lack of knowledge of the academic achievement that the generation has achieved due to the way that our society gives more attention to incorrectness over correctness.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 10:37:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here is how I break down your idea:

-One problem inherent in internet communication is that those who have nothing substantive to say often outcompete more thoughtful voices.

-Many social criticisms fond online are not very well informed and ad homen.

-Extroverts often can outcompete for attention against introverts.

-Indefensible assertions often bring out loud criticism, while better supported statements are ignored.

-Ad Nauseum fallacies are common.

-Statements and ideas can go viral in a number of ways that tend to favor loud but maybe not well-thought out ideas.

Ok, so I think that you might just be observing the normal life-cycle of a fallacy. You specifically mention ad nauseum and ad homen fallacies - which can get a lot of attention and repetition, but don't hold up very well over the long term. Fallacies are often used to "cheat" an argument into looking like it's winning, but they are easy to disprove. This makes a lot of people want to jump in.

When all the people jump in to disprove the fallacy, the fallacy will usually get a lot of airtime, but that just means even more people will see it get beat up.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 5:21:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 10:37:11 AM, Beverlee wrote:
Here is how I break down your idea:

-One problem inherent in internet communication is that those who have nothing substantive to say often outcompete more thoughtful voices.

-Many social criticisms fond online are not very well informed and ad homen.

-Extroverts often can outcompete for attention against introverts.

-Indefensible assertions often bring out loud criticism, while better supported statements are ignored.

-Ad Nauseum fallacies are common.

-Statements and ideas can go viral in a number of ways that tend to favor loud but maybe not well-thought out ideas.

Ok, so I think that you might just be observing the normal life-cycle of a fallacy. You specifically mention ad nauseum and ad homen fallacies - which can get a lot of attention and repetition, but don't hold up very well over the long term. Fallacies are often used to "cheat" an argument into looking like it's winning, but they are easy to disprove. This makes a lot of people want to jump in.

When all the people jump in to disprove the fallacy, the fallacy will usually get a lot of airtime, but that just means even more people will see it get beat up.

I'm well aware that my examples are pretty much pure ad hominem, as there isn't much formal evidence for the topic, and the reason for typing the paper was due to the fact that it occurred many times over a period of time, however I am not quite clear on how it contains ad nauseum.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 6:29:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 5:57:59 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
I have been formulating an idea related to the way certain demographics of society are viewed by other/the rest of society, and I would like you to find flaws in it, whether it be outright disproving it, or pointing out minor logical errors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...

Now, even though the Internet has been such a great asset to our modern everyday life, spanning more uses than I could ever hope to list in this paper, there has been a major problem in the way that many Americans, and Europeans, have perceived each other"s culture. In both cases, people in each of these groups have come to despise the others for the apparent fact that those who have the most attention drawn to them are the ones with the least amount of intelligence.

Nooo, Europeans and Americans have always hated each other. Europeans have always hated other Europeans too, and British and Australians have always hated each other...

If anything, it's less nowadays.

When I go on the Internet, head over to YouTube to embrace the thousands of documentaries that have been uploaded for everyone"s educational benefit, I find that many times, while on matters relating to U.S. history, and even more so with the foreign affairs of the U.S., I see a slew of comments that have to do with how "idiotic" Americans are, and anytime a person states something that isn"t true, a host of ignorant (in both meanings of the term) Europeans angrily reply to how they are being "such an American", and "go back to drinking beer, and being lazy", and so on and so forth when the fact of the matter is, is that the general population of the United States has an average intelligence (it wouldn"t be called "average" for no reason).

Please note the difference between "ignorant" and "stupid". Americans can be quite terrifyingly ignorant (terrifying because of your warlike tendencies) of international affairs without being stupid. There are surveys that show this to be the case. It's to do with your education system, I believe, and the salute-the-flag nationalism. When I was in America, I took my vacation in Israel, and there were plenty of intelligent, successful Americans who were baffled by my choosing to do this. Why would you go outside America, they wondered, when everything is here?

...
Now, to get to my point, the explanation for such action would appear to be due to the fact that while there is an equal distribution of introverted people, and extroverted people, and due to a lack of hard scientific data, which therefore has to be assumed that the distribution of intelligence is also equal amongst introverts and extroverts, extroverts are the ones who tend to get more attention drawn to them, since as extroverts, they are more outspoken. It is also apparent that when someone is correct about something, whether it be in a face-to-face discussion, grading a test, or in the case of the Internet, on a forum or comment section of a piece of media, there are rarely any replies, or acknowledgements that they have done correctly. On the other hand, when someone is wrong, whether to insult them, or tell them why they were wrong, they are given more responses, and in the case of the Internet, this in essence, copies-and-pastes their own philosophy or "fact" over, and over again. On sites like YouTube, you can click on a button to see what comment a user is replying to, or on forums, whereby the way you reply to someone is by quoting them in your reply, and then replying underneath the quote. Both of these ways of proliferating the original person"s text causes more and more people to view it, and therefore causing more and more people to have an opinion about that person. On the other hand, the introvert sits and things in detail about what is being said, and may not even reply whatsoever, keeping their opinion from the Internet, and therefore not contributing to the opinion of anyone on the site at the given time.

What all of this ends up resulting in, is as follows: An extroverted person who is ignorant of the facts replies on a site claiming to be right, while at the same time an introverted person who is also ignorant of the facts states what they think is right, however having thought about it in more detail, and perhaps seeing other viewpoints beforehand will therefore have a lower number of posts on a site, and therefore have their viewpoint be less spread across the Internet than the extrovert. The extrovert is now given a reply by someone stating why the extrovert is wrong, which results in the extrovert responding instantly without first thinking completely about the content, and context of the argument. The introvert on the other hand, thinks about what is being said in detail, and due to the fact that their character causes them to view things in more detail throughout their entire life may either admit they are wrong, or give an intelligent, or at least a well thought-out response to the person that they are in a debate with.

I don't think being introverted means seeing things in detail. In fact, in the myers-briggs personality test, they have introversion and detail-oriented thinking as separate dimensions.

And my personal experience tells me that extroverts are more likely generate worthwhile content, especially if we think of innovative thinking in a collaborative way. And actually, I just heard a TED talk about innovation which described some research showing that innovation, and especially fruitful idea generation, occurs in collaborative environments, where people from different backgrounds are exchanging ideas. It doesn't occur in a darkened bedroom where an introvert is brooding on his own thoughts.

...
In conclusion, I feel that the Internet, while should be used to greatly expand our knowledge of world-wide cultures, by communicating with those cultures directly, has caused a massive divide, because the viewpoints of those who are wrong are proliferated across the world, while those who are right are forgotten. I also believe that the "Y" generation has also been viewed upon incorrectly, because of the lack of knowledge of the academic achievement that the generation has achieved due to the way that our society gives more attention to incorrectness over correctne

I kind of sympathize with this, because it is annoying the amount of crap you have to wade through to get to good ideas, not only on the Internet, but everywhere. There's definitely value in any kind of mechanism that can somehow filter out the rubbish.

But this whole "introverts are right" thing is nonsensical.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 7:24:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 6:29:30 PM, rross wrote:

Please note the difference between "ignorant" and "stupid". Americans can be quite terrifyingly ignorant (terrifying because of your warlike tendencies) of international affairs without being stupid. There are surveys that show this to be the case. It's to do with your education system, I believe, and the salute-the-flag nationalism. When I was in America, I took my vacation in Israel, and there were plenty of intelligent, successful Americans who were baffled by my choosing to do this. Why would you go outside America, they wondered, when everything is here?


Yeah, I never got why Europe in westernizing its system, when theirs is superior (breaks, and free to very low tuition, why are they changing that?). I am also aware that ignorant means "lacking the truth".

I don't think being introverted means seeing things in detail. In fact, in the myers-briggs personality test, they have introversion and detail-oriented thinking as separate dimensions.


I'll have to look that up.

And my personal experience tells me that extroverts are more likely generate worthwhile content, especially if we think of innovative thinking in a collaborative way. And actually, I just heard a TED talk about innovation which described some research showing that innovation, and especially fruitful idea generation, occurs in collaborative environments, where people from different backgrounds are exchanging ideas. It doesn't occur in a darkened bedroom where an introvert is brooding on his own thoughts.

That seems to be a bit of an extreme introversion case, as I don't think that introverts are necessarily doing nothing but brooding in their bedroom, or else their ideas would never be published (i.e. Albert Einstein).


I kind of sympathize with this, because it is annoying the amount of crap you have to wade through to get to good ideas, not only on the Internet, but everywhere. There's definitely value in any kind of mechanism that can somehow filter out the rubbish.

But this whole "introverts are right" thing is nonsensical.

I'm not saying that introverts are right, I am just saying that the people who are most often seen as wrong are extroverts, because they are the ones that most likely will be outspoken about their ignorance. Introverts can also be wrong, but their character as being less social makes their ignorance less known.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 12:35:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ad Nauseum was what I got from what you were saying - that some things keep getting repeated over and over - which can introduce believability when it isn't justified.

But about the Europeans - people are normal. They are normal here, they are normal there. They say normal things, and they think normal things. The only place where they are not normal at all is Iceland. Where every other person looks like a supermodel.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 9:30:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/20/2013 12:35:58 AM, Beverlee wrote:
Ad Nauseum was what I got from what you were saying - that some things keep getting repeated over and over - which can introduce believability when it isn't justified.

Oh, as in how people's viewpoints get repeated over and over due to how YouTube/forum reply systems work?

But about the Europeans - people are normal. They are normal here, they are normal there. They say normal things, and they think normal things. The only place where they are not normal at all is Iceland. Where every other person looks like a supermodel.

That's my point? My paper is about the illusion that skews that view.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
SloppyJoe6412
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 4:36:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I find it funny that in your view the Internet. that "greatest invention in the history of Mankind", only served as a way for Americans to communicate with Europeans.

Just for the sake of geography, the big thing south of us is South America, the one south of Europe is Africa, the really really big thing where your faucets were made is Asia, and the islands with the funny accent people are Oceania. But don't waste your time checking their opinions on that funky Internet -they despise us as much as Europeans.

And BTW, Wikipedia rocks -the rest of the Internet can go down the drain anytime.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 5:58:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:36:25 PM, SloppyJoe6412 wrote:
I find it funny that in your view the Internet. that "greatest invention in the history of Mankind", only served as a way for Americans to communicate with Europeans.

I'm not saying that it only serves that, it's just that communication is the relevant use of it in the paper.

Just for the sake of geography, the big thing south of us is South America, the one south of Europe is Africa, the really really big thing where your faucets were made is Asia, and the islands with the funny accent people are Oceania. But don't waste your time checking their opinions on that funky Internet -they despise us as much as Europeans.


What's the geography lesson for? Are you just pointing out that it seems like a lot of people hate the U.S.?

And BTW, Wikipedia rocks -the rest of the Internet can go down the drain anytime.

I know, it really does! It needs to be respected more as a source of information, seeing as it is just the combination of many sources of information.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown