ED: The Constant Ad Hominems

[Suicidesoldier#1]

I am an ad hominid. emotion_donotwant

[Fermionic]

e-Claire rc1

Fermionic

Interpretting beyond words is borderline impossible through this medium.

No, it isn't. In fact, interpreting based on words alone is a recipe for communication disaster.

Here are some things that are important beyond words alone:
-context
-choice of synonyms, typical phrases, and common lines of argument
-patterns of argument and argument techniques which are associated with various types of critical thinking skills or lack thereof, as well as different reasons for interest in debating
-intention

It's imperfect, but so is person-to-person communication IRL. The key in both cases is to learn how to identify when you've misinterpreted the signs.

All of which are brought forth with and contained by words, and words are what are used to interpret. It was more a semantic point I brought forward with that comment. The signs are all words. The context is created with words, et cetera. To interpret beyond the words is a nonsense when the only things that carry significance are the words provided.

Basically, I take issue with the notion of the structure of the assertion, as to wholly interpret the words is "interpretting beyond words". I consider the "beyond" to be redundant, is my point.

[MachineMuse]

Fermionic

e-Claire rc1

Fermionic

Interpretting beyond words is borderline impossible through this medium.

No, it isn't. In fact, interpreting based on words alone is a recipe for communication disaster.

Here are some things that are important beyond words alone:
-context
-choice of synonyms, typical phrases, and common lines of argument
-patterns of argument and argument techniques which are associated with various types of critical thinking skills or lack thereof, as well as different reasons for interest in debating
-intention

It's imperfect, but so is person-to-person communication IRL. The key in both cases is to learn how to identify when you've misinterpreted the signs.

All of which are brought forth with and contained by words, and words are what are used to interpret. It was more a semantic point I brought forward with that comment. The signs are all words. The context is created with words, et cetera. To interpret beyond the words is a nonsense when the only things that carry significance are the words provided.

Basically, I take issue with the notion of the structure of the assertion, as to wholly interpret the words is "interpretting beyond words". I consider the "beyond" to be redundant, is my point.

Hm... I guess that's valid. But then, it's similar to the argument that 'the brain is just a bunch of chemicals interacting' or whatnot - it's technically correct, but it's reducing a very important and relevant abstraction to its physical engram with little regard for the meaning of it.

[Fermionic]

e-Claire rc1

But then, it's similar to the argument that 'the brain is just a bunch of chemicals interacting' or whatnot - it's technically correct, but it's reducing a very important and relevant abstraction to its physical engram with little regard for the meaning of it.

In some individuals, perhaps.

[Joan Darr]

MachineMuse

Fermionic

Interpretting beyond words is borderline impossible through this medium.

No, it isn't. In fact, interpreting based on words alone is a recipe for communication disaster.

Here are some things that are important beyond words alone:
-context
-choice of synonyms, typical phrases, and common lines of argument
-patterns of argument and argument techniques which are associated with various types of critical thinking skills or lack thereof, as well as different reasons for interest in debating
-intention

It's imperfect, but so is person-to-person communication IRL. The key in both cases is to learn how to identify when you've misinterpreted the signs.

Unfortunately I've observed a trend, online and offline, where people take their subjective (mis)interpretations and run with them as if they were objective truth then figuratively plug their ears for any explanation contrary to the belief they just made up on the spot as if it is insulting to suggest they are not telepathic, or at least not in possession of professional expertise in behavioral psychology, which does not make one immune to judgmental errors anyhow. (As ridiculous as it feels to have to put an explicit note here, I am not including or referring to Sky or Fermionic)

It sounds like something a troll (spiteful person) would do to upset people, and I'm sure there are many cases of it being done for that purpose. In most cases of trolls I can't rightfully accuse them of deliberate obstructionism, but I can accuse them of being shortsighted and self-indulgent to the point of greater harm by demoralizing and sabotaging those who would promote concepts for healthy social interactions with their stubborn displays of demented comedy.

[Admiral Dardanos]

Christ the Holy Son

Avgvsto

Christ the Holy Son

Avgvsto

Christ the Holy Son

We all want a healthy ED community and we all want a productive discussion.

Who's all?

Gunsmithkitten.

That Rivera guy..

Errr....

You.

Psuedoonkleks or whatever his name is...

Generally ED regs.

Gunsmith surely doesn't mind Ad Homs. And I don't really care what ED looks like at all. What's a productive conversation? If i play fair no one will ever change their minds.

Why do you say "If i play fair no one will ever change their minds."

We're all rational people here, for the most part.

If you consider rationality to cover believing in a Cosmic Jewish Zombie...

[MachineMuse]

Joan Darr

Unfortunately I've observed a trend, online and offline, where people take their subjective (mis)interpretations and run with them as if they were objective truth then figuratively plug their ears for any explanation contrary to the belief they just made up on the spot as if it is insulting to suggest they are not telepathic, or at least not in possession of professional expertise in behavioral psychology, which does not make one immune to judgmental errors anyhow. (As ridiculous as it feels to have to put an explicit note here, I am not including or referring to Sky or Fermionic)

It sounds like something a troll (spiteful person) would do to upset people, and I'm sure there are many cases of it being done for that purpose. In most cases of trolls I can't rightfully accuse them of deliberate obstructionism, but I can accuse them of being shortsighted and self-indulgent to the point of greater harm by demoralizing and sabotaging those who would promote concepts for healthy social interactions with their stubborn displays of demented comedy.

Very true! That's why I think it's important to remain aware and watch for signs that one's interpretation was incorrect.

I will add that I think the opposite extreme - refusing to infer anything beyond literal meaning - is just as destructive to fruitful conversation..

[Joan Darr]

MachineMuse

Joan Darr

Unfortunately I've observed a trend, online and offline, where people take their subjective (mis)interpretations and run with them as if they were objective truth then figuratively plug their ears for any explanation contrary to the belief they just made up on the spot as if it is insulting to suggest they are not telepathic, or at least not in possession of professional expertise in behavioral psychology, which does not make one immune to judgmental errors anyhow. (As ridiculous as it feels to have to put an explicit note here, I am not including or referring to Sky or Fermionic)

It sounds like something a troll (spiteful person) would do to upset people, and I'm sure there are many cases of it being done for that purpose. In most cases of trolls I can't rightfully accuse them of deliberate obstructionism, but I can accuse them of being shortsighted and self-indulgent to the point of greater harm by demoralizing and sabotaging those who would promote concepts for healthy social interactions with their stubborn displays of demented comedy.

Very true! That's why I think it's important to remain aware and watch for signs that one's interpretation was incorrect.

I will add that I think the opposite extreme - refusing to infer anything beyond literal meaning - is just as destructive to fruitful conversation..

If I understand you correctly about the opposite example, I would say it wouldn't be so much a hindrance to the capacity to exchange ideas but an attitude that is socially abnormal within our culture. If our culture (particularly language) took a different course, it may have been a common courtesy to refrain (from vocalizing one's suppositions, at least) for the benefit of the doubt of another's ability to convey what they intended to convey.

Conveyance (:transmitting information) is the purpose of communication after all, and it isn't just human language that arose from that need - it's inherent in nervous systems. To make an analogy with vision, if an image happens to be arranged ambiguously enough to cause an erroneous perception of it, it is an optical illusion, which is like a vague verbal statement that may need follow up for clarification. On the other hand, if the brain adds an element to an unequivocal image, it's a hallucination, like confirming something being conveyed in a verbal message when it was not conveyed.

"Verbal illusions" are quite frequent, just by the situation of American English being so loaded and prone to semantic confusion. We shuffle several definitions under the same words, and different words may use the same spoken pronunciation, or even differ by pronunciation but use the same spelling.

Now I understand in literary arts, authors may employ some roundabout techniques to convey character traits and the like in an interesting manner, sometimes becoming as convoluted as a riddle. This isn't any more practical for communicating than ordering a pizza with a harpsichord concerto. That's why its labeled art. To treat everyone by default as if they implicitly invited or challenged one to find hidden meanings in what they say or to guess at their motives or personality is to blur the line between reality and fiction. (Thanks US education system for drilling "language arts" into the heads of thousands of children.)


All that said, I'll let you know that I don't actually disagree with you, on the basis that it's somewhat a compulsion for curious beings. I'm more concerned on how it's acted upon; accusations beget hostility, while honest questioning allows for dignity.