Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (71968)	6/13/2008 10:30:43 AM
From: biotech_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542821

I think the crux of the matter is the fallacious assumption that all outrage is visceral or limbic in origin. Some outrage can and must originate in the frontal cortex.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (71968)	6/13/2008 3:05:50 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542821

So whenever I see you making a post that I believe is too groupthink and emotional, I can undercut your arguments based on that subjective criticism? You won't mind having everyone here apply their standards of groupthink and emotionalism to your arguments? I don't see supporting or undercutting arguments at play here. Arguments are one thing. Charges of emotionalism, groupthink, demons, or alien mind probes do not have any affect on arguments. Only facts and logic can undercut arguments. I infer that you think my comments were intended to undercut arguments. I don't recall disagreeing with anyone's arguments so how could that be so? My view of Bush and Iraq is the same as everyone I was supposedly trying to undercut so I don't think that holds up. I was simply trying to warn that I was seeing the signs of polarized and polarizing behavior. Since I know that you have an aversion to that as do I, I would think my observation might be of interest. You might disagree with my threshold thus disregard my warning, but I would not expect you to consider the warning to be a ploy of the opposition. Your calm, rational, well-reasoned arguments can easily sound like emotional groupthink to me and others, especially anyone who doesn't agree with you. They certainly can. And if they sound that way to you, it's always possible that they're not as rational as I think they are due to some intrusion into my normally calm and analytic approach to things. In which case, I would very much appreciate your calling it to my attention. That doesn't mean I would accept your assessment, but I would appreciate and consider the feedback. The last thing I want is to come across as an ignoramus or a loon. I've gotten a lot of feedback in my time on SI. Some of it was pretty unflattering. Some of the unflattering feedback IMO contained valid elements. Much of it IMO was mindless or oppositional crap. Regardless, I always appreciate feedback. When I watch the early rounds of American Idol, I always wonder why no one ever told those people that they can't sing a lick. Don't they have any friends or family who care about them? If I'm off my game, out of my league, or out of my mind, I expect my friends to clue me in before I make things worse.