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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (36851)	5/6/1999 11:55:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 108807

I have found the same thing on political threads. They sometimes start out well, with real exchanges of ideas. But they always get taken over by fanatics on both sides who have no knowledge of or interest in constructive dialogue. Which is why I wish SI would implement a filter. Then the people interested in dialogue could do that and simply filter out all the flamers. Let them have their fun. But let the rest of have our serious dialogue. You know the principle, "bad money drives out good money." Same thing with talk.

To: jbe who wrote (36851)	5/6/1999 12:00:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Well, Edwarda and Joan, this is an intelligent start to an important discussion. It is a commonplace that persons are defined and modified by their associates. A child who goes to class with somewhat smarter, more studious students, tends to level up. Arguing with somewhat smarter rivals either makes one shut up or improve his logic and presentation. Rats in stimulating environments gain brain mass and brain peptide content. There is no reason to doubt that increased debate and argumentation stimulates mental power. But going to a great American style university where one is surrounded by crowds of learned and intelligent people is also quite depressing. It is astounding how stupid the highly intelligent can be. This argues that it is not only selectivitity but criteria that are important. One of the problems of the internet is that we are forced daily to consider how rebellious and single-minded so many people are. An outspoken person with rhetoric and a store of miscellaneous knowledge can make himself (almost always "him") a guru. Dr. Johnson was the model of these people, but he had some pretenses to scholarship, although he was merely a bully of royalist bent. By avoiding certain books, a coffee house or so, one could easily avoid running into Dr. J. Now television makes it harder and harder to avoid such bullies, and many threads are destroyed by a single person of this type. Even though the webmaster can take care of the truly obnoxious, sometimes he stops things too short. But everyone knows that in public assemblies it must be possible to call the house to order, to force a vote, to silence the impossible. I think SI does very well at keeping order. If a crow is mobbed too viciously he can always start his own thread and keep himself amused by his croakings. I remember when I first started messing with the Internet after a long break from the ARPANET I was depressed at its low intellectual discipline. People rarely had evidence -- or citations -- and made unsupportable statements. When called, instead of admitting that they were mistaken, or just talking out of school, they would bluster and violate not merely academic standards, but the common standards of intelligent discourse. It is clear to me at least, that one cannot discuss things with people who make up stuff. When someone says "I read somewhere" blah-blah-blah I think it right to be able to ask where and when. One should with a little search be able to find something or somewhere that would confirm the statement, if not the unknown citation. When I assign papers in class, I expect the students to document each fact not common knowledge, and with the web this is very easy to do. I routinely check at least their web references. I know people don't want to be bothered with the scholarly apparatus, but is it to much to ask that when one quotes something totally absurd or counter-intuitive that there be some documentation? I think this is the conflict that is being sharpened on the web. When one of our religious writers asserts something is "true" and gives a reference to scripture we understand the code. Few of us may believe theological or Christian truth is truth acceptable to us, but for the sake of arguments among credulent Christians conventional truth may satisfy them. I much prefer the arguments (e.g. between Edwardam and me on English Protestant Reformation) in which we got back to the same sources and discovered what the serious writers had already done -- that the record is capable of different interpretations. With respect to Henry VIII, it's like the Shadow said "Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men. The Shadow knows." So we have to quit because she can't convince me and I can't convince her regardless of how many Spanish or Venetian Archives of L. & P,. of H. we tamper with. I think the most brilliant observation on this problem is Frank Ramsay's (a young Cambridge philosopher of the 20's -- aslo a brother of an Archbishop of Canterbury) -- who divided all conversations into two classes: 1. matters of personal experience. 2. matters of personal opinion. Person A. "I went to Grantchester today." Person B. "I didn't". Or "I like gooseberry tart." "I don't" FPR concluded that there really wasn't anything worth talking about. (He wrote boring articles about the foundations of mathematics too). Ramsay simply tells us not to expect too much. Particular if we choose to write about our feelings. I am not disappointed at all in the web. I remember Marcus Aurelius's morning prayer that he would meet with many ignorant people and that he should change them or bear with them. I've pretty much given up on changing them, and I don't think I'll have any trouble bearing with them, at least as long as "next" button is handy. One thing I will admit: I meet more pleasant and intelligent people here than I do in my common room. The enormous breadth and depth of knowledge, the courtesy (of most of them) and fellowship, is remarkable. The women are very attractive too. I think we could use some smart-ass arrogant young people. We need new kinds of shocks. Beltane and Shalom ain't enough.