The insecurity of ignorance

[GMT]

IPS if a relevant comment that has content can be fit into one line that is fine, but if the one line holds nothing but an insult to a previous poster, has no relevance to the thread itself, and holds no content other than the insult, then it is inapropriate to post it. It is also agaisnt the terms of use of the site and is classified as trolling. An action that is not only likely but guranteed to get a member banned from the site. How you proceed at this point is your choice.

 

[Weird]

weird, I get the feeling that you equate a lack of belief in the unjustifiable to a lack of ethical behaviour or that scientific enquiry is at odds with contentment in life.

no let me explain, the people who have a latent ability to analyze data are not necessarily good at disseminating it to those who cannot analyze data themselves

being smart and being able to share those concepts with those of in possession of a differential in capacities is two different skills

those with the skill set to translate data to one intellect to another tend to be very intuitive and possess relative levels of compassion

ignorance is sometimes a necessary defense mechanism against getting lost and stuck in intellectualism

As you pointed out, yes the ability to and interest in uncovering that which is not known, is merely a statistical phenomenon which varies among the population as a whole, to say that those who possess them have no greater value to society than those who don't is being a little short sighted.

As how could we be discussing this topic without the existence of such people in the past? Though while having said that, I also accept that without the farmer who merely ploughs their fields and scatters their seed without any appreciation of the processes at work, those who developed the computer would have starved. A great number of people are required for a society to develop and survive, and its isnt necessary for them all to have an enquiring mind, however it is necessary for it to be possible for all to get along without every interaction being reduced to a match of insults or worse, coming to blows.

i am not trying to set off a conflicting energy, the argument is the insecurity of ignorance and I simply contend that if you dwell deep enough into intellectualism the same effect can occur

this is not a judgement on your application of intellect on the world

To say that one persons reaction to a second is equal to the reaction the second has to the first regardless of whether one wishes to use logic and reason where the other wishes to use insults and illogical behaviour, I feel is untrue.

reaction is relative to intent and agenda

what is the intent and agenda of pointing out your perceived frailties of the ignorant instead of trying to uncover the cause and effect and define a graceful solution?

is it not to ponder or reflect on the frailty of "them" itself?

 

[GMT]

lol MMM, I'm gonna feel so old when I post this reply

Ahh the good old days

lol


IPS thankyou for deleting the original posts that the posts your latest post quotes were replying to. When you feel that you are being insulted by someone, please feel free to hit the red triangle and report that post, as your right to believe in santa clause christ gods and goddesses angels fairies or anything you choose to is protected here at icmag. while there are those of us here who do not believe in such things, you are free to. However trolling a discussion among those who dont is no different than those who dont interupting a ceremony being conducted by those who do. When was the last time you went to church and had an athiest interupt the service saying, you're all failing to be fair to the views of athiests? You dont need to reply to the post thereby starting a fight in a thread, simply report a post that you find unacceptable and if you find it isnt removed, perhaps leave the site whose views you cannot tolerate as I would an online religious site where posting my views would be offensive to its membership.

 

[sac beh]

any sane man or woman knows that the universe is dynamic and regardless of the constants we discover or the understandings of reactions we reveal we will not as individuals hold the complete body of knowledge the intellect and ego focused would so desire a claim there of

so in the effort of searching for a body of knowledge that is beyond our capacity to posses the ignorant simply does and learns from their actions (or perhaps not)

i prefer some realism and real life application with my reality, if it's so big it can't fit out the doors of the ivory tower it does not exist

it would seem a glaring truth that we having duality of mind and the ability to perceive and appreciate harmony for the purpose of applying the concept of balance

scientific relative analysis is not of the same benefit to everyone because it is the simple reverse engineering of truth from a simple equation to a more granular one and the capacity for some people to see an algorithm of truth in a given circumstance is an innate ability

sit in with a group of pro gamblers who either "calculate" or "feel" odds and the same phenomenon exists except its expressed differently

the bias behind the desire to uncover a different understanding to the same object of study is a practice in geometric extrapolations but not a pedestal of greatness

Weird, you have some good thoughts. There are many experiences in life that challenge to see things from another's perspective and be opened to the possibility that our view isn't the only or even correct view. But there has to be a way for people to come to together in a society and make agreement on important issues that affect humanity. Simply trading personal beliefs doesn't get us anywhere, which is where reason comes in to play. In fact here in this discussion between you and GMT or you and me, we are presupposing that each person is at least reasonable enough to allow the other to present his view and evidence and that we can make rational judgments about these opinions together. No one here is afraid of opposing views, given that they can be presented in a reasonable and respectful way.

IPS, this thread doesn't appear to me to be about politics or religion particularly. Your one-liners and pictures only betray your inability to discuss the topic at hand and your preference to steer the conversation into a flame war over your pet topics. Don't flame the thread.

 

[Weird]

Weird, you have some good thoughts. There are many experiences in life that challenge to see things from another's perspective and be opened to the possibility that our view isn't the only or even correct view. But there has to be a way for people to come to together in a society and make agreement on important issues that affect humanity. Simply trading personal beliefs doesn't get us anywhere, which is where reason comes in to play. In fact here in this discussion between you and GMT or you and me, we are presupposing that each person is at least reasonable enough to allow the other to present his view and evidence and that we can make rational judgments about these opinions together. No one here is afraid of opposing views, given that they can be presented in a reasonable and respectful way.

IPS, this thread doesn't appear to me to be about politics or religion particularly. Your one-liners and pictures only betray your inability to discuss the topic at hand and your preference to steer the conversation into a flame war over your pet topics. Don't flame the thread.

No im not afraid but it certainly keeps me from getting shit done around the house

my egoless self HAS TO TELL YOU how im sure WE ARE ALL WRONG except for the voice inside of ME THAT IS RIGHT!!!!!

internet egos are like a girl farts, they exist regardless of the stark denial and lesser frequency of appearance, mine especially

except i rock the SBD

 

[sac beh]

no let me explain, the people who have a latent ability to analyze data are not necessarily good at disseminating it to those who cannot analyze data themselves

being smart and being able to share those concepts with those of in possession of a differential in capacities is two different skills

those with the skill set to translate data to one intellect to another tend to be very intuitive and possess relative levels of compassion

ignorance is sometimes a necessary defense mechanism against getting lost and stuck in intellectualism

This is so true, and its a great challenge for all of us in the days of mass media and widely disseminated political rhetoric. I don't have any great solution to the problem at this point, other than what I've said, but we should all keep in mind the challenge to share and teach information in a compassionate way. I find it best when the teacher doesn't take the form of preacher, but rather more like Socrates, encouraging the other person to question previously unquestioned assumptions about how the world is. The information will never be shared until the point at which the listener or student is willing to hear it and ask the questions.

 

[GMT]

no let me explain, the people who have a latent ability to analyze data are not necessarily good at disseminating it to those who cannot analyze data themselves

being smart and being able to share those concepts with those of in possession of a differential in capacities is two different skills

those with the skill set to translate data to one intellect to another tend to be very intuitive and possess relative levels of compassion

I agree entirely with all of that.

i am not trying to set off a conflicting energy, the argument is the insecurity of ignorance and I simply contend that if you dwell deep enough into intellectualism the same effect can occur

this is not a judgement on your application of intellect on the world

I suspect here the opposite to be true, I feel its possible that its the percieved over security of this group in their knowledge that brings about a resentment of arrogance that is so disliked by those who are insecure of their own views which require a lack of examination to continue.

reaction is relative to intent and agenda

ah if only the reaction was always equal to the intent of the original action.

what is the intent and agenda of pointing out your perceived frailties of the ignorant instead of trying to uncover the cause and effect and define a graceful solution?

is it not to ponder or reflect on the frailty of "them" itself?

no, though that did offer positive reinforcement for my own position lol. no it was genuinely a cry for help at my own failing and inability to deal with that situation. I have no way of breaking through the barrier that protects irrational views, aproaches, behaviours etc, and the initial purpose of the thread was an attempt to learn from other people who may have advice to offer me in the matter. What emerged however was that this is a universal problem between various groups. Some resent those who will not simply accept what their ancestors raised them to accept or what is told to them by the relevant authority figures, and those who cannot understand why anyone would believe anything blindly.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

No im not afraid but it certainly keeps me from getting shit done around the house

my egoless self HAS TO TELL YOU how im sure WE ARE ALL WRONG except for the voice inside of ME THAT IS RIGHT!!!!!

internet egos are like a girl farts, they exist regardless of the stark denial and lesser frequency of appearance, mine especially

except i rock the SBD

would not it be impossible to communicate anything meaningful at all, on the internet or anywhere, without ego?

 

[Weird]

I agree entirely with all of that.



I suspect here the opposite to be true, I feel its possible that its the percieved over security of this group in their knowledge that brings about a resentment of arrogance that is so disliked by those who are insecure of their own views which require a lack of examination to continue.





ah if only the reaction was always equal to the intent of the original action.



no, though that did offer positive reinforcement for my own position lol. no it was genuinely a cry for help at my own failing and inability to deal with that situation. I have no way of breaking through the barrier that protects irrational views, aproaches, behaviours etc, and the initial purpose of the thread was an attempt to learn from other people who may have advice to offer me in the matter. What emerged however was that this is a universal problem between various groups. Some resent those who will not simply accept what their ancestors raised them to accept or what is told to them by the relevant authority figures, and those who cannot understand why anyone would believe anything blindly.

its so funny how the same concept can be perceived from a varying perspective and how foreign that perspective can seem if its not the same as the one you posses regardless of the congruence of understanding of the one and same concept that the varying perceptions perceive

 

[Weird]

would not it be impossible to communicate anything meaningful at all, on the internet or anywhere, without ego?

this one made me think about the loss of the added dimension of the human presence

how different is the feel of conversation shared in person, especially when you have already determined that you are of like minds?

what is the value of knowing there is a comfort between the two who are discussing it?

Can the lack of dimension be added through the use of inflection, tone, analogy or other factors that help shape our communications?

are these necessary skills for the future of ideation and the application thereof for the internet connected generation?

i think we can add a matrix of value to type written communications by simple font colors

saying that I disagree in red ink for example could be a way to say I stand vehemently opposed to you where in blue could reflect humility in a message.

I dont have a good answer, perhaps like GMT its a personal observation for which i have no immediate solution except to smoke more weed cause it has fixed everything i couldnt fix to date

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

this one made me think about the loss of the added dimension of the human presence

how different is the feel of conversation shared in person, especially when you have already determined that you are of like minds?

what is the value of knowing there is a comfort between the two who are discussing it?

Can the lack of dimension be added through the use of inflection, tone, analogy or other factors that help shape our communications?

are these necessary skills for the future of ideation and the application thereof for the internet connected generation?

i think we can add a matrix of value to type written communications by simple font colors

saying that I disagree in red ink for example could be a way to say I stand vehemently opposed to you where in blue could reflect humility in a message.

I dont have a good answer, perhaps like GMT its a personal observation for which i have no immediate solution except to smoke more weed cause it has fixed everything i couldnt fix to date

hello
That's what emoticons and color tags are 4

 

[Weird]

hello
That's what emoticons and color tags are 4

im not from the generation that reads instructions let alone follows them !!!!!!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

im not from the generation that reads instructions let alone follows them !!!!!!

I'm sorry

 

[trichrider]

All you smart people would be lost without the ignorant.
Is not ignorance displaced by knowledge??? then where did the ignorance go?
yes the egg came first.
perhaps her insecurity could be displaced by... security?!!
Is this something you could offer her?

 

[HUGE]

This is my favorite thread ever. The OP is my new hero. I'm going to dig deep not this as it's the possibly the most interesting topic ever.

 

[Nor'Easter]

....there are facts in this world that can be reasoned rather than merely believed... facts should be accepted by all, and to merely believe that they are wrong, and to hold on to your own wrong opinions in the face of reason is just wrong.... Has anyone ever found a way to interact with this type of person without giving up? I need help in dealing with these people because when reason fails, I have nothing left. I refuse to argue on an emotional level as then it would just be my opinion against theirs... If someone explained to me that something I thought was true, was actually false, I'd be grateful, not pissed off. Where am I going wrong with these people?

I couldn't agree more, I share this position. This describes some to a tee, like those that refuse to admit agw is real despite all the mountains of evidence! You were not one of those people right? I hope I am getting you confused with someone else that had a 3 letter username and had a gangster with a wad of cash for an avatar.

 

[maryj315]

The revising of history and facts that once was soup of the day, has now become a movement. Expect more to come.

Mj

 

[sac beh]

Some interesting excerpts from the Wiki article on the conspiracy mentality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by scholars because they are rarely supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis, which focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events, rather than speculate on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals.

According to political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in mass media. He argues that this has contributed to conspiracism emerging as a cultural phenomenon in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and the possible replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind.

In 1936 American commentator H. L. Mencken wrote:

The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy.

Psychologists believe that the search for meaning is common in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories, and may be powerful enough alone to lead to the first formulating of the idea. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part. Some research carried out at the University of Kent, UK suggests people may be influenced by conspiracy theories without being aware that their attitudes have changed. After reading popular conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, participants in this study correctly estimated how much their peers' attitudes had changed, but significantly underestimated how much their own attitudes had changed to become more in favor of the conspiracy theories. The authors conclude that conspiracy theories may therefore have a 'hidden power' to influence people's beliefs.[26]

Humanistic psychologists argue that even if the cabal behind the conspiracy is almost always perceived as hostile there is, often, still an element of reassurance in it, for conspiracy theorists, in part because it is more consoling to think that complications and upheavals in human affairs, at least, are created by human beings rather than factors beyond human control. Belief in such a cabal is a device for reassuring oneself that certain occurrences are not random, but ordered by a human intelligence. This renders such occurrences comprehensible and potentially controllable. If a cabal can be implicated in a sequence of events, there is always the hope, however tenuous, of being able to break the cabal's power - or joining it and exercising some of that power oneself. Finally, belief in the power of such a cabal is an implicit assertion of human dignity - an often unconscious but necessary affirmation that man is not totally helpless, but is responsible, at least in some measure, for his own destiny.

Perhaps the most contentious aspect of a conspiracy theory is the problem of settling a particular theory's truth to the satisfaction of both its proponents and its opponents. Particular accusations of conspiracy vary widely in their plausibility, but some common standards for assessing their likely truth value may be applied in each case:

* Occam's razor - does the alternative story explain more of the evidence than the mainstream story, or is it just a more complicated and therefore less useful explanation of the same evidence?
* Logic - do the proofs offered follow the rules of logic, or do they employ fallacies of logic?
* Methodology - are the proofs offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?
* Whistleblowers - how many people – and what kind – have to be loyal conspirators? The more wide-ranging and pervasive the conspiracy is alleged to be, the greater the number of people would have to be involved in perpetrating it - is it credible that nobody involved has brought the affair to light?
* Falsifiability - would it be possible to determine whether specific claims of the theory are false, or are they "unfalsifiable"?

Noam Chomsky, an academic critical of the United States establishment, contrasts conspiracy theory as more or less the opposite of institutional analysis, which focuses mostly on the public, long-term behaviour of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, e.g. scholarly documents or mainstream media reports, rather than secretive coalitions of individuals.

Most interesting is that Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most out-spoken critic of US politics, media and mainstream histories of events, is a firm believer in institutional analysis and scientific investigation. All of the political and historical deceptions he has exposed are backed by mountains of research into well known events. The conspiracy theorist would discount even Chomsky's conclusions as conspiracy for the mere fact that he uses logical investigation and research tools to prove them. If there is data and evidence to back up a claim, then it must be lies. Its a complete reversal of reality coming from fear and the above psychological/social factors.

 

[GMT]

Just because someone is parranoid, doesn't mean no is out to get them.

 

[Neo 420]

Some interesting excerpts from the Wiki article on the conspiracy mentality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory



Most interesting is that Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most out-spoken critic of US politics, media and mainstream histories of events, is a firm believer in institutional analysis and scientific investigation. All of the political and historical deceptions he has exposed are backed by mountains of research into well known events. The conspiracy theorist would discount even Chomsky's conclusions as conspiracy for the mere fact that he uses logical investigation and research tools to prove them. If there is data and evidence to back up a claim, then it must be lies. Its a complete reversal of reality coming from fear and the above psychological/social factors.

This shows ignorance on the level of nations and its people. So who are the intelligent?