|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5192
Location: Seattle Area
|
 Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 10:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| marshall wrote: | | There are scientific studies indicating that some people do not experience certain emotions connected with making moral choices. These people tend to make life unpleasant for others who have the misfortune of crossing paths. |
Are you specifically talking about sociopaths? One of my best friends from school was most definitely on that spectrum, cool enough guy as long as you remembered never to lend him money or really do anything for him expecting reciprocity.
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
btbnnyr
Rabbit In Cat's Clothing
Joined: May 19, 2011
Posts: 3122
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think that I am moar suited for a life of mixing chemicals and cutting up brains in a deep dark basement laboratory where I live and almost nevar leave than any kind of arguing or debating or intellectual back-and-forth something something. I only understand the parts of this thread that are about licorice. I don't like licorice. I like red vines, and iScream for iScream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5192
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marshall wrote: | | I know a lot of people change their opinion very fast when something comes to effect them more personally. |
That's actually the kind of "reasoning" that I really frown upon and try to avoid. That's partially why we end up with things like a massively bloated defense budget, people employed in the industry voting to keep themselves employed at taxpayer expense. Someone who's dependent on a program or a job isn't really in a good position to objectively evaluate the true value of that thing, especially if other people are footing the bill.
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12780
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am finally compelled to weigh in....
...I am in fact bi-curious of sorts - - I love both black licorice and red vines. 
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9230
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | marshall wrote: | | On a separate note, I feel the word "redistribution" is a somewhat loaded/biased term. It gives the impression that the goal of progressive taxation is simply to take from one group to give to the other, as a simple blunt leveling device. That is not at all what progressive social programs are for. The intent is to extend opportunities to broader section of the population such that people born into the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum are not at as great of a disadvantage as they would otherwise be due to external factors. It is about creating a level playing field, not equal outcomes. People can criticize the actual efficacy of such programs but that's a whole other can of worms. |
I gotta use this for an example of something real quick Marshall, it's not intended as a rebuttal of anything you're saying.
Marshall just picked up on a very subtle piece of spin in there, one that I didn't really intentionally put in but one that reflects my own bias on the issue of progressive taxation; intellectually I largely accept Marshall's more nuanced definition, but emotionally I just don't like it and my word choice reflects that. What lies beyond my reflexive dislike of any program that takes from the individual for the common good is a deep seated suspicion of who then controls those programs and their motives/incentives, bureaucracy creep, slippery slopes and all the other good stuff that puts me in the libertarian camp; but that's another thread. |
I wasn't trying to say you use it intentionally as spin. I just don't like it. The thing is I've heard people on the left try to use it in a positive sense and I really wish they didn't because it comes across as divisive. I'm also not comfortable with 99% vs 1% rhetoric chosen by the OWS movement (even though I agree with most of their concerns and grievances). I and a lot of people on the left (at least the intelligent ones) have a more nuanced view on the "evils of inequality" than mere signs and slogans would suggest.
The thing about "redistribution" that bugs me on an emotional level is this... It gives the impression that government is taking from one group and giving to another with no strings attached. Even if it might seem accurate on a very literal level, when that "redistributed" wealth is used for things like affordable health care, something I don't see as an optional luxury but a survival necessity, it comes across as almost insulting. It comes across as equating someone needing emergency care to someone "needing" to go out and buy a big screen TV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9230
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | marshall wrote: | | I know a lot of people change their opinion very fast when something comes to effect them more personally. |
That's actually the kind of "reasoning" that I really frown upon and try to avoid. That's partially why we end up with things like a massively bloated defense budget, people employed in the industry voting to keep themselves employed at taxpayer expense. Someone who's dependent on a program or a job isn't really in a good position to objectively evaluate the true value of that thing, especially if other people are footing the bill. |
That really isn't my point at all. I just don't see emotional detachment as necessarily a good thing in all cases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5192
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marshall wrote: | | I'm also not comfortable with 99% vs 1% rhetoric chosen by the OWS movement (even though I agree with most of their concerns and grievances). I and a lot of people on the left (at least the intelligent ones) have a more nuanced view on the "evils of inequality" than mere signs and slogans would suggest. |
I've never liked the whole 99% thing either, for a variety of reasons, with hypocrisy, given the reaction to some of the Tea Parties' sentiments, topping the list. To my mind, if a right wing group had come out with a slogan singling out one group and blaming all of societies ills on them, the Nazi comparisons and talk of "elimination rhetoric" would come out in force; in fact they already did in response to far milder rhetoric. I certainly saw enough people denouncing one and embracing the other, just here on WP, and that kind of blindness drives me slightly nuts.
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5192
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marshall wrote: | | That really isn't my point at all. I just don't see emotional detachment as necessarily a good thing in all cases. |
But would you say that, generally, better decisions are made by an emotionally involved mind or a detached mind?
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
SyphonFilter
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 08, 2011
Posts: 2072
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I almost always partake in discussions where all that ends up happening is me arguing with other Aspies over opinions on which video game is better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9230
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | marshall wrote: | | I'm also not comfortable with 99% vs 1% rhetoric chosen by the OWS movement (even though I agree with most of their concerns and grievances). I and a lot of people on the left (at least the intelligent ones) have a more nuanced view on the "evils of inequality" than mere signs and slogans would suggest. |
I've never liked the whole 99% thing either, for a variety of reasons, with hypocrisy, given the reaction to some of the Tea Parties' sentiments, topping the list. To my mind, if a right wing group had come out with a slogan singling out one group and blaming all of societies ills on them, the Nazi comparisons and talk of "elimination rhetoric" would come out in force; in fact they already did in response to far milder rhetoric. I certainly saw enough people denouncing one and embracing the other, just here on WP, and that kind of blindness drives me slightly nuts. |
I guess the difference for me is the anger directed at "the 1%" at least has some legitimacy, in that at least a small subset of that group bears significant responsibility for the mess we're in (IMO), and also has disproportionate sway over the government. I just can't equate that with racist sentiments which are IMO much more irrational and unprovoked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9230
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | marshall wrote: | | That really isn't my point at all. I just don't see emotional detachment as necessarily a good thing in all cases. |
But would you say that, generally, better decisions are made by an emotionally involved mind or a detached mind? |
I'd say a balance between the two is best. Being extremely emotionally detached can come off as being out-of-touch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
heavenlyabyss
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 10, 2011
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 3:36 am Post subject: Re: Arguing with Aspies |
|
|
I'm not understanding. Persuasion tactics aren't about being correct. They are about manipulating your opponent into agreeing with you whether or not you are actually right. As a writer yourself, I'm sure you use deliberate persuasive techniques all the time.
As soon as I see someone baiting me or attacking me, yes, I do react "badly", just as most normal people would. I'm also pretty good at seeing whether someone is just interested in "winning" or if they really care about being correct. Even people who say they are all about objectivity usually are not.
I use persuasive techniques myself, but I will admit it usually if I am called out on it. I'm not here to deny anyone's reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5192
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marshall wrote: | | I'd say a balance between the two is best. Being extremely emotionally detached can come off as being out-of-touch. |
Now to me, out of touch implies more of an ignorance of reality, or at least of another person's reality, than it does emotional detachment. I'd say that someone who thinks racism is an artifact of the past is out of touch, while a detached person would be more likely to acknowledge racism without responding to it emotionally, just to use one example. Cold is usually the term people use when describing detachment, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that label when it comes to my arguing and decision making styles.
In my own case, detachment is not only necessary for decision making but for basic functionality, if I'm not able to remain detached its all too easy for me to go into an empathetic rage/depression cycle simply from reading the newspaper or perusing the web, and can remain upset for days or longer if I let certain types of story get inside my head. It took me a long time to learn the skill and I'm still not perfect, I'm still much better off compared to the agony I went through in my late teens and early 20s when I was unable to get unwanted thoughts out of my head.
That I also found that my decision making became better when I was in the detached state is a side effect, if a welcome one. You can actually see it a bit in my postings here, as over time they became less outraged and more focused, less about "winning" and more about crafting something excellent for my own pleasure. Just to be clear, I didn't suppress my emotions or lose anything, I just got much, much better at controlling and redirecting them away from things that upset me, and channeling the remaining upset into positive outlets like machining, cooking or writing. It's amazing how therapeutic chopping things very finely, turning metal into something deadly, or crafting a really good zinger can be when I've got that impotent rage thing going on and need to redirect it. If all else fails, I literally have a punching bag hanging right behind my computer chair, though I try not to use it too much as the damned thing shakes the whole house when I really have a go out at it.
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5192
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apropos of nothing, another quirk I've noticed about my own critical writing is that I'm much, much better at presenting my own case when I've got an opposing argument to contrast it with than when I'm writing free form on my own. I do okay writing an OP and laying out my arguments and positions, but my real gift is defending those ideas and attacking those put forward by others, especially if they contain logical flaws or rhetorical tricks. I'm not sure why this is, it's slightly frustrating as I've long been tempted to try a blog or do some independent writing, but without a source post to prime my pump I find myself adrift trying to tie things together and feeling like a certain "spark" is missing. I also write much faster on the critique, the words just seem to fly from my fingers, while I hunt and peck and struggle to produce my own original posts and am often unsatisfied with hem.
I contrast this with a guy I argue with often in PPR who writes powerhouse OPs, but then falls apart as soon as anyone critiques them; my theory is that for him his OPs are like the monologues that so many Aspies are known for, and that any critique throws a monkey wrench into his thought process and causes a sort of mini-meltdown.
It's just interesting seeing the different styles and approaches that appear on an AS board and trying to figure out how different people arrive at their ideas and then explain and defend them; it just sort of reinforces my belief that if you've met one Aspie, you've met one Aspie.
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9230
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 6:32 pm Post subject: Re: Arguing with Aspies |
|
|
| heavenlyabyss wrote: | I'm not understanding. Persuasion tactics aren't about being correct. They are about manipulating your opponent into agreeing with you whether or not you are actually right. As a writer yourself, I'm sure you use deliberate persuasive techniques all the time.
As soon as I see someone baiting me or attacking me, yes, I do react "badly", just as most normal people would. I'm also pretty good at seeing whether someone is just interested in "winning" or if they really care about being correct. Even people who say they are all about objectivity usually are not.
I use persuasive techniques myself, but I will admit it usually if I am called out on it. I'm not here to deny anyone's reality. |
I'm not sure it's about manipulating your opponent into agreeing with you. That's such a rare occurrence that I think that motive is negligible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
