05-10-2017, 02:37 PM
Hey guys, there are some interesting issues at stake here. I don't know crap about cell phones, so I am learning as everyone chips in information from a different angle--and this still folds into the question of research and stakeholder representation in government agencies, right?
Let's all try to stay on track. Challenges are good. What goals typically guide applied research, or don't? Make your case. Explain why the other guy's case is weaker. His language is unclear or his support his inadequate? Fine, point that out. You have a rebuttal, so rebut.
But let's ease back on the personal challenges a bit. One thing I like about this forum is that no one really knows anyone else's background. You cannot win or lose points for yourself by claiming you have a degree or experience or whatever, and you cannot delete someone else's points by simply claiming he or she does not have a degree or experience or whatever. You are as good as what you can write--or can't write--here and now. That's all.
Every poster so far contributing to this thread makes solid contributions to the forum. Each has valid complaints about what drags down discussion. (Flippancy/smack tends to do that. Sometimes it is harmless fun. But when personally directed it tends to call forth response in kind.) In fact, there is considerable agreement about that, if not among all members of the P'n R forum, at least among those currently posting to this thread. I guess smack can be really funny in the smack forum (where we Steeler fans have the natural advantage lol); but when we are talking politics and religion, I am hard put to think of a past thread in which it did anything but generate defensive digressions and occasionally lock down a promising thread.
If we are/feel slighted, we always have a choice to ignore a slight and continue on with the substance. I generally find this easy to do, since personal slights rarely make worthwhile points. They are mostly like shooting blanks, a fail. The trick is to remember that others--at least those whose respect you'd want--recognize them as fail as well. So understand that you don't REALLY have to defend yourself, especially if you are making substantial points. I tend to mentally cross out slights out when reading someone's post, whether aimed at me or someone else. (Sometimes when I do that, nothing is left. No substance whatsoever.)
I do make assumptions about what other people do know or don't, especially when they are talking about subject areas I know something about. But unless they are positive, unless they could accomplish something beyond an insult, I generally keep such evaluations to myself. If someone clearly doesn't know a basic premise of experimental method, I may explain that premise and how his argument violates that premise. But I don't call him an idiot. And if I have misunderstood or mis-explained that premise, I'll listen to correction.
Finally, misunderstandings are bound to happen, given the way people often respond to posts in a rush. But we are not bound to intensify them. They do not mean people are stupid or deserving of abuse. If we think to identify misunderstandings as such and correct them first, whether on the part of poster or reader, some level of flame may be reduced. I can think of several occasions when I have stood correction and apologized to posters for misreading or responding to some point they did not actually make--once they explained my mistake to me. The conversion just continued then.
(Some one might raise an objection here--"Dill, I see that you occasionally post parodies of Republicans/Trump/Trumpsters. Are those not personal insults? They are not what your are always calling "substantial arguments, are they? Are you not violating your own standards?" To which I would answer--not necessarily. The point of a parody is to use your opponents' own language to foreground some aspect of his/her position in a way which renders it ineffective. It's not argument, but not personal attack either, if the intent is to neutralize some premise or tendency in the opposing camp, not to drag down the person parodied.)
Let's all try to stay on track. Challenges are good. What goals typically guide applied research, or don't? Make your case. Explain why the other guy's case is weaker. His language is unclear or his support his inadequate? Fine, point that out. You have a rebuttal, so rebut.
But let's ease back on the personal challenges a bit. One thing I like about this forum is that no one really knows anyone else's background. You cannot win or lose points for yourself by claiming you have a degree or experience or whatever, and you cannot delete someone else's points by simply claiming he or she does not have a degree or experience or whatever. You are as good as what you can write--or can't write--here and now. That's all.
Every poster so far contributing to this thread makes solid contributions to the forum. Each has valid complaints about what drags down discussion. (Flippancy/smack tends to do that. Sometimes it is harmless fun. But when personally directed it tends to call forth response in kind.) In fact, there is considerable agreement about that, if not among all members of the P'n R forum, at least among those currently posting to this thread. I guess smack can be really funny in the smack forum (where we Steeler fans have the natural advantage lol); but when we are talking politics and religion, I am hard put to think of a past thread in which it did anything but generate defensive digressions and occasionally lock down a promising thread.
If we are/feel slighted, we always have a choice to ignore a slight and continue on with the substance. I generally find this easy to do, since personal slights rarely make worthwhile points. They are mostly like shooting blanks, a fail. The trick is to remember that others--at least those whose respect you'd want--recognize them as fail as well. So understand that you don't REALLY have to defend yourself, especially if you are making substantial points. I tend to mentally cross out slights out when reading someone's post, whether aimed at me or someone else. (Sometimes when I do that, nothing is left. No substance whatsoever.)
I do make assumptions about what other people do know or don't, especially when they are talking about subject areas I know something about. But unless they are positive, unless they could accomplish something beyond an insult, I generally keep such evaluations to myself. If someone clearly doesn't know a basic premise of experimental method, I may explain that premise and how his argument violates that premise. But I don't call him an idiot. And if I have misunderstood or mis-explained that premise, I'll listen to correction.
Finally, misunderstandings are bound to happen, given the way people often respond to posts in a rush. But we are not bound to intensify them. They do not mean people are stupid or deserving of abuse. If we think to identify misunderstandings as such and correct them first, whether on the part of poster or reader, some level of flame may be reduced. I can think of several occasions when I have stood correction and apologized to posters for misreading or responding to some point they did not actually make--once they explained my mistake to me. The conversion just continued then.
(Some one might raise an objection here--"Dill, I see that you occasionally post parodies of Republicans/Trump/Trumpsters. Are those not personal insults? They are not what your are always calling "substantial arguments, are they? Are you not violating your own standards?" To which I would answer--not necessarily. The point of a parody is to use your opponents' own language to foreground some aspect of his/her position in a way which renders it ineffective. It's not argument, but not personal attack either, if the intent is to neutralize some premise or tendency in the opposing camp, not to drag down the person parodied.)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
