Scientists explain how memories stick together

[Arouet]

I would not say a kick, it is a provocative parry so to speak at people that refuse to think the brain is capable of generating self awareness and must tap into something outside itself in order to function.

You and I have discussed this in the forum and in private. I'm using this exchange as as a launching board and though couched to you my comments that follow should be construed as applying generally.

You know my view: certain types of phrasing causes people to react to the tone and perceived insult rather than the content. They trigger our instinctive triballistic reflexes, causing I believe an emotional bias against the other person's post. This results in the opposite of your goal: that is to kick start them to consider your comment. Instead it can cause them to be kicked around.

That being said, most of the proponents who have come out against your post are fooling themselves if they believe they don't regularly make similar posts themselves.

By the way, I have the same instincts to respond that way that you and those proponents do - most of the time I'm able to recognise it before I post. Many times I've actually written out a snarky response but managed to edit it or even delete it before I press send. I'm able to do this because I've trained myself to key into this aspect over many years (a decade in a profession where I had to make arguments on a daily basis dealing with a variety of personalities on the other side while keeping the tone respectful and polite certainly helped!) It's not always easy to resist. Occasionally I slip and the snarky post gets out - invariably provoking the predictable negative reaction.

That said, I think there are times where a bit of whit and sarcasm can help make a point stick where a more straight post would not be impactful. In such cases though the focus should be on being clever rather than derogatory. They also lose their impact if EVERY post is done that way. There are also times where light teasing and humour should not be confused with simple snark - we've got to have a sense of humour. We just have to be mindful that tone of voice is often difficult to convey with text.

 

[Iyace]

I get a kick out of the idea that you must somehow think "proponents" cringe every time there is some new scientific data released.

Again, the mark of a man that's a few hits short of a successful Ganzfeld study.

:)

 

[Iyace]

You and I have discussed this in the forum and in private. I'm using this exchange as as a launching board and though couched to you my comments that follow should be construed as applying generally.

You know my view: certain types of phrasing causes people to react to the tone and perceived insult rather than the content. They trigger our instinctive triballistic reflexes, causing I believe an emotional bias against the other person's post. This results in the opposite of your goal: that is to kick start them to consider your comment. Instead it can cause them to be kicked around.

That being said, most of the proponents who have come out against your post are fooling themselves if they believe they don't regularly make similar posts themselves.

By the way, I have the same instincts to respond that way that you and those proponents do - most of the time I'm able to recognise it before I post. Many times I've actually written out a snarky response but managed to edit it or even delete it before I press send. I'm able to do this because I've trained myself to key into this aspect over many years (a decade in a profession where I had to make arguments on a daily basis dealing with a variety of personalities on the other side while keeping the tone respectful and polite certainly helped!) It's not always easy to resist. Occasionally I slip and the snarky post gets out - invariably provoking the predictable negative reaction.

That said, I think there are times where a bit of whit and sarcasm can help make a point stick where a more straight post would not be impactful. In such cases though the focus should be on being clever rather than derogatory. They also lose their impact if EVERY post is done that way. There are also times where light teasing and humour should not be confused with simple snark - we've got to have a sense of humour. We just have to be mindful that tone of voice is often difficult to convey with text.

Absolutely. My posts are meant to be interpreted as snarky. In fact, I write them deliberately snarky to make a point.

I don't see a purpose in writing in a round-about way, or insulting people indirectly. Some people prefer this sort of activity ( Sniffy, Really, etc. ), but I find it indirect. We're here on this forum mincing words and hashing out definitions when much of what we discuss is straight-forward shit.

Yes, I don't think Really ( steve001 ) is a very intelligent individual. I've gleaned this from the fact that he very rarely makes and argument, and when his argument is made it looks like it's constructed by twice-held-back second grader. He seems to always be the first to challenge the mental fortitude and emotional abilities of proponents. These things are, of course, totally welcomed in the topics of discussion. However, if it's applicable to proponents then it is also applicable to their critics; wouldn't you agree?

 

[Arouet]

Absolutely. My posts are meant to be interpreted as snarky. In fact, I write them deliberately snarky to make a point.

Your posts, with all due respect, are a good example of what I referred to above: someone who does it all the time. This loses the impact of any legitimate point you might have and frankly causes me to skim past it.

I don't see a purpose in writing in a round-about way, or insulting people indirectly. Some people prefer this sort of activity ( Sniffy, Really, etc. ), but I find it indirect. We're here on this forum mincing words and hashing out definitions when much of what we discuss is straight-forward shit.

There's nothing wrong with being direct - I try to be direct myself. But if your goal is to make your point simply providing a stream of insults (which is how your posts come off) is not, IMO, an effective strategy.

Yes, I don't think Really ( steve001 ) is a very intelligent individual. I've gleaned this from the fact that he very rarely makes and argument, and when his argument is made it looks like it's constructed by twice-held-back second grader. He seems to always be the first to challenge the mental fortitude and emotional abilities of proponents. These things are, of course, totally welcomed in the topics of discussion. However, if it's applicable to proponents then it is also applicable to their critics; wouldn't you agree?

I agree what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've long ago told Steve that I don't think his snark serves him well in getting his point across, just like I'm saying the same to you. I won't make the mistake, however, of conflating the fact that I think his tone is unwise with his lacking in intellect. Just like I won't confuse your numerous, eye-rolling one-liners with a lack of intelligence on your part.

But even if I did consider you stupid I wouldn't call you stupid. My goal here is not to hurt feelings. Being direct does not require being an ass.

 

[Iyace]

Your posts, with all due respect, are a good example of what I referred to above: someone who does it all the time. This loses the impact of any legitimate point you might have and frankly causes me to skim past it.

And you're welcomed to do that. You and I have attempted to get something with methodology together and discuss some problems with pooling studies. Can you say that Steve has ever attempted this?

There's nothing wrong with being direct - I try to be direct myself. But if your goal is to make your point simply providing a stream of insults (which is how your posts come off) is not, IMO, an effective strategy

.

Simple then. Don't demean proponents intellects. Right?

I agree what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've long ago told Steve that I don't think his snark serves him well in getting his point across, just like I'm saying the same to you. I won't make the mistake, however, of conflating the fact that I think his tone is unwise with his lacking in intellect. Just like I won't confuse your numerous, eye-rolling one-liners with a lack of intelligence on your part.

The argument wasn't that Steve's snark is evidence of his lack of intellect. It's his inability to actually engage with the topic that is evidence for his lack of intellect.

But even if I did consider you stupid I wouldn't call you stupid. My goal here is not to hurt feelings. Being direct does not require being an ass.

And if I considered you deluded, I would call you deluded. You do no one any favors by not being direct and honest. If your opinion is that someone is being deluded and whatnot, then say so.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I get a kick out of the idea that you must somehow think "proponents" cringe every time there is some new scientific data released.

I think a lot of skeptics would do well to actually read up on Idealism, Neutral Monism, Transmission/Filter, Panpsychism, and so on. Would probably help raise the level of dialogue.

For example I have to admit that I'd dismissed the Transmission/Filter hypothesis as wishful thinking before I really understood it. But Christ Carter, in researching William James, notes that most - if not all - evidence supposedly in support of Brain = Mind can be interpreted as applying just as well to the Filter/Transmission model.

 

[Arouet]

And if I considered you deluded, I would call you deluded. You do no one any favors by not being direct and honest. If your opinion is that someone is being deluded and whatnot, then say so.

I actually don't consider calling someone deluded to be an insult (though it depends on context of course, it can be meant derisively). We're all susceptible to mistake and delusion. That's very different from calling someone stupid.

 

[Iyace]

I actually don't consider calling someone deluded to be an insult (though it depends on context of course, it can be meant derisively). We're all susceptible to mistake and delusion. That's very different from calling someone stupid.

That's fine. Again, I don't see any problem discussing what it is that you feel. I'm also not going to stand by and read someone trashing an entire demographic of people who are too ' noble ' to fight back with the same tactics. You don't win a gun battle with a knife because a knife is the more ' moral thing to do '. You'd be wise to understand that the skepticism you attest to derived a sniveling movement of people who feel the need to project their own beliefs on other people. I understand that you don't associate with the skeptical movement, and that's to your credit. However, you also need to understand that many proponents on this forum have experience with people who demean and insult them. In the beginning, one may choose the route of silent tolerance and noble intentions. That ethos gets worn away with every little slight over the years. So when someone like Steve or anyone else who posts demeaning and snarky slights on the majority demographic of this forum; we're going to respond. Why wouldn't we?

 

[Arouet]

I've been pretty consistent in promoting that we all should treat each other with respect. But so long as each side considers themselves the good ones and the other the bad ones our chances of bringing the two sides together remain slim.

There is no "entire demographic of people that is too noble to fight back with the same tactics." Rather you've got people in each demographic that are rude, and people who are polite. You've got people in each demographic who sneer, and people who don't. You've got people in each demographic who foster discord, and people who promote consensus.

It's not "skeptics" who are rude - but there are rude skeptics. It's not "proponents" who consider themselves too noble to use the same tactics - but there are proponents who would not use those tactics. And there are proponents who are rude and skeptics who would not use those tactics.

The way we treat each other is a people issue - not a particular group issue. The fact that some skeptics have organised and proponents have not can give a false perception here I think. When we see proponents approaching something like organisation (such as the reg proponents on this site) we see individual proponents who if you put their comments beside some of the ruder skeptic comments and removed identifying language you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart.

Now, I recognise that many proponents here don't see it that way. They see it as you do: hard language used against people who deserve it. What you miss is that the rude skeptics consider it the same way from their perspective.

The solution? Take particular effort to really try and understand where the other side is coming from. Take particular effort to try and understand how you come across to others. Reflect on whether there are subtleties to your own positions that don't always come through in your posts and ask yourself whether there might be subtleties to other people's positions that don't always come through in their posts. Recognise that your initial reactions to the other as THEM stem from long evolved protectionist traits where members of the other tribe really were a danger. Analyse your reactions to other people's posts and reflect on whether they are reacting in a similar way to your posts.

I'm not saying any of this is easy. I have the same US vs. Them instincts as anyone. Frankly I'm not sure much can be done to get rid of them. What I have honed, I believe, is the ability to pause and make some of the reflections above. I have learned that WE are rarely as good and smart and competent as we think we are and THEY are rarely as bad and dumb and dastardly as we think (whichever side of US vs. Them we fall on). I've learned that error is almost always more likely than deliberate plotting.

I've also learned that my posts like this, while I believe are sound and that we'd all benefit from following them, can come off as shrill and preachy and eye rolley. I've tried in this post to highlight that I don't think I am more moral because I am more diplomatic. I think of diplomacy as a skill, with a deliberate goal: to improve communication, foster understanding, avoid hurting feelings unnecessarily, and making things more pleasant. It's not about being good or bad. With regard to skeptiko its about reflecting on what our goals are. If our goals are to improve communication, foster understanding, avoid hurt feelings and making things more pleasant then I think my way will accomplish that. I recognise that not everyone shares these goals.

Ok, I'll stop now.

 

[Iyace]

I've been pretty consistent in promoting that we all should treat each other with respect. But so long as each side considers themselves the good ones and the other the bad ones our chances of bringing the two sides together remain slim.

As long as one side insists on doing science, and the other insists on throwing out insults, your utopia will never exist.

There is no "entire demographic of people that is too noble to fight back with the same tactics." Rather you've got people in each demographic that are rude, and people who are polite. You've got people in each demographic who sneer, and people who don't. You've got people in each demographic who foster discord, and people who promote consensus.

See the above.

It's not "skeptics" who are rude - but there are rude skeptics. It's not "proponents" who consider themselves too noble to use the same tactics - but there are proponents who would not use those tactics. And there are proponents who are rude and skeptics who would not use those tactics.

Agreed.

The way we treat each other is a people issue - not a particular group issue. The fact that some skeptics have organised and proponents have not can give a false perception here I think. When we see proponents approaching something like organisation (such as the reg proponents on this site) we see individual proponents who if you put their comments beside some of the ruder skeptic comments and removed identifying language you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart.

Proponents have organized to do science. That's why there's parapsychological associations and research labs. Skeptics have organized to call them deluded. Who is using their organizational ability to actually do something, in this regard?

Now, I recognise that many proponents here don't see it that way. They see it as you do: hard language used against people who deserve it. What you miss is that the rude skeptics consider it the same way from their perspective.

That's nice. We don't create meet-ups and gatherings to insult people for their affiliations. We create meet-ups to talk about experiments and the latest research. Can you say JREF operates in a similar fashion?

The solution? Take particular effort to really try and understand where the other side is coming from. Take particular effort to try and understand how you come across to others. Reflect on whether there are subtleties to your own positions that don't always come through in your posts and ask yourself whether there might be subtleties to other people's positions that don't always come through in their posts. Recognise that your initial reactions to the other as THEM stem from long evolved protectionist traits where members of the other tribe really were a danger. Analyse your reactions to other people's posts and reflect on whether they are reacting in a similar way to your posts.

Wait, are you really using evolutionary psychology, the second laughing stalk of science ( besides parapsychology ), to claim that my initial reactions stem from ' evolved protectionist traits where members of the other tribe really were a danger '? Instead of just admitting that it actually comes from a long list of posts that demean everyone's intellect on this forum? And here you are, thinking that your little psychoanalysis ( you're a lawyer, not a scientist ) is in no way insulting? You see what I'm getting at here?

I'm not saying any of this is easy. I have the same US vs. Them instincts as anyone. Frankly I'm not sure much can be done to get rid of them. What I have honed, I believe, is the ability to pause and make some of the reflections above. I have learned that WE are rarely as good and smart and competent as we think we are and THEY are rarely as bad and dumb and dastardly as we think (whichever side of US vs. Them we fall on). I've learned that error is almost always more likely than deliberate plotting.

Really? Interesting. Jcearley, radicalpolitik, sciborg, Max B are all skeptics who don't share my views. I seem to be getting along with them just fine even though they aren't classified as an US.

I've also learned that my posts like this, while I believe are sound and that we'd all benefit from following them, can come off as shrill and preachy and eye rolley. I've tried in this post to highlight that I don't think I am more moral because I am more diplomatic. I think of diplomacy as a skill, with a deliberate goal: to improve communication, foster understanding, avoid hurting feelings unnecessarily, and making things more pleasant. It's not about being good or bad. With regard to skeptiko its about reflecting on what our goals are. If our goals are to improve communication, foster understanding, avoid hurt feelings and making things more pleasant then I think my way will accomplish that. I recognise that not everyone shares these goals.

Ok, I'll stop now.

And that's perfectly fine until you understand how the world really is.

 

[Arouet]

Iyace, I guess all I can say is take a step back and really try and get what I'm trying to say. Take a few minutes to do those reflections that I suggested. If it helps, write out your answers to yourself (you don't have to post them, its just to force yourself to go through the exercise). Try and do it seriously. You might be surprised at the conclusions you come to.

 

[Iyace]

Iyace, I guess all I can say is take a step back and really try and get what I'm trying to say. Take a few minutes to do those reflections that I suggested. If it helps, write out your answers to yourself (you don't have to post them, its just to force yourself to go through the exercise). Try and do it seriously. You might be surprised at the conclusions you come to.

I don't really care what you're trying to say; I care what you actually say. I understand quite reasonably that you're trying to be as civil and peace-makerish as possible. It's a noble quest and I wish you the best on it. You want us to assume that the person on the opposite side of the table has the intentions of an honest and good conversation. That's simply not the case, Arouet. That's not how the world works, but I understand that that's the way you want it to work. As previously mentioned above, you assume that my snarky responses come from some sort of US vs Them mentality, which relates back to our tribal group-making patterns etc. etc. Your blatant denial that it comes from the fact that there exists a pressure group against a specific demographic of people ( which I would be considered a part of, I guess ) is extremely telling.

Let's just go ahead and try to sit down and understand where the westboro baptist church is coming from. Let's assume that they have the best intentions at heart, and work from there. It doesn't make much sense from that perspective, so why should it work when JREF members dress up in zombie constumes and heckle mediums?

 

[Arouet]

Let's just go ahead and try to sit down and understand where the westboro baptist church is coming from.

Actually, that's an excellent idea. Give it a try.

 

[Iyace]

Actually, that's an excellent idea. Give it a try.

They want to deprive people of their rights and let the world know about their prejudices in the most publicly offensive way possible.

Easy. What was that supposed to accomplish?

 

[Iyace]

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/eye-for-an-eye.763/#post-18100 Let's stop mucking up the thread. If you want to continue this discussion about what constitutes appropriate responses, then I've linked the thread.

 

[Arouet]

They want to deprive people of their rights and let the world know about their prejudices in the most publicly offensive way possible.

Easy. What was that supposed to accomplish?

Do you really think that's how they see it from their perspective?

I don't want to come across as an apologist for the Westboro baptist church as I thoroughly disaprove of their methods and beliefs. That doesn't mean that they see themselves in the same way that you or I see them.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/eye-for-an-eye.763/#post-18100 Let's stop mucking up the thread. If you want to continue this discussion about what constitutes appropriate responses, then I've linked the thread.

Good idea, we'll continue there. How about we both try and come up with an assessment of how the members of the westboro baptist church see themselves. I don't propose we do a ton of research but we should at least do a bit of googling to see what they say about themselves before responding.

After that we can post how we think the westboro baptist church would perceive us.

Anyone should feel free to contribute.

 

[radicalpolitik]

I think a lot of skeptics would do well to actually read up on Idealism, Neutral Monism, Transmission/Filter, Panpsychism, and so on. Would probably help raise the level of dialogue.

For example I have to admit that I'd dismissed the Transmission/Filter hypothesis as wishful thinking before I really understood it. But Christ Carter, in researching William James, notes that most - if not all - evidence supposedly in support of Brain = Mind can be interpreted as applying just as well to the Filter/Transmission model.

Irreducible mind does a pretty good job at this too. Their new book will expand upon this.

 

[radicalpolitik]

Do you really think that's how they see it from their perspective?

I don't want to come across as an apologist for the Westboro baptist church as I thoroughly disaprove of their methods and beliefs. That doesn't mean that they see themselves in the same way that you or I see them.



Good idea, we'll continue there. How about we both try and come up with an assessment of how the members of the westboro baptist church see themselves. I don't propose we do a ton of research but we should at least do a bit of googling to see what they say about themselves before responding.

After that we can post how we think the westboro baptist church would perceive us.

Anyone should feel free to contribute.

I suspect westboro baptist church would call us a bunch of fag enabling sinners, who practice witchcraft.

 

[ghost]

I think atheists are throwing out data that tells them they have to exist after they die. There is lots of evidence that spirits exist; they have proven their existence. The problem is that atheist scientists don't want to hear about it. Oddly enough, the rest of the "rational" world is fooled by the atheist scientists into believing that there is no afterlife. Who would have thought that atheist science would mislead the people?

 

[Skippy Borzakov]

I would not say a kick, it is a provocative parry so to speak at people that refuse to think the brain is capable of generating self awareness and must tap into something outside itself in order to function.

I don't refuse to think that the brain is capable of generating self-awareness. But it my opinion, the evidence is stronger for the alternative. I don't dismiss your way of thinking as a possibility, though. But I'm personally not convinced.