Can YOU read between the lines? Do you understand what is actually been said when you read something?
A few days ago, I wrote a post entitled, “Your freedom comes at my expense” and gave three examples. At the end of each example, I asked the question, “Is he right?”
Virtually everybody who responded missed the point. The point was that the person who had right on his side was the one who lost out, and that the expression of one’s person’s freedom was at the expense of the person who was being ethical.
When one writes, the title demonstrates what the content is about. In the title, I expressed that the content was about one person’s freedom coming at the expense of another person. At the end of each paragraph (three paragraphs), I asked the same question regarding the common ethical process. The question was “Is this right?” The repetition of the question was the clue that this was really the point of the piece.
At no point did I ask what to do about the situations and yet, virtually everybody responded about the situations. The point of the entire thread was to incur a debate as to whether the ethics of freedom of freedom for everybody was such a good thing. Ergo, the title ‘Your freedom comes at my expense.”
So, this time, I’m not going to ask you what you think about the inability of so many to understand what is being asked because my conclusion after 16 years on the web is that very few have the capacity to grasp what is being asked. The previous thread certainly demonstrates that.
So, let me tell you what I think is happening here. The first is that the education system has now sunk to a level where people can no longer grasp the bigger picture of what is being said. The second is that people answer before they fully understand the question. Why? Because it takes time to think. Also it takes effort to think. And most people just do not have the time and do not want to make the effort.
So, what is your contribution to this thread?
Did you read my response to that question of yours.
You should know how to read between the lines too. You don't expect people to always answer the way you want it. They can answer differently because they all come from different background. Like me, I studied sociology so I am more focus with order in society -- people complying with societal norms just to have some kind of order.
It helps when you have a direct question, sometimes people here just pick on one aspect of your question and concentrate on it.
@Prettydarkhouse. Yes, I read what you said.
Please read the reply I gave to Shogun. It applies to what you are stating as well.
Let's see, so if I comes from a different background, one gives different information.
So, let's see. Scientists that grow up in Moscow are that that the earth is situated on top of a turtle. Scientists that are educated in England are taught that the earth rotates around the moon. Scientists in America are taught that the sun rotates around the earth. And people that grow up in India are taught that the earth rotates around the sun.
I don't think so.
Your comment is indicative of someone who has never been taught logic.
So you studied sociology? How does a study of sociology pertain to an inability to express oneself adequately and/or understand what is being said? Surely, one should go to English grammar classes for that?
If people had given me different ethical answers and outlooks, that would have pertained to different sociological backgrounds, but the fact is that the OP was completely misunderstood. That's an inability to grasp what is being said.
My contribution is withheld on the grounds that I have may have failed to grasp the point of the question. If indeed it was a question.
I did read something the other day that made me think, briefly. It said the kids today are terrible - no manners, no education, and so on. And it was written in 400BC. Some Greek philosopher dude.
It's said every generation.
Sophia, as far as your post here, it somewhat says that anyone who posted on the previous thread can't comprehend language as well as you can. Why start a thread if you want posters to answer a specific way?
Sometimes questions are rhetorical, they're for reflection or persuasion, not necessarily answering yes or no. If you wish for people to join in discussions, it helps not to imply that you're right and everyone else doesn't get it. I think the posters answered as they felt in response to your post.
@RebekahELLE. Why do so many people read posts as if they're personal? I never do. I read most things from a global perspective. In fact, the biggest reason I cannot stand literary novels is because they are so navel gazing. There were those who answered the question i.e. about freedom, and the fact that they go it indicates that I was NOT that unclear. The fact that many provided information on how to report something to my landlord was indicative of people who did not get the point of what I asked.
Do you seriously believe that when people ask questions that requires specific information that any old answer will do, even if it is completely unrelated?
While quite a few are upset because what I've said would implicate them, or implicate their friends, that doesn't mean that I feel I am the only one that can comprehend language. That is a stupid comment and it comes from taking things personally.
Don't take things personally. As explained to you in my response about my people skills, there is method to my madness.
there is always a method to madness, but methodology doesn't guarantee safety.
Now I'm really beginning to understand the problem - you don't internalize what others say to you. Reread my first post, about your misleading statements of "My neighbor" and "Right now I'm a little bit tired of..." If you internalize my statement, you might be able to answer your own questions.
Just because you read things from a global perspective doesn't mean you understand the intent. I believe true understanding comes from acknowledging cultural diversity - something we Americans begin learning the moment we're born.
Also, just because "there were those who answered the question about freedom" (which, I believe, everyone who posted a sincere reply did) in the way that you wanted them to doesn't mean that the others who didn't, (respond as you wanted) didn't understand the question. This is where PDH's response in this thread applies.
Rafini, I didn't want to know the answers to any of these questions. I already know them.
I am, however, deeply concerned, about the disintegration of society and civilization around me. One of the big issues is the number of people (especially young people) who seem to think that their freedom allows them to do anything. The fact that other people are harmed by their freedom doesn't appear to bother them much.
I posted the thread in order to get people to think about this. Yes, my neighbor does play loud music. Reported and dealt with. The second example was something I heard from a friend. The third is happening to a relative.
Possibly, I come from an environment where most people would have understood that the situations weren't literal but examples. They would have deduced that from the question at the end. Or they might even have deduced that because they grew up in the same educational system that I did.
Yes, of course, everyone posted a sincere reply. I have no issues with the kindness of people here. Hub Pages simply has the best hubbers and writers on the web.
If you are a teacher, as you say, then surely when you set an exam, you expect people to give the same answer for the same question. If you ask what year television was discovered, you surely don't expect a different answer from everybody and mark them all correct? That is daft!
I'm amused. "cultural diversity - something we Americans begin learning the moment we're born."
I am half South African, half German, with an English education, born to a German Jewish father and a Afrikaans Calvinist Mother. I have lived and worked in South Africa, Lesotho, Spain, Germany, England, and America. I find American culture lacking in diversity.
In South Africa, there are 11official languages. I grew up speaking a few. I also had to constantly adjust to many different cultures. Living in Europe, the same thing.
However, I had culture shock when I came here because virtually everything revolves around eating in restaurants, celebrity TV, and Democrat and GOP politics.
Why do so many people read posts as if they're personal?
If you know the answer to this question why did you ask it?
Every generation believes the next is guilty of destroying society and civilization. The true question is: Are they?
Whether the situations were literal or mere examples isn't the issue - the issue is how you presented them. Had you presented your "essay" question properly, you would have received different responses.
Speaking of answering questions on an exam...multiple choice answers obviously must be answered the same. However, essay questions are meant to be answered according to the writers beliefs, opinions, thoughts, culture, background, environment, and education in conjunction with knowledge gained from the essay question forum.
Yes, yes, yes, I've heard of your background before. Just because you grew up within this mix doesn't mean you embrace cultural diversity. Why? Because, for the most part, your life seems to have been exposed to only one culture at a time. (outside the home you grew up in) Americans, on the other hand, are met with it daily. We don't have to "adjust" to different cultures, because experiencing different cultures, on a daily basis, is an expected life experience. Depending on where you live in America determines which cultures you'll be exposed to.
Culture Shock of America? Yep, unfortunately this is the end result of Americans being raised in a culturally diverse society. The only things left to do are eat out, watch and discuss Celebrity TV or Politics. Unless you're one of the rich who can afford to do something else.
Why do I ask questions if I know the answer? To get other people to answer the question because a lot of the time they haven't thought about it.
No, every generation does NOT believe that the next generation is destroying society. I knew as an adolescent in the 60s that the breaking down of culture norms would eventually lead to the kind of society we're living in how. How did I know that? Because we studied Roman history at school and that was one of the lessons. I knew it was my own generation, not the next generation.
However, I get your point. I am not talking about the end of the world. I am talking about the fact that standards have fallen tremendously and that this has an effect on society.
And while historically, some have said this, I have read a lot of Victorian Literature, and I never saw those sentiments expressed there. In fact, when I grew up, the saying was, "The sun never sets on the British Empire." Nobody expected the British Empire to go. So your statement is not true.
You don't get it, do you? You do NOT live in a culturally diverse society. Compared to London and South Africa (where I've spent most of my life), this country has very little diversity.
I had culture shock because there was such an attitude of entitlement and because I was expecting the technology, etc. to be better than where I came from, and it was worse. I also had culture shock because I had never lived in a society where people put other people on pedestals because they were celebrities and because they were rich.
Okay, so your intention is to make people think, right? Then why not say so?? I love to make people think but I don't force it on them by insulting them. I say it first, something like...Think about it; How about this?; What do you think about this idea?; Not saying ya gotta agree, but this is what I think:
Sorry, if you know anything of Pop Culture you'd know my statement is, in fact, true.
Parents had issues with Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry - rock music was going to destroy life as it was known.
Parents had issues with The Beatles and The Rolling Stones - Elvis and Chuck were tame compared to these two groups.
Parents had issues with Black Sabbath and Judas Priest - The Beatles and The Rolling Stones weren't so bad after all....
Parents had issues with Madonna and Michael Jackson's image - Black Sabbath and Judas Priest were old news.
I think you get the idea...don't you? If not, I suggest you listen to "The Living Years" by Mike & The Mechanics, or "We Didn't Start the Fire" by Billy Joel. (Every generation, blames the one before....) The breaking down of society, or civilization, is a blame game between generations. Always has been, always will be.
The fact that you knew it was your own generation only shows that you were able to see the obvious while others could not. In terms of Roman History...I can't really answer, because I didn't study it. However, I understood the concept of an evolving society/civilization. Perhaps because I grew up as an English, German, Irish, Norwegian, Scottish, Swedish, Swiss, French, Danish, Welsh, Cherokee girl a few blocks away from the hippie culture with a few Hippie teachers, listened to music that had to be interpreted rather than just listened to, lived in the city with a country born and raised mother and a black step-father from a South Carolina farm, had a vegetarian Seventh-Day-Adventist Grandmother, and was influenced by the Lutheran religion of my mother, the Southern Baptist religion of my step-father, the Catholic religion of a friend, the Jehovah's Witness religion of another friend, the Vietnamese Refugees at my school, the Native Americans who were fresh off the Reservation that I went to school with...I could go on.
The point is, we all learn from our experiences no matter what they are. An extremely interesting point is, that if 30 people are in a room listening to a lecture, 30 people will leave that room with a different perspective of what the point of that lecture was. Understanding this is imperitive when it comes to understanding cultural diversity. You seem not to understand this, but American's learn early to accept the opinions of others. (biggest problem is, it's a VERY difficult lesson for many to learn!)
I'm sorry, but, really? South Africa? From what I know, South Africa is a society in which the minority of whites rules the majority of blacks. (or, at least, it was that way at one time not so long ago....) That doesn't sound very culturally diverse to me. Doesn't matter how many different cultures there are, if none of them get to express themselves. And London? Where everybody is divided by class? That doesn't sound like cultural diversity either - sounds more like cultural division. (stick to your own culture!!)
So now you give a different excuse for your "culture shock". What you don't seem to understand is that I believe American's are better prepared to visit another culture - I believe American's wont suffer as much culture shock when they visit your "home" as you have when you came here.
But, of course, that's not really what that statement meant, is it? The saying had to do with the fact that the British Empire, at one time, spanned the globe and therefore at any time of day the sun was shining somewhere in the British Empire. The saying was originally meant literally.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in … 325AADtpo0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_empire … never_sets
Well, of course it meant exactly that. What on earth do you think I meant by it? I was simply pointing out that the British Empire was so vast that nobody ever expected it to disappear. In other words, nobody said that the end of the Empire was coming. Well, except the 'Winds of Change' speech.
Your words: "Nobody expected the British Empire to go."
You apparently thought that you connected dots better than you did. You need to review the context of your statement [demise of civilization] and what you actually wrote [sunset] and, if you are truly objective and intelligent, you will see that it was open to other valid interpretations.
There is such a thing as context. The context of what I wrote was perfectly clear. The previous comment was that every generation expected the next generation to be the end of the world. My comment was that it was not so in the days of the British Empire because 'the sun never set on the British Empire' (which saying everybody knew to mean that it was so vast that the sun never set on it geographically). that nobody saw its end. It was simply too powerful to end.
The only way people could read it differently was if they had never heard the saying before. The context is perfectly clear. It is irrelevant whether someone can put another interpretation on it or not. If one tries hard enough, one can put another interpretation on anything. And if one takes something out of context, of course, one can put another interpretation on it.
I am going to go back to my opening statement - that what I wrote in the previous thread was seriously taken out of context and misread by too many people not to be of concern. I am not criticizing the people who did this. This is simply too serious to be that petty. I am talking about a deficit in education that it has meant that people will give every excuse under the sun for their misunderstanding.
a) Language changes and cannot have the same meaning. So even though everybody reads the same sentence, it has a different\ meaning for everybody.
b) People want to contribute but didn't have anything valid to say about the real point of the OP, so they contributed something else.
There has been some research on three continents and I find the results to be interesting. The best educated high school class in the UK, the US, and SA, was the year of 1969. After that education took a rapid dive. The old classic education model was dumped and everything from the 'new math' to 'phonetic reading and writing' too over.
Since then, people struggle to read and write. I'm almost willing to bet that all the people who have negated what I have said are under 60 years old, and that they simply didn't learn to read and write as well as the generations prior to them.
And because I know that this will once more be interpreted as my saying that I am better than everybody else, let me stress that I am talking about generations here and generations consist of millions of people. In addition, the research was not conducted by myself but by various universities. In addition, some two years ago, research in California indicated that 95% of four year university students could not write a grammatical sentence. There's more. However, the bottom line is that people not understanding what has been said has more to do with a lack of education than language changing and meaning being different for everybody.
Sorry, Sophia, but the context was only perfectly clear to yourself. Everyone else had to go by what they saw, where they saw it, and when they saw it.
No, the previous comment said nothing about the end of the world - we were discussing the end of society/civilization as we know it. (remember the end of the Roman Empire that you studied?) Today, I, like my mother before me, think there's way too much sex driven media for it to be healthy for the next generation. Only difference is, I'm right. But, really, wasn't my mother right too? I sincerely believe we are furiously working our way toward the destruction of modern civilization. Time for the next cycle to take over - wonder if it'll happen in my lifetime...?
If you don't make your context plain to see, then you have nothing to complain about when someone interprets it other than how you intended. I don't believe the misunderstanding had anything to do with the responders alleged 'deficit' in education, but perhaps your own. Because you are repeatedly refusing to acknowledge your own mistake - whether intentional or not. You either intentionally mislead everyone OR mistakenly posted your scenarios in the wrong forum. Which is it?
I do find the research interesting...however, I believe it's incomplete. Along with the new educational model came dramatic changes within our world. Households with telephones and televisions increased dramatically, as did the economy/minimum wage and the ability to afford more forms of entertainment. The educational system began pushing for all students to graduate - students can no longer drop out before the age of 18. What effect do these things have on education? What about spellcheck on your computer? Or text messaging?
The educational system cannot be held liable for what people/families do on their own time.
Oh, and btw - you didn't need to send me an email saying you're done. All you had to do was announce it here, or simply not reply anymore. Such as I am about to do - I wont return to this discussion.
I DID read the thread and noticed that it completely went off topic to what you were originally asking. That's why I didn't join in, because I've already got a bad history of saying on here, "People! Did ya read what the OP said?" and getting slammed. So I shut up. But I feel you.
Freedom is almost never really free, is it? I guess the essential question is "Should someone else's right to exert their freedom interfere with another's ability to enjoy their freedoms?" And that should be met with a resounding "NO!"
YAYYYYYYY!!!!! You got it! : And you put it beautifully.
If sophia had asked what you have just said, she would have got totally different answers. If you ask 12 people what they thought of a book they would give you 12 different answers which is what sophia got, unfortunately sophia thought she had all the answers before she asked her question. When the results didn't coincide with what she was expecting, she has a go at everyone for not reading between the lines. No wonder your neighbor thinks its only you causing the grief.
Sophia, while I think you have a valid point about most people not taking the time to reflect on what they are asked, I'll add another possible cause for your previous thread being derailed.
Most people want to write about what they want to write about. You and I both know that this thread, too, will venture away from your initial post. This is one of the most frustrating and wonderful aspects to communicating, especially online: people want to satisfy themselves. It may be that most people read and understood your initial post just fine, but it just wasn't what they wanted to talk about.
@Shogan. Now there's an interesting perspective. The them in this month's UTNE magazine was Narcissism in America. The problem with people wanting to talk about themselves and their opinions rather than sticking to the conversation is that connectivity and/or understanding takes place.
And TRUE listening never takes place.
Perhaps, but ultimately, everything we say is our opinion. When you post a thread, you have a distinct idea of what you want others to address, but prettydarkhorse has a point when she says that different people will naturally have different perspectives on what makes meaning. Language is not absolute. That's why I said that this is one of the wonderful aspects of communicating with others.
@Shogan. Fristly, everything is NOT opinion. Whoever told you that has a political agenda, and I'm going to go into that a few sentences down. Water has a boiling point of 100 degrees centigrade. That is NOT opinion. It is a fact. The earth rotates around the sun. That is NOT an opinion. It is a fact. I grew up in the time of the British Empire. That is NOT an opinion. It is a fact. I could go on. Your statement that that 'everything is an opinion' is NOT an opinion. It is a inaccurate statement.
Now, let me explain to you why the masses have been educated to believe that they're all entitled to an opinion and that everyone's opinion is different and they're all equal in worth.
1) It makes people feel important if what they think that what they say has the same worth that the opinions of Einstein carry. It's easier to control people when they think they have worth (even if what the people think is not accurate).
2) When people think that everything is opinion, they won;t dispute facts because they are ignorant. They will just tell the person who presents the fact that it is his opinion. That way, they don't feel inadequate, angry, ignorant, etc. That means they are easier to control. Unfortunately, with all the opinions going around today, we are becoming an ignorant people. When facts aren't guarded zealously, superstition, urban myth, and the other detractors of civilization become dominant. It is no accident that the industrialized countries of the 20th century are deeply into a cycle of decline.
3) When different people give different meaning to the same sentence, then run for your life. If you remember the story of Babel in the bible, God made everybody speak a different language so that nobody could understand what the other person would say. What happened was because they didn't understand each other, they couldn't work together to accomplish something. The only reason that some readers don't understand what is being said is that the reader doesn't have a comprehensive understanding of how grammar and structure denote meaning. So misunderstanding and misinterpretation results. In addition, the writer, also not having a comprehensive understanding of grammar and structure, does not express the idea clearly. However, I did. It was simply the inability of various readers not to understand what was being said.
4) Precisely because language is not absolute, in British and Colonial English, structure and grammar was developed in order to make meaning extremely clear. This is not so in America where one sentence can mean twenty different things. However, one sentence can mean exactly what it is intended to mean. Consider the old example.
"Let's eat, Grandma."
"Let's eat Grandma."
The first sentence is someone talking to grandma and suggesting that they eat. The second is someone saying that they have cannibalistic inclinations and that they should make a meal of Grandma and eat her. No other meaning can be attributed to either of these sentences. Yet, it is punctuation that makes a difference to their meaning.
Some years ago, at a college in San Diego, I heard a professor tell a young student that Grammar didn't matter 'so long as he understood what was being said."
I intervened and told the professor off. I was rather sarcastically told that I was the professor, and he, he professor was student. Sometimes, it pays to have been published for half a century. I told the professor that I wasn't a student and some other things. In any event, I pointed out that sophisticated language and exact meaning are paramount when it comes to the sciences, and the rules for obtaining the exact meaning need to be taught. If you honestly believe that people can read different meaning into the same sentence, then you don't know how to write a sentence so that it only has one meaning. And I seriously suggest you go get an education.
I really, really, REALLY!! Did not intend to get involved here - because I've told you before how I feel and what I think, but, honestly??
First of all, YOU posted your initial thread in the Hubbers Hangout. The appropriate category would have been PHILOSOPHY. Why? Because your "question" was Philosophical in nature.
Second of all, YOU stated "MY neighbor" which leads people to believe you were talking about a real-life situation.
Thirdly, you ended with Right now I'm a little bit tired of all these 'freedoms.' They don't seem to be working for some people more than others... which, again, leads people to believe you were talking about real life situations.
Fourth - from this current thread it is apparent that YOU intentionally misled everyone who responded just so that YOU could (once again) feel superior to everyone else.
Fifth - YOU are ABSOLUTELY WRONG in saying "If you honestly believe that people can read different meaning into the same sentence, then you don't know how to write a sentence so that it only has one meaning" - Rather than blame the writer, how about blaming the person who reads the writing? Or blame the person who absolutely has to be right whether they know what they're talking about or not?? Or, are you admitting to having this problem yourself?
Sixth - Before I "seriously suggest YOU go get an education", how about YOU back off?? GET OFF YOUR high horse and walk through the manure like everyone else - because let me tell you something: YOU are no better than anyone else in this world. GOT IT???
edit Just in case you couldn't 'read between the lines' - I'm telling you that you couldn't possibly understand and learn anything through your 'education' unless you get off your high horse.
Rafini, so what topics exactly does Hubber's Hangout cover? I wouldn't have thought the topic was philosophy, so much as one that has overtures of our ethical system, our education system, and our cultural system.
Next, there was no intention to mislead. During my school days, I dealt with many essay questions like that. It's a common technique used in rhetoric.
Next. The word 'freedoms' was in inverted commas. That means they were the opposite of freedoms. If one isolated the line from the headline, then, yes, some would believe that. However, the question on all three paragraphs was not personal. The question was, "Is he right?" The question was always asking was the right to freedom correct when it impinged on someone else. There is no way that that could be taken to mean that I was talking about myself. It was a general question and there were three examples involved.
Obviously I hit a sore spot because you are angry and you aren't dealing with the points I raised.
It also comes down to what I mentioned in one of my other posts - that the need for everyone to be able to give an 'opinion' regardless of the value of that opinion is so inbuilt that very few have the strength of character to respond to logic. There is an emotional reaction to contradiction rather than a logical one.
Did you actually read my post? I said: Philosophical in nature. I didn't say you were attempting a discussion on Philosophy.
It appears the problem is on your end, not mine. You did intend to mislead, otherwise you would have categorized your "discussion" properly, and you would not have begun this one in order to humiliate everyone who you felt didn't understand the point of your original "discussion". The Hubbers Hangout is intended to go off topic yet you complained that nobody answered your question as they "should have".
Rhetoric is an intentional use of language, not an attempt to misrepresent your intentions. Misrepresenting your intentions = misleading statements, which is what I accuse you of. Essay questions are meant to make you think, not to mislead you into answering the wrong question.
The question of "Is he right?" is your rhetorical question - because there's more than one way to understand it. Everyone who answered this question did so according to how they understood it!
No, I'm not angry - but I do stand up against those who think they're better than everyone else.
Your consistent Insulting of others is a poor attempt to prove your superiority over others and shows your own lack of logic.
I did respond to this but iit didn't print for some reason.
Your response has more to do with injured pride than with logical deduction.
I note that you're now going to college. Perhaps, you will learn some grammar. Then, again, in a school system where multiple choice answers are mostly the option, people don't learn to accurately deduce essay type questions. I grew up in an education system where essay type questions were the norm across all disciplines. That might have existed in the older generations in the States, I don't know.
"I note that you're now going to college. Perhaps, you will learn some grammar. "
Am I allowed to lol at this without upsetting anyone. That, Sophia, is a class putdown.
I thought you said you weren't a forum expert?
Your response has more to do with injured pride than with logical deduction.
logical deduction? Or, opinion? Seeing as how there is no empirical evidence for you to prove this statement, it can only be seen as opinion. Which, according to you, relates as: "Talk is cheap and money buys the whiskey."
I guess it's ironic that I didn't read your last response carefully, Sophia. Your post contains some unnecessary anger, and I'm not very interested in that.
To be clear, I thought we were talking about a forum discussion on why people didn't respond to your thread the way you wanted them to, not what we largely accept as scientific fact. Nothing in your original thread can be fairly compared to the temperature of boiling water.
I've taught English literature (including grammar and writing) for many years, Sophia. I'm always open to furthering my education, but I think I'm doing all right in that department.
It had nothing to do with what I wanted. If you teach English, can you please explain to me why so many in this country cannot examine an essay question? Don't you teach comprehension?
And if you are mentioning boiling water as an example, then you shouldn't be teaching English because you have no idea how to determine meeaning from language.
I'll submit my resignation effective immediately! I'm pretty sure you brought up the temperature of boiling water. Then again, perhaps I did. Perhaps Mark did. I'm not sure anymore.
Sophia, language isn't a static thing, as I'm sure you know. I agree that many have a difficult time sorting out what is being asked of them (and I indicated this in my first post in this thread), but the questions being asked aren't formed in a "perfect" bubble. We do each make meaning from what we read; people can reasonably come to different meanings as a result of reading the same text.
Hey! Don't blame the boiling water on me :rolly eyes thing:
If there was any water involved it was me trying to pour oil on the troubled version by mingling with the clever crowd.
All right, but I taught you how to make the rolly eyes properly. The least you can do is show you took the lesson seriously!
You know.. it's a shared thing.. one of those unexpected but always pleasurable elements when playing around on forums. Making a tiny connection.
I have a different perspective on it. When you asked the original question you were clearly looking for discussion about the price of freedom etc., however if I have nothing to say about that and yet want to respond - I respond to another part of the question.
Asking a question is like any text, when it leaves you it becomes what the reader wants it to be, not necessarily what you wanted it to be received as.
Recommend, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.
Perhaps, there is a cultural difference here. I was taught, and it is the norm amongst the educated people in my home environment, that if one has nothing to contribute on the topic, then one remains silent. One does not derail the conversation.
Just because one wants to contribute doesn't mean that one has anything of worth to contribute. Again, the perspective that it's okay to contribute even if it derails the conversation is the result of the propaganda inherent in making everyone feel equal.
I also think that there is an enormous degree of confusion when it comes to differentiating between perspective, opinion, and factual information. Again, I think the reason for this is that the current education system (for at least the last three or four decades) has rewarded both bs opinions and factual brilliance equally.
That kind of social engineering (because that is what it is) means that fact gets lost amongst fiction.It also means, in the long run, that brilliant invention, cutting edge discovery, etc. cease to exist after a time.
Essentially, if one hasn't something to say about the topic in discussion, one doesn't contribute. One waits until something is on the table that one can make a worthy contribution to.
Is it really a cultural difference to give respect to others while listening to their views? Just because one persons views don't correlate to what you expected (or wanted) doesn't mean they aren't valid.
Perhaps the problem exists in your pushing an inferiority complex down everyone's throat?
Firstly, I'm not interested in views. I'm interested in facts and in logical deduction. There is a saying, "Talk is cheap and money buys the whiskey."
and those who buy the whiskey are too drunk for anything good to come out of them.
Wow, doesn't even understand the idiom. English teachers aren't what they used to be.
I think you're confusing us, Sophia. I'm pretty sure Rafini's the college student.
Wow, doesn't know how to think for herself!
Let me explain:
Talk is cheap (what I say is insignificant) and
Money buys the whiskey (what you have to say is so much more important because you have the means to buy followers) and
Those who buy the whiskey are too drunk for anything good to come out of them (while you and your followers are getting drunk on your whiskey, I'll be taking over because your capabilities will have been compromised)
Actually,it means that people with a lot to say often exaggerate their own importance and that it is what is being revealed through other actions that tells the truth. In other words, actions speak louder than words.
Your post above is nonsensical.
Of course, I can think for myself. I'm just curious how you would phrase it.
Ever heard of a guy named Socrates? He used the Socrates method. He asked questions, not because he wanted to know the answers. He already knew the answers. He wanted to know what his students thought. Asking his students questions meant that he could draw them out and find out what they thought.
I'd be really curious as to how you think I should define myself in my profile.
Um, no. It just means talk is cheap, one of many proverbs around the world to that general effect. (Speaking of taking things personally).
Guess ya didn't know there's more than one way to skin a cat, did ya?
btw - Socrates did not use the Socrates method. He created it.
I'm not going to argue with you over who's more nonsensical, but honestly, since you claim to be so highly intelligent, cultured, and well traveled, you seriously ought to be able to understand there is more than one way to interpret words and language. The trick is finding a common denominator between peoples involved.
While it is feasible that one or two words might be interpreted differently, it's ridiculous to say that every sentence and paragraph means something completely different to people. If that were so, then students couldn't be tested in schools and politicians couldn't debate whether laws were good or not. Yes, of course, there are slightly different gradients, but those are so slight as to not make any conceivable difference. The idea that people understand things differently is being taken completely out of context over here.
Why do you think arguments happen? Why, for that matter, do politicians (and other people) get into debates? Because they disagree! Why do people disagree? Because they have different understandings and meanings and connotations and interpretations!
It is through discussion, argument, and debate among all people (not only those who agree with you) that a deeper understanding can be reached, and a greater appreciation of differences can eventually be maintained.
At this point, I agree with RebekahELLE, you need to get out more and find a larger circle of friends. If you only hang around people who agree with you, or with people who lead otherwise superficial lives, you will never stretch your mind to the point of learning something new.
I'm going to have to butt in here. I was taught that too, stay silent unless you have something worth saying.
But... I wasn't very good at staying silent.
So... my angle was to try to subvert pretty much most things in order to gain attention and contribute in a different way.
I appreciate this can be annoying if done to excess.
Having said that I will try to contribute in as far as I understand things. I believe that opinion counts as fact, even in the gilded worlds of academia. Agreed, there are some scientific certainties - but as soon as there is a possibility of interpretation you might as well make up any old thing.
As examples I'll give you global warming, politics and abortion. Absolutely impossible to have a factual discussion about any of those subjects without being totally subjective.
Whoops. Tried to go all serious. Failed and lost my audience.
Which, Mark, is why I stay away from anything that is based on belief. However, there are degrees to which one can use factual information to support one's opinion. In the old days, when a judge asked for 'opinion', he was talking about something that could be deduced from facts, not something that was nothing more than belief. These days, for the most part, opinion is nothing more than belief and it's not worth the paper it's written on.
And I'm glad that someone else remembers the days when we were taught not to contribute anything unless it was worth contributing. I think there was a reason for that. I guess I've just never really had a need to contribute to all conversations. I'm a rather bad conversationalist because I am seldom interested in vacant opinion.
I will say Sophia, that despite your slightly brusque manner (if you don't mind me saying) you do start some very interesting and if I dare say again, opinionated threads.
So it may be that not every one, me included, can grasp exactly the point - or indeed contribute appropriately - but we can have a pretty good time examining the possibilities.
For me, not that it adds anything, I quite like forum back and forth stuff, because out of it can come ideas for writing.
Exactamo!!! It's just sad that some get their feathers in a fluff! One can put down an argument beautifully - if only one has the tools!
Yes, I did notice that the quality of conversations at the Hubbers Hang Out had rather deteriorated. So I thought I'd contribute something explosive - you know, put a bit of fire into the forum.
You have a knack for it I think.
Sophia starts a thread. Everyone joins in. Result.
LOL! Of course. And there's nothing like pointing out a few errors for getting people to be highly defensive and start talking. Still, as I wrote to Rebeh..ELLE, my purpose is actually to make people think a little deeper than they are - not the norm which is make inane conversation to build the self esteem of others so that they can connect emotionally.
Rafini--All I can say is "Bravo"! You said all of the things that I wanted to say, but much more succintly and proficiently than I could have...but then, I've only had a high school education...
Sophia--Take this with a grain of salt, if you wish...I sincerely believe that you need to get a tad more "real life" experience in dealing with people.
Acadamia will only get you so far in life, but patronizing those around you will get you even less farther along...posting a thread like this to ridicule those who replied to your other thread, and supposedly show how much more intelligent YOU are, is just simply wrong.
Yes, that's my opinion, not a fact.
I've not went to a single class beyond high school, but even I know that highly educated people do not necessarily have all the answers...sometimes plain old common sense tops all...
Tamcor, I think you think I care more about the feelings of real live people than I care about the fact that the structure that supported a sophisticated civilization is failing fast because people's egos are now considered more important than the structure that supported and built civilization.
The question has far more depth than perceived by some.
To which I say..."Refer to my first comment"....
I'm sorry, but you are really coming off, to me, as more of an intellectual robot who prefers dealing in "facts" rather than a human being who's willing to deal with other people in a empathetic way.
No offense, but I don't know how to converse with you because of that, so I will leave this thread now.
I would just like to say that on a long haul flight I would be happy to sit next to Prettydarkhorse. I find her posts in the forums entertaining and interesting and she is polite with it.
Read between the lines if you wish.
People have to be trained in logic, sometimes called 'Critical Thinking'. The public educational system, does not do this.
Quotes from that topic.
"Well, I've been upset about these things for the past few days. I feel as if I'm the only one sometimes that remembers the words, "Consideration for others."
But thanks, for the input.
I also met someone today and we started talking and the topic came up, and it's not me. It's just that we live in a world which isn't quite the way it used to be.
Posted 39 hours ago replypermalinkreport
Joined: 6 months ago
Incidentally, I was just working for a few days at this company. thankfully I don't do it full time, but it has been difficult with the grumpiness around me. Also, not quite sure how to handle my neighbor.
Feel more cheerful now anyway. Thanks."
Regurgitate what a wonderful choice, of all the words in the dictionary.
Thank you Sophia at last you give me something to smile about.
my last response on these threads.
Sophia, from reading some responses on this and your other thread, I think it's apparent you must have extraordinarily difficult relationships. People didn't miss the point, people responded to a rhetorical question. Why is it that you must blame others and put them down to feel better about yourself? There's a dangerous downward spiral of unfulfilled expectations and relationships with the world around you when everything is seen from such an arrogant 'me against the world' perspective. We're all in this life together, so it helps to learn how to accept and get along with others. That's at the core of any civilization. Until you stop blaming others, it's simply how you choose to see your world.
Have you read Carl Jung? He's quite helpful in understanding the dynamics of human interactions.
Surprisingly, I have friendships of great depth around the world and many have much admiration for me. They seek me out. I don't mean that these are superficial friends. I mean that I can count on them when things go very wrong.
Also, everybody always comments on what an amazing relationship I have with my 25 year old daughter and how blessed I am to have the support of truly great people.
However, absolutely, when I put forward what I think on forums, in college classrooms, in synagogues or churches, I peeve the majority. The majority, of course, are concerned that what has been said injures them, not on the fact that what has been said is a flaw in society that needs to be fixed for the greater good.
And, yes, having read and studied Carl Jung, Abraham Maslow, Alfred Adler, Carl Rogers, Albert Ellis, Eric Fromm, RD Lang, Fritz Perls, and far too many others to mention, plus approximately 600 psychology and self help books, I know exactly what is going on. Why do you think I know exactly what to say in order to get a reaction?
I happen to think people need to start thinking because civilization is going down the tubes and that they need to get their minds off their feelings and ego and start examining things from a global point of view.. I say the things I do in order to make people angry enough to think.
why don't you put this info in your profile - then people will know EXACTLY what to expect when you start a misleading forum thread?
Read my hubs.
However, I take your point, and it is a good point. I always check what someone says on their profile before I respond to them.
I have to go out now, but I would be interested to know how you would word something like this.
If virtually everyone misunderstood, perhaps the post was written in a manner that was easy to misunderstand. Online writing does need to be extra clear because the format generally lends itself to casual reading.
Thank you 2uesday..
Sophia, but the topics here are all about human behavior (online behavior) and when you try to study human behavior it is not scientific, to some extent perhaps. (These field of studies are considered Social Sciences).
Even the post in question - the thread you opened which according to you is short of explaining what you want to know is not an exact science. I answered that since people live in a society, you don't have freedom, it is good if you comply - if not accept the consequences of not conforming.
The attempt to understand human behavior through these fields - psychology, sociology and anthropology (culture studies) is continuing and there is no formula for knowing why do people behave the way they do. To some extent there is prediction but it is not exact and accurate.
I gather that you always use deductive logic - All people in the forum are dumb. Prettydarkhorse is in the forum. Therefore, she is dumb.
The topics you mostly post are considered social sciences not exact science, so they are open to lots of answers/ideas from diff. people who have different lenses/perspective.
I believe that all people have something to share, and intelligence is hard to measure.
So who suppresses a constructive education?
Public education was fairly decent in the fifties. Then came the hippies who some might suggest were to well educated. They actually believed in human equality. Well that got changed to equal opportunity not equality. Some believe that the suppressive educational system is on purpose.
@Sophia, you posted an emotional attack post against everyone who responded to your previous post. They are responding in kind. As a writer in control of her messaging, this really should not surprise you.
Actually, I did NOT attack everyone. There were people that responded to the point of the question. I merely mentioned that there's a problem when the majority of people cannot read an essay question and determine meaning.
It was a simple comprehension exercise.
I think what always surprises me is how many people attack others when their ego is hurt because they didn't measure up in some ways. If someone tells me that I wrote something incorrectly, or that I didn't get the point, my response is, "Oh, I'm sorry. Forgive me. Let's put it down to my being an idiot."
The sheer inability and emotional intensity with which some responded is frightening. If one cannot deal objectively with something that one misunderstood, what hope is there for humanity.
I never speak about personal things, psycheskiner. I always, always deal with the big picture.
(psst: she has to pretend to be 'innocent' in order to get the response she wants = she's an attention seeker. pass it on.)
"Talk is cheap and money buys the whiskey."
It is novel. I hadn't heard it before. 'Talk walks and money rides' is what I had always heard.
Probably more South Africa or British English than American English. Either that, or it's gone out of favor. It was in common parlance half a century ago. And, yes, I am that old!
It depends on who you know. I've heard it many times in my life, but not so much recently.
I love aphorisms. Always appreciate hearing
a new one. And I am at least just as old, but never heard that one.
Society around me seems pretty healthy and positive. Perhaps it depends on the company one keeps?
Then again sometimes we might find the money in our shoe.
Now if any of you mention Hippocrates I could post you a picture of the plane tree.
come on, Sophia, this made me laugh, perhaps expand your circle of friends.
If almost everyone who reads something misunderstands it
(from the writer's point of view).Is it the writing that needs to be reviewed or the readers?
If the news on TV was given to us in a series of comments that could be 'taken/understood' in more than one way how confusing would that be? Especially if the next day the news reader said something like
"I just made yesterday's statements up, to get you to think about them."
Maybe it would have been helpful including a statement like-
'read (or imagine) the following scenarios (fictional) and tell me are they......
That way you might encourage the type of response required as you would be leading the reader to the simpler type of responses you might have been looking for.
Instead of the type replies that at times used empathy to respond.
Another way to get definitive answers is to put in a survey/question tick box way of answering.
I think when people respond with empathy they are demonstrating a quality that is very useful to the survival of the human race.
Maybe it was all about getting responding posts in the forums, and if so the whole thing has been a success.
There is such a gray area in things like this, how you percieve right or not right. It really depends on how the situation gets played out.
by Aya Katz3 years ago
I've often been accused of being arrogant, and it's usually by people who disagree with me about something. I've noticed that some of my favorite historical personages have also been accused of arrogance. What exactly...
by Person of Interest5 years ago
If you have nothing to contribute, please do so here.
by Pamda Man7 years ago
Some say 42. Why 42 anyway? Some say family. I go with 42.What's yours?Panda Man
by Whitney8 years ago
What's the difference between a break and breaking up?My interpretation was that a break was you're still technically together but you're spending time apart, whereas a break is that you're no longer together..
by Merlin Fraser6 years ago
I suppose it was an inevitable reaction to Stephen Hawking’s new Book ‘The Grand Design’ where he concluded that There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe.To me, it is...
by Deforest4 years ago
If we don't acknowledge the real criminals? If we don't punish Bush and his administration (his closest crime perpetrators Rumsfeld and Cheney)?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.