What do you bring to the internet?
- Thread starter the1ultimate
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm positive whilst at the same time acknowledging that humanity doesn't really appear to want to keep surviving or indeed want to fix any of it's mistakes.
In essence, I bring whatever education I've got so far with me, which I use to attempt to inform others, and if I get close to them, inspire them to take action on various societal issues.
This information comes from a perspective that might be described as "green democratic left". I believe in democracy, but also in protecting the environment and keeping welfare for all people. I believe that tax does play a part in society, and that the removal of it will disadvantage those with lower incomes, cutting off hard-won personal freedoms and human rights.
I am not religious, but rather a passionate agnostic. In this sense, I have grown perhaps impatient with the egotistical attitudes of both the religious and atheist sides of factual debate, which too often state that they know one way or another whether there is a God (the fact is, both are guesses, and I am not going to take one side because of probability or written work). However, the way I speak I read as an atheist much of the time, because I am critical of all theologies, and therefore believe that they have no place in science classrooms (they already have a place in religion classes, which are everywhere in religious schools anyway).
The only belief that some would describe as religious that I hold steadily is in the system of astrology, which has been given some degree of credence through correlations and statistical evidence provided by Gunter Sachs (and my personal experience of it working, which I value only for its consistency over years of work and study).
How do you think differently than everyone else?
Perhaps I display a higher awareness of sociological and media perspectives than is average. I also adore playing the devil's advocate, thinking from the view opposite to mine to test theories. Occasionally, I even argue from such a viewpoint merely to test it against other people's thinking. So, I rely on as many avenues as possible for the information I take to the table.
What makes you think differently?
Having casual teachers for parents has helped me to consider every medium for mental experiments, meaning I can understand the results of a particular stance, and how they differ between situations.
Provide some background on what deductive processes you use
Before responding, I will normally consider if:
- a person's view is informed by academic knowledge and/or science
- they display any obvious bias
- they have an adequate variety of knowledge flows (consuming multiple kinds of media, as well as from different sources, generally leads to a balancing effect, forcing critical thinking, which is why in the logical sense more is better)
- there is adequate logic in a response, and
- where the flaws in this logic are (if any) and what kind of flaws they are.
My approach to finding fallacies is simple. You start at the top, follow it along the sequence of ideas, and look for gaps, distractions, and of course false facts. Once you see these, you correct them. The result of the logic changes. So my approach is rational, but I keep room for empirical corrections if others have them.
Mention what you think about other people's opinions
All too often, people can rely on annotative evidence for their opinions. Alarm bells ring in my head if I hear the phrase: "my friend told me", or something similar, because if that is the only example provided, then there is an indication that a person is trusting a view on the face value of someone believing it. As far as I'm concerned, this is almost always a bad idea. The exception is when said person is a respected academic or scientist, though even they should be questioned within context (with consideration of the relevant literature).
Generalisation is definitely a big problem, no matter what internet forum you visit. The fact that a generalisation is a leap of logic that skips the necessary steps, like proving the premises of an opinion, seems to escape a lot of posters. If combined with a mob mentality, also common, the result can be damaging.
The implication that President Obama is a "socialist" is one example of this kind of combination. The fact that socialism has no link to Obama, the fact that his policies are not evocative of any kind of socialist literature, the fact that socialists do not specially endorse him since he's not left-wing enough, has not been investigated by the great mass of those believing this. Instead, the generalisation that left-wing people are easily lost to socialism or its ideals is applied to him as a left-leaning Democrat, and therefore he must be a socialist.
Worse, as this becomes a more popular opinion, people higher up begin to parrot it to garner precious newspaper sales or TV exposure, giving it so-called "expert" backup when there is no logical reason for it. This is the kind of fallacy that I make it my quest to question and refute.
This information comes from a perspective that might be described as "green democratic left". I believe in democracy, but also in protecting the environment and keeping welfare for all people. I believe that tax does play a part in society, and that the removal of it will disadvantage those with lower incomes, cutting off hard-won personal freedoms and human rights.
I am not religious, but rather a passionate agnostic. In this sense, I have grown perhaps impatient with the egotistical attitudes of both the religious and atheist sides of factual debate, which too often state that they know one way or another whether there is a God (the fact is, both are guesses, and I am not going to take one side because of probability or written work). However, the way I speak I read as an atheist much of the time, because I am critical of all theologies, and therefore believe that they have no place in science classrooms (they already have a place in religion classes, which are everywhere in religious schools anyway).
The only belief that some would describe as religious that I hold steadily is in the system of astrology, which has been given some degree of credence through correlations and statistical evidence provided by Gunter Sachs (and my personal experience of it working, which I value only for its consistency over years of work and study).
How do you think differently than everyone else?
Perhaps I display a higher awareness of sociological and media perspectives than is average. I also adore playing the devil's advocate, thinking from the view opposite to mine to test theories. Occasionally, I even argue from such a viewpoint merely to test it against other people's thinking. So, I rely on as many avenues as possible for the information I take to the table.
What makes you think differently?
Having casual teachers for parents has helped me to consider every medium for mental experiments, meaning I can understand the results of a particular stance, and how they differ between situations.
Provide some background on what deductive processes you use
Before responding, I will normally consider if:
- a person's view is informed by academic knowledge and/or science
- they display any obvious bias
- they have an adequate variety of knowledge flows (consuming multiple kinds of media, as well as from different sources, generally leads to a balancing effect, forcing critical thinking, which is why in the logical sense more is better)
- there is adequate logic in a response, and
- where the flaws in this logic are (if any) and what kind of flaws they are.
My approach to finding fallacies is simple. You start at the top, follow it along the sequence of ideas, and look for gaps, distractions, and of course false facts. Once you see these, you correct them. The result of the logic changes. So my approach is rational, but I keep room for empirical corrections if others have them.
Mention what you think about other people's opinions
All too often, people can rely on annotative evidence for their opinions. Alarm bells ring in my head if I hear the phrase: "my friend told me", or something similar, because if that is the only example provided, then there is an indication that a person is trusting a view on the face value of someone believing it. As far as I'm concerned, this is almost always a bad idea. The exception is when said person is a respected academic or scientist, though even they should be questioned within context (with consideration of the relevant literature).
Generalisation is definitely a big problem, no matter what internet forum you visit. The fact that a generalisation is a leap of logic that skips the necessary steps, like proving the premises of an opinion, seems to escape a lot of posters. If combined with a mob mentality, also common, the result can be damaging.
The implication that President Obama is a "socialist" is one example of this kind of combination. The fact that socialism has no link to Obama, the fact that his policies are not evocative of any kind of socialist literature, the fact that socialists do not specially endorse him since he's not left-wing enough, has not been investigated by the great mass of those believing this. Instead, the generalisation that left-wing people are easily lost to socialism or its ideals is applied to him as a left-leaning Democrat, and therefore he must be a socialist.
Worse, as this becomes a more popular opinion, people higher up begin to parrot it to garner precious newspaper sales or TV exposure, giving it so-called "expert" backup when there is no logical reason for it. This is the kind of fallacy that I make it my quest to question and refute.
I guess I bring my movie knowledge and apparently my humour. I didn't know I was funny until a couple of people on this site pointed it out. So that, I guess.
I also bring the ability to link to other sites for comedic purposes. For instance I link to Cracked.com if a thread topic resembles an article on that site and I link to XKCD.com or PBFcomics.com or VGcats.com among others if one of their comics are relevant to the thread as well.
I also bring the ability to link to other sites for comedic purposes. For instance I link to Cracked.com if a thread topic resembles an article on that site and I link to XKCD.com or PBFcomics.com or VGcats.com among others if one of their comics are relevant to the thread as well.
How very goal-oriented. Judging by your post count I'd say you are primarily an observer as well. A goal-oriented observer.Issalius said:
For shame! You are incredibly ill-equipped to be here.matthew_lane said:
I bring a fence to sit on and enough ammo to lob at one or two topics that interest me at the time. I try not to let bias get in my way and dish out my net based rage/opinion at whatever feels good at the moment. Every now and then I come across a good conversation and contribute in a good way. However those are far and few between. So mostly I bring the lulz.
I just post my opinion on these sorts of things and then leave to do something else. Other members seem to enjoy my posts, so I guess I can bring that aspect to here. I just enjoy what I do on this website so I'll keep on going in much the same way as I have always been.
In terms of threads, I have three ones which bring the ability to post recipes, videos of yourself playing music, and a community map to access all of the more used threads through it. It's not much, but it's something.
In terms of threads, I have three ones which bring the ability to post recipes, videos of yourself playing music, and a community map to access all of the more used threads through it. It's not much, but it's something.
Nothing, because there is nothing on the Internet that has not been already done, and if it hasn't been already done, then it is being done now on /b/ as we speak.
I guess I bring cynicism.. That's about it.
I guess I bring cynicism.. That's about it.
