Kinks to Work Out

[Thought]

I've never been good at giving criticism...

No offense intended to anyone else who has posted, but I dare say that yours has been the most insightful and best put criticism thus far.

[Lord J Esq]

It's one thing if you don't get along with them, but it's another to purposely call them out, and appear as if you're daring them to respond.

What you point out here, it comes from an interesting place. You are perhaps familiar with my discomfort at being flattered or agreed with, and certainly you are familiar with my discomfort at not being agreed with--that is, with people failing to see the merit of my points. This personal contradiction is plausibly a personality flaw, and it's also plausibly a reflection of the fact that very few people meet my personal standards for intellectual excellence. (And the two are not mutually exclusive.) When somebody agrees with me with less underlying command of the fundamentals, do they really understand what they're saying? And when somebody agrees with me at all, it only highlights the imperfections in my own conceptualizations, because I can spot those weak spots more easily by triangulating them with my point of view and somebody else's.

What I hope for, and seldom get--but more often than never, notably--is to push people into outdoing themselves, more than they otherwise would have. It happens sometimes. Even at the Compendium. People occasionally write some of their best posts in reply to something I said. To be perfectly honest, some people sometimes work better under pressure--under challenge, under confrontation.

Also, there are two other crucial considerations: people's merits, and the requirements of my philosophy.

My philosophy demands both sincerity and forthrightness whenever viable, and strongly encourages self-expression. The problem with "getting along" is that our entire society is warped around the idea that people's problems should be ignored or accepted rather than pointed out. What if somebody doesn't understand the socioeconomic ramifications of a flat tax? Do we agree to disagree, or do we hash out the point? And if the latter, why should it stop at politics? If somebody doesn't realize how many resources they are using up, why not point it out? If somebody is religious, why not tell them the problems with that?

If I call someone a sexist, it is their choice--and the choice of all observers--how to interpret that. From my perspective, I know a couple of things that others don't have the privilege of knowing for certain: I know the complaint is legitimate, and I know I don't intend any ill. In the absence of that knowledge, people's interpretations of criticism usually tends to be defensive, and often combative. A "personal attack," a "rude" criticism, an "ideological allegation." Et cetera. Those are some of the reactions people have to such a criticism. O, how seldom they stop to ponder that maybe a thing is simply true and has no need for any inclusion of the ego. Indeed, such a reaction occurs so seldom that I have cause to question whether direct confrontation is actually suitable as one of several main tactics of criticism that I routinely employ.

The impasse is caused by people's poor discipline of open-mindedness. In complacency they have no need to broaden their horizons and under scrutiny they are distracted by their egos. This kind of behavior is childish and ought not to be tolerated, even if it fosters smoother social discourse. Ultimately, such relative peace is an obstacle to the establishment of a truly harmonious society, where people get along by understanding each other rather than protecting themselves.

I know I've hit many snags and hiccups in my journey to figure out how best to engage people, and of course there's no one policy that fits everyone. But, my own stylistic, social, and methodological limitations notwithstanding, I think there's a mandate for making criticisms. Human beings are extraordinary creatures who, when they want to, have a tremendous capacity for understanding things.

If you think most people to be mooks that you're unwilling/unwanting to engage with, then what is the purpose of your philosophy?

Meaning.

It benefits few other than yourself if you're not willing to take on the tedious task of engaging with people you consider mooks. Indeed, if you want to change the world, you will have to learn.

You are probably correct. In essence you are rephrasing something I said in my original post, although I presented it in the form of a dilemma and you seem to be coming down on the side of potentially compromising either myself or my philosophy in order to have a wider reach.

You do have a good philosophy, what small portion I know of it. But there's a serious difference between "mollycoddling" and antagonizing people on purpose, and your initial post is a good example of that. You want to find a way to resolve these concerns without compromising your philosophy, while some people might dismiss your philosophy on account of perceived rudeness alone.

Though your point is stylistic, it's an excellent one and one I am well aware of.

When I'm trying to engage with people critically, I have three modes of operation. The dialectic I reserve for people whom I respect considerably or people who are otherwise ready and able to participate therein. That mode isn't relevant here. The other two relate to each other with regard to their engagement of the audience's egos. When I want to focus on concepts and foster agreement, and sometimes when I want to point out gross shortcomings in specific people, I adopt my version of a Carl Sagan stance: broad-minded, tolerant, optimistic, kind, and encouraging. You see that in some Compendium threads. When I want to push people's personal boundaries, or sometimes when I want to point out their gross shortcomings, or simply learn more about them, I often take a provocative stance. I usually make all my same arguments as before (although often in less detail), but additionally I give people every opportunity to demonstrate their control and color of their own egos. My dad once told a story of some invaluable life advice he'd learned: When you're right you never need to blow your stack, and when you're wrong you never should. That excellent lesson generalizes well. There's no reason to get hung up in a Lord J Esq argument. Don't take the bait. Stick to the points. Demonstrate maturity and a razor-focus on the issues. But, of course, people rarely take that tack. They become belligerent.

Now, it might seem obvious that, to better popularize my philosophy, I should simply do away with that mode of engaging people. Possibly this is even correct. However, those provocative experiences are not simply useful for me. The people on the other end often learn from them too. And, though short-term victories are elusive, I have discovered that I can enjoy some long-term success in changing people's minds this way. The presence of someone like myself, who is both very solidly grounded on the issues he argues, but also aggressive and critical, has a way of sometimes kick-starting people into a path of intellectual exploration whereby they eventually do open their minds a bit and adopt some new viewpoints. They of course retain other weaknesses of character, but the achievement stands out anyway.

I do it out of goodwill, if you can imagine that. Unlike a troll, whose sole purpose is to get a rise out of people, I derive little or no enjoyment from watching people embarrass themselves arguing with me. And, also unlike a troll, I make valid points. Indeed, the only thing that makes me stand out is that my philosophy, and my personal style, is one of the few around that acknowledges the fact that intellectualism is not separate from the sensibilities, and a mastery of the self requires reconciling the ego with the will. Frankly, I see a lot of potential along this road, and ideally I would like to hone my ability to provoke people productively, rather than not provoke them at all.

You call out ZeaLity, Tushantin, Ramsus, and Daniel Krispin, then turn around and pass out a sort of backhanded compliment. Tushantin seems to have taken it in stride, though I still cringe to read the way you announce your feuds with little concern for others.

First I will acknowledge your point of view, in which my mentioning other Compendiumites strikes you as rude and indiscreet. You're probably not the only one who feels that way.

But as for why I do things like that...

They make an excellent illustration of the dilemma I described in my original post. All four of them are intelligent people who got upset with me for something or another that I said. In three of their cases, excepting Ramsus, their upset is the result of failures in their own character and has nothing to do with me any more than it is the pebble's fault when one stubs their toe. Ideally, they should be among the people who are participating in my philosophy project, but they won't be because I've repulsed them and because they disappoint me in turn, sapping my own desire to reach out to them. However, though their faults are their own, if I am to popularize my philosophy then it is my responsibility to interact better with people who have big problems. That's at the heart of why I posted this thread.

Now, as for your distaste at my using live human beings to illustrate my examples, I don't really think you have a valid point. You're implying here is that dishonesty is acceptable when done in the name of discretion. That's unacceptable on two counts.

First, as far as discretion goes, I would not divulge any secrets they have confided in me. I have no wish at all to harm them or even to make them feel bad (although I sometimes have made them feel bad despite not desiring to do so). I want to keep any exploitation of them professional. There are many things I could say about them but will not. Indeed, you and I have had conversations in private that I can't permit myself to point out here to illustrate my claim. I have been and will be discreet even if I choose not to be passive. Only in Daniel Krispin's case have I ever strayed clearly into the realm of "this isn't helping anyone," and even then only occasionally. (His virtues and affable qualities aside, he's got a lot of screwed up ideology.)

Second, people waive some of their privacy when they participate in public discussion. I think it's weasel behavior when people preface their criticism with copouts like "Some people--I'm not going to name names--have been..." Are we so frail that we cannot be held accountable for our words and conduct? Are our egos so volatile or delicate that we must persist in this massive cultural lie of omission? Something I've never been very good at is playing these parlor games of social status. If Rushingwind witnesses Lord J Esq criticize tushantin in a way she deems rude...how is that any worse or better than it would have been if she had not been aware of the criticism because Lord J Esq had left tushantin's name out? Surely if you find my criticism unworthy you will not think any less of the person targeted by that criticism. He loses no status in your eyes. And if you actually do find the criticism to be worthy, then he only loses the amount of status they never deserved to begin with. Meanwhile, the integrity of the status in which you hold him, and the perceived merit of my criticism to you, are both subject to your own integrity and informedness on the matters under discussion. They are relative and ultimately only partially connected to the issues! Who really cares who holds whom in what regard? Friendships transcend that rubbish as surely as acquaintanceships undermine themselves by relying on it. By mentioning specific people in discussing an issue like my own personal development and efforts to share my philosophy, all I'm really doing is honestly associating some of my thoughts with the experiential particulars when they arose, and, in a setting like this, creating common ties for other people to seize upon. Since you have had interactions with at least two of the four people I mentioned, you can better understand where I myself am coming from when I mention their names. It helps me. It helps you. It doesn't hurt them. And this is, after all, a discussion forum consisting of real people. Why should we only acknowledge that when we have something unabashedly pleasant to say? So that we can preserve a petty peace? What does that achieve? Maybe if we all acted a little more grown up, interesting things would happen.

(Tangent: I don't have "feuds" with ZeaLitY, tushantin, or Ramsus, and since Daniel Krispin's departure my feud with him is in the past.)

Antagonizing people is just not constructive. So why would you engage in pointless, non-constructive activity, even if it's just an offhand comment? That's not in keeping with the presence of mind you've claimed to possess in your many posts.

Hopefully this is explained by the above. But if I may use it to return to the underlying problem of how to better share my philosophy, I should like to point out that some ways of antagonizing people are not constructive. But others are, and I have a lot to learn about which is which.

It's just that I perceive that your "blind spots" are not as narrow as you believe (which is true for a wide swath of people).

You know what? Notwithstanding your sentences immediately following this one, you may be right. I may have blind spots I am not aware of. And I always welcome their illustration to me, especially by a friend like you who understands me reasonably well. And I ask you forgive me if I push back when I shouldn't because even I--someone who has far better ego control than most people even despite having a very powerful ego--am not immune to the foibles and flaws of character I have described herein and elsewhere.

You do antagonize people here on the Compendium, even if unintentionally. You are rude when it is unnecessary. I suppose you and I may differ on whether or not those things constitute inappropriate behavior, or even on the nature of these things.

All I can say, in addition to the above paragraphs concerning this point, is that I can sometimes be too brusque. It's the natural and unfortunate consequence of the triple facts that most people don't react well to criticism, yet deserve a great deal of it, all while I might approach the provision of such criticism with my own social shortcomings. This thread is well-served by people like you dropping in to point out things like this, for I could always use the reminder--and any specifics you care to offer.

From my point of view, however, you should make some attempt to relate to people on terms that this world considers appropriate (if you ever want to be heard, that is, and I assume you do).

That's part of the rub. My philosophy does not make the assumption that world opinion has any credibility. Do you ever wonder why utopia remains so elusive even though we have the material base for it today? It's the human component. So many philosophers and leaders before me have failed in their goals, or fallen far short, because they didn't understand human nature well enough--and because human nature has a lot of problems. I don't actually expect to achieve the enlightened society I prescribe, but what I do intend to achieve is a clear illustration of why we shall have fallen short, if indeed we do, so that people of sound mind can understand what tasks lie ahead of them.

You're talking about the interface. Even the best philosophy in the world won't connect with people if it doesn't anticipate and accommodate the "wavelengths" to which people are variously receptive. My philosophy is extensively concerned with how people will perceive it, because I recognize the importance of that perception. Nevertheless, it cannot be beholden to suppositions and preconceptions that aren't valid. This is the philosophy's extension of my own personal dilemma of how to interact with people who get in the way when they really should be valued participants.

And I imagine that your philosophy project wouldn't be so important to you if you didn't want to share it with the world at large and have it heard by many people, which was the impression I'd always had.

This is not nearly as straightforward as it seems. The bottom line is that I want to share my philosophy with "the world" because that way lies the power to change things for everybody. There's a bit of language I haven't been very tight with as yet in this thread, although I've been hewing more closely with this post: "sharing" my philosophy versus "popularizing" it. In practical terms, the latter is necessary to optimize the former, but the latter is not itself the goal. We all do carry our formative influences from childhood with us, and one of mine was that I was not accepted as a kid. As a result, I have learned not to feed on popularity. And I've come out the better for it, because I see how that ubiquitous need for validation gets in people's ways all the time. I wish I could touch the minds of all the world, but the reality is that I can't. And I'm prepared to accept that some people, who may nominally be reachable, pragmatically aren't. I don't take it personally. I've never been everybody's friend and I don't plan to start.

The philosophy needs to go out far and wide so that it can reach the people who genuinely are receptive to it. It's not going to be the masses who change the world. It's going to be the masses who allow the elitists to change the world. My philosophy applies to everybody, but it isn't intended to become Mao's little red book. It's intended to be willingly adopted by those to whom it appeals--a minority of the population.

How could it be any other way? Many people are dead ends. Not necessarily "mooks," although many of them fit that unfortunate bill. Lots of people are born into this world with every disadvantage. Civilization doesn't fit everyone, and societies and families do a poor job of grooming feral animals into responsible citizens. Many people alive are already a loss, because their minds are too firmly set, absent the interference of powerful medication which mostly does not yet exist, and in the meanwhile anything short of threatening them with superior force is not going to make any impact on their views. And, with that recourse, some of them will threaten back!

A good philosophy must invite the participation of those who want to be a part of it, and provide a comfortable, protective, and opportunity-rich world for most everyone else. (I say "most" because some people deserve the death penalty and escape it only through the world's present injustices. Sajainta's story reminds us so vividly that human traffickers are among those numbers.)

If you can't interact genially with common people, your project will never get off the ground.

Thankfully I can interact genially, with everyone, and if it becomes clear to me that that way lies success, then I will do it. That's another part of the heart of this thread. I want people to give me not only their views on my dilemma (and me personally if it's relevant) but to do so with vigor and substance.

("Vigor and Substance" sounds like the best salad dressing name ever. Branching out into my line of home condiments, "Spice and Mettle" would make a good salsa. And "Peaches Galore Supreme" might describe a certain Rushingwind-inspired cobbler that we have been enjoying at the mountain lately.)

I also disagree with your point that it's proper to be nicer to strangers than acquaintances, as it's your acquaintances who stand the highest chance of helping you with your project, than say... oh, some stranger on the street.

That's probably true. The reason I have the policy I do is that a civil society must achieve courtesy between strangers. Acquaintances, however, do not require it. Because courtesy often interferes with the interactions between acquaintances, I am not willing to prescribe it as a general policy for acquaintances.

Thank you for your comments, and I welcome more if you have more to say. I did not expect such a harsh response from you and I find your perspective informative and helpful. Thank you again.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

I've never been good at giving criticism...

No offense intended to anyone else who has posted, but I dare say that yours has been the most insightful and best put criticism thus far.

I think I get to be the one to decide that! This is the Josh Welfare Thread after all. =)

[tushantin]

This personal contradiction is plausibly a personality flaw, and it's also plausibly a reflection of the fact that very few people meet my personal standards for intellectual excellence.

Ehh... *pouts* I wish I could argue with that statement.

People occasionally write some of their best posts in reply to something I said. To be perfectly honest, some people sometimes work better under pressure--under challenge, under confrontation.

Yes, "some people", like Z or FW or Lennis or Syna, and sometimes me. But as RW says, to an average joe, no offense but, you sound like a douche. To the highly tolerant (and by highly I mean extremely) your opinions have great value.

And RW is right; I'm actually looking forward to your philosophy, but I'm also pondering how effective it would be on my brother. I we knew ya in RL, your antagonistic points might make people not care, in turn making my brother flick a middle finger at you and get back to self-destruction.

Just to clarify, I don't mean to offend you, but I am pointing out the consequences based on the views of an average joe. They may not be intelligent, but they aren't idiots either. They wouldn't respect the views of those that don't respect them, it's as simple as that.

If somebody is religious, why not tell them the problems with that?

See, the problem with resources, politics and taxes is that it's a national thing and it becomes mandatory for every national citizen to get involved. But "religion" is either social and/or personal, and that doesn't require the interference from a third party unless the religious go out of their way to harm someone. It's the same thing as how you wouldn't want someone to interfere with your breakfast. Unless there is a criminal tendency in certain sectors, such as discrimination, undermining, sacrifices, etc. it is wrong to get involved.

Secondly, you probably don't know how the Belief system works in relevant to the mind (this isn't a topic to discuss that, so I'll explain some other time). In simplest ideas, beliefs either define an individual's core principles (but not necessarily corrupting it) of thought or it uses a system of data compression to convert validated information into axioms. In this case, I'v always warned you about being stuck in the realms of "Black or White" where you think that if one is wrong then the other should be right, which in turn creates tribalistic point of view. What you think others want is leave people in their self-created bubbles; what you want is to break that bubble and help people face reality. There are negative consequences to both: the first will render them incapable of coping with harsh reality, while the other will break the person or hurt their emotions, in turn making them hate you or driving them to suicide (yeah, it's happened with me -- I regret my actions, and I will redeem for that loss of life, even if it takes an eternity). No, there's always several "grey areas" to look at, each of them consisting of the best of both worlds but you need an eye to spot them. Be like a sly devil; be subtle, be convincing, be tactful (frankly, I don't have tact). And most importantly, embrace those differences. Just because thoughts are different doesn't mean they ought to be ignored. There's a reason why people stick to ideas contradicting yours: there's bound to be something good about it, even if all you see is the bad stuff.

If I call someone a sexist, it is their choice--and the choice of all observers--how to interpret that.

In the absence of that knowledge, people's interpretations of criticism usually tends to be defensive, and often combative. A "personal attack," a "rude" criticism, an "ideological allegation." Et cetera.

*chuckles* No, Josh. When you call someone a sexist it's an insult, even if you don't mean it in an extreme fashion. It seems you're even more tactless than I am. You might know a lot of words and may have mastered language, but apparently you don't know the psychology behind that language. It all depends on how you arrange those words that counts, not how honest you are. It's amazing how the Ancient Hebrews and Indus realized that several thousand years ago, but even today we're struggling with it; that's cultural intelligence for you.

Here is a demo: Power of Words.

There's a phrase that goes around in cultures: "Too smart is half stupid". I think that's fairly true, and applies to both me and you (thus we are both mooks). Remember that intelligent debates only stick with intelligent people, while for the rest it's like, "Hey, I saw this cool stuff the other day, and it means a lot!" Yeah. The difference between them and you is that they care more about socializing and exploring the intrigue in that manner, while you seem to be stuck in Survival Mode of debates, always ready for the validity of your unintentional offenses.   Know how words can invoke what emotions, and you become a master in mind-control.

I know that's rich coming from me, what with me unintentionally offending everyone I know, but I have an info to share and that's what matters... I guess...

The impasse is caused by people's poor discipline of open-mindedness. In complacency they have no need to broaden their horizons and under scrutiny they are distracted by their egos. This kind of behavior is childish and ought not to be tolerated, even if it fosters smoother social discourse. Ultimately, such relative peace is an obstacle to the establishment of a truly harmonious society, where people get along by understanding each other rather than protecting themselves.

While the first part of this point is true, I sort of disagree with the latter half.

Firstly, yes, people are often distracted by their egos. But even for those that aren't, your methods are bound to hurt people's sentiments still. See, there's a time and place for everything in our world, and I've learned this the hard way. You use methods that are brilliant in a discussion room but are completely pointless in a social, empathetic field, no it's natural a lot of people would disagree with you, no matter how right you are, and accuse you for being an asshole. (Not that they aren't wrong either, but in this statement I'd like to point out your flaws before moving on to the others; I'm not that Black or White guy, and being an Indian, my skin-tone is fairly in between. Hey, there's a symbolic matter to my existence and beliefs!)

But, my own stylistic, social, and methodological limitations notwithstanding, I think there's a mandate for making criticisms. Human beings are extraordinary creatures who, when they want to, have a tremendous capacity for understanding things.

XDDD If that's the case, then dude, just go live in the White House and never come out! (Yes, there's a criticism and a complement in there. A new record!)

My dad once told a story of some invaluable life advice he'd learned: When you're right you never need to blow your stack, and when you're wrong you never should. That excellent lesson generalizes well. There's no reason to get hung up in a Lord J Esq argument. Don't take the bait. Stick to the points. Demonstrate maturity and a razor-focus on the issues. But, of course, people rarely take that tack. They become belligerent.

That's an excellent advise! But others don't know it, do they? The people have something simpler. You provoke them with a challenge, they'll be ready for it. It may be stupid in certain conditions, but that's the beauty of humanity. It shows that despite all flaws, Springtime of Youth is also hard-wired within us!

The presence of someone like myself, who is both very solidly grounded on the issues he argues, but also aggressive and critical, has a way of sometimes kick-starting people into a path of intellectual exploration whereby they eventually do open their minds a bit and adopt some new viewpoints. They of course retain other weaknesses of character, but the achievement stands out anyway.

I do it out of goodwill, if you can imagine that.

That's what I love about this guy, and that's what a character in my novel is based on!   But please, do understand what RW says: you don't need to hurt people's feelings for that.

I mean, being nice doesn't necessarily mean you have to be dishonest. Know the difference.

In three of their cases, excepting Ramsus, their upset is the result of failures in their own character and has nothing to do with me any more than it is the pebble's fault when one stubs their toe. Ideally, they should be among the people who are participating in my philosophy project, but they won't be because I've repulsed them and because they disappoint me in turn, sapping my own desire to reach out to them. However, though their faults are their own, if I am to popularize my philosophy then it is my responsibility to interact better with people who have big problems.

...And this is what I don't like about this guy (but a trait I still keep for the character in my novel for crucial development): egoistically blind.

Who really cares who holds whom in what regard? Friendships transcend that rubbish as surely as acquaintanceships undermine themselves by relying on it.

Exactly (this statement... I love it! Probably might save this to Evernote). But do note the society, those acquaintances, that are fairly larger than the circle of friends you have. There's this problem in our society that if four mad men point at a sane man and call him mad, it's the sane man that gets take away. Regardless of evidence, if a rumor goes around that a person was caught being infidel, although his family and friends would know better but his acquaintances and other strangers would rely on that false knowledge and thus the person's social position is undermined and he is defamed.

This is one of those real battles I plan on undertaking, even if this flaw exists due to our physical limitations, even if our speedy evolution and progress depends on this flaw: People take knowledge for granted.

But if I may use it to return to the underlying problem of how to better share my philosophy, I should like to point out that some ways of antagonizing people are not constructive. But others are, and I have a lot to learn about which is which.

It's not just about "some ways" but also "some people". Remember: Human beings have a base reaction to things, but individuals have their own separate reflexes depending on what environs hone their what abilities. I admit I'm straightforward, but I'm not as straight-forward as you. In business, I take your stance by pointing out what's right and wrong. In social life, I make conversations and study a person and their backgrounds before debating on anything or providing criticisms, only because I know that these acquaintances could prove useful to me in a long run. I find myself debating and arguing with a Christian friend, who I admit is one of the most open minded people in the world (yeah, even more so than you -- don't be surprised), but when I was about to talk about meritocracy to a journalist friend I instantly took it back and said, "nothing, I forgot" only because I made a miscalculation on her character. She was intelligent in her work, but not knowledgeable or open enough to discuss about the topic, and I found this out by analyzing her thought patterns.

Unfortunately, I can't read people's minds like that on the internet.  

I would also like to point out when you said that people react weirdly to criticism even though they deserve it. First, I could ask you, "Who are you to decide who deserves what?" See the problem here: many people criticize for the weirdest reasons, regardless wether it's right or wrong, but their own opinions are right (read, Rise Of The Mooks). The problem persists with what knowledge we have and what knowledge we don't have, and with varied criticisms that simply don't make sense would eventually drive a person to annoyance (this is something I learned while studying Kabbalah, Sefer Yetsirah, and Psychology).

I will be brief on this point (don't want to waste too much time on this). The method of argument you choose sounds excellent in paper, is excellent in systematic debates in courts, companies, organizations, etc. but is mostly useless in social welfare. There are different methods of criticism in their respective fields, and a smart bloke like you ought to exploit that. Provoking and intimidating people in general would make them naturally hate you, because whether or not you mean the things you say it also undermines their prestige, and it doesn't even matter if you're right.

So yeah, research on what methods of criticism works best in what field. We have wars today purely because of this, and this is exactly why you guys have so much hate in America and Middle East.

...because even I--someone who has far better ego control than most people even despite having a very powerful ego--am not immune to the foibles and flaws of character I have described herein and elsewhere.

You're not the first to think that you have "better Ego control than average people" (majority of the people say exactly the same thing, a situation that is contradictory to what you and they say), and I do see your air-tight control leaking but, in this case, I'll take your word for it. You have demonstrated your unique tolerance, patience and open-mindedness without interference from your ego, and that is something admirable. But despite that, you aren't perfect and still fall victim to the same flaw you try to eradicate. Then again, nobody's perfect (and people call me nobody; how ironic )


Gah!! I took almost THREE FRIGGIN HOURS to write all this! I don't believe it! x_x" My time's too precious. I might reply to the latter half later. It's strange, though. Those posts from RW and Lord J were awesome, just because it made me find strength in areas I never you I had in me. I knew I was intelligent, but I never knew I was this analytic. Guess reading Sherlock Holmes too much makes people smart. But as a closing passage, I'd like to drop one point, my own observations.

As you guys (don't) know, today is Ganesh Visarjan where we say farewell to our Lord (or at least their Lord -- I respect the idol, but don't worship it) with a promise that he will be welcomed again next year. I stood on the terrace/roof of our building and watched the parade of idols and men march to a nearby lake, river or sea to see the Lord off, and a smile appeared on my face. I could sort of read the thoughts of every civilian dancing in the streets. I pondered what Z or Lord J would think of this people, but I instantly knew the moment I asked. If you guys were here watching with me, Lord J would call it a parade of mooks, RW would probably giggle, Syna would watch the parade in joyous intrigue (or even join them), Z would scratch his head and go back to fixing his resume, etc. But me? I saw them as these people as the most brilliant people in the planet.

Perhaps because there are so many things that intrigues me about them. Perhaps because there are depths to Indian Religion that even I could never fathom. Five years ago I hated my nation for its inferiority to many countries like US and UK based on material quality of life and law. Today, I learned to see things subjectively, and I also realize that America (and other nations) is still fighting a strange social situation that India has already resolved a hundred years ago, which makes India socially, ethically and culturally superior to the majority of nations in the world. I grew to love my country in ways I never thought.

And I understood one interesting thing. Almost everything Lord J or someone else says has a worldly, stringent definition but words do not remain the same the moment they enter someone else's mind. This explains why misinterpretation is common, why there are disputes, etc. but I can also see the beauty beyond this tragedy. This morphing meanings has nothing to do with people's ego, but their bias, and it brings colors to our bland world. For instance, Josh and Z reject the term "Destiny" as a magical garbage, but I accept it though I admit it is "magical". But the definition morphs immensely: they see "Destiny" as a predetermined future, while I see Destiny as a predetermined past that leads to and gives clues to uncertainty. And I realize that my existence was never with the world in the first place. Rather, it is beyond it.

For many people see that Ganesh parade from the surface. But I see that beautiful core beneath that surface. Many people walk past a muddy soil, judge it by its color and relevance, and move on. Me? I find gold within it.

And by digging deeper, I also realize that my battle was never against the simple problems that we face today. Yes, I fight to make people better, yes I fight to make their lives better, but there's also a hidden picture. Apparently, my battle is not against slavery, orthodox, racism, sexism, terrorism, narrow-mindedness, government, etc. There are other, better people to handle all that.

No, my battle is against imbalance. My battle is against hatred. My battle is against apathy. My battle is against Capitalism, Economy and Consumerism. It is a battle, I fear, I'm bound to lose...

[ZeaLitY]

unless the religious go out of their way to harm someone.

By passively existing, most religious people reduce the potential of humanity in some way. Without religion, there is more impetus for higher ethical reasoning and more focus on there here and now, and improving this world instead of wasting time reading scriptures just to get into the non-existent next.

[tushantin]

unless the religious go out of their way to harm someone.

By passively existing, most religious people reduce the potential of humanity in some way. Without religion, there is more impetus for higher ethical reasoning and more focus on there here and now, and improving this world instead of wasting time reading scriptures just to get into the non-existent next.

I'm not going to argue with this, but I'm not going to agree with this either. There is some ignorance pertaining to the human mind and its working on your behalf, how it correlates with society and how are the effects to and back. Instead, I know better to march on the path I deem correct. Nevertheless, you have an awesome path to follow and I have mine, though I will support you somehow or the other in your times of need. 

[Lord J Esq]

People occasionally write some of their best posts in reply to something I said. To be perfectly honest, some people sometimes work better under pressure--under challenge, under confrontation.

Yes, "some people", like Z or FW or Lennis or Syna, and sometimes me. But as RW says, to an average joe, no offense but, you sound like a douche.

Nevertheless, my comment is correct. You should do better to contemplate that. If a person resents someone else for inspiring them to move toward excellence, their resentment is their own fault. We should all aspire to make no distinction in our personal reactions between wild praise, searing insults, and every compliment and criticism in between.

Besides, it’s not as though I purposely go out of my way to give people a hard time. I don’t break into people’s homes and scour their drawers for evidence of shortcomings. People bring criticism upon themselves by coming out and making unmerited assertions in public. Anyone who wants to participate in the public dialogue must be prepared to encounter the responses of others. The only alternative is to keep quiet.

I am pointing out the consequences based on the views of an average joe. They may not be intelligent, but they aren't idiots either. They wouldn't respect the views of those that don't respect them, it's as simple as that.

You give me an opportunity here to clarify something I didn’t do a good job of articulating yesterday. (That might be a theme in this post.) The exact criteria of “idiocy” aside, it is ignorant and self-absorbed for a person to refuse to respect the views of those who don’t respect them in return. Indeed, that is one of the basic forms of corruption. If a person will only grant their favors and their attention to those who bring them flattery and praise, they are corrupt. That is a flaw worth correcting.

Perhaps you were talking about true respect and not “flattery and praise,” in which case the corruption may not be present but the underlying pettiness is. Part of being a mature human being is to dissociate matters of the ego from matters of fact. The respect shared between individuals has no bearing at all on the merits of any logical, scientific, or artistic points under consideration.

I am speaking observationally. You were speaking pragmatically, by offering the opinion that I’ll encounter more popularity and agreement if I anoint people in the mellifluous oil. That may be correct. It also may be incorrect. I am working on it.

See, the problem with resources, politics and taxes is that it's a national thing and it becomes mandatory for every national citizen to get involved. But "religion" is either social and/or personal...

I wish it were that easy, but in the United States there is a major political force of fundamentalist Christians who seek to dominate the entire society, and the practical ramifications of their policies affect all of us on a daily basis—some much worse than others.

People who wish to hold their religious views in private won’t get much, if any, antagonism from me. However much I disagree with religion, self-determining people have a right to decide this stuff for themselves—and not just a right under the Constitution, but under my own philosophy. The caveat is that religion belongs in the privacy of one’s own home and house of worship. There must be no impositions in the public square or the private economy. No attempts to theocratize the government. No harassing other citizens.

When people do impose their religious views in public, then the sanctity of those beliefs is forfeit and they are subject to the full scrutiny of a diligent citizenry.

Secondly, you probably don't know how the Belief system works in relevant to the mind (this isn't a topic to discuss that, so I'll explain some other time).

I understand this lovey-dovey stuff a lot more firmly than you give me credit for, likely more firmly than you do. I certainly have not wanted for exposure to it, and I have intentionally sought to come as a guest and share in the experiences of others so that I might better comprehend this portion of many people’s existence. Just because I don’t value something does not mean I don’t understand it. On the contrary, I would not make an enemy of that which I do not understand. That’s why, for example, I don’t speak about Hinduism as much as I speak about Christianity. My understanding is lower, and I have fewer avenues to make criticisms. What I do understand of it, I dislike almost as much as the Abrahamic dogmas. But I cannot yet speak to the entire religion.

In this case, I'v always warned you about being stuck in the realms of "Black or White" where you think that if one is wrong then the other should be right, which in turn creates tribalistic point of view.

You’ve warned me about this because your perception that I could use the warning is faulty. Consistently you illustrate a straw Josh who understands far, far less than the real one.

*chuckles* No, Josh. When you call someone a sexist it's an insult, even if you don't mean it in an extreme fashion.

“Sexist” is not only a pejorative but an observation, like hair color. Whether or not the recipient of the label takes offense to it is meaningless with regard to the accuracy of the label, and I never use that label unless I have just cause.

Sexism is odious. All of us possess some measure of it. People differ in their desire to possess more or less of it, or their apathy thereto, and in the severity of those failings both ideologically and in practice.

By default it is always worth pointing out people’s sexism unless there is specific and powerful reason not to do so. The only question is how to go about doing it from person to person.

Your culturally-based affirmations of sexism, and your opposition to the agencies of sexual equality, is beneath you—especially since you speak in the abstract about your opposition to sexism, with sincerity.

It all depends on how you arrange those words that counts, not how honest you are.

Which is precisely what I have said.

You might know a lot of words and may have mastered language, but apparently you don't know the psychology behind that language.

Your criticisms that I don’t understand this and that are becoming repetitive in their erroneousness. Perhaps this is because I have seldom taken the time to reply to your encroaching criticisms in fuller detail, as my involvement at the Compendium has been limited since your arrival here, and, in the absence of clarifications and rebuttals, you have assumed your initial views were correct and built upon them. Or perhaps it is simply that you do not know whereof you speak in the first place, which is more commonly correct when people make this mistake with me.

I will be quick to tell you about the many things I do not know, sometimes to my chagrin, but when people casually assert that I do not know about things which in fact I know very well, I look for the basis in those assertions—as it is in my interest to do. And what do I find? Very uncommon it is that these assertions have any merit.

This poses a problem for both me and the other party. It increases the noise that I have to sift through to find useful criticisms, and it makes me much likelier to dismiss your subsequent views as credible—sometimes at my own expense if you occasionally do offer good insights. Ultimately, at my discretion, making capricious assertions wastes my time or hinders your access to me, or both, neither of which is a good outcome, and so you should not do it.

Remember that intelligent debates only stick with intelligent people, while for the rest it's like, "Hey, I saw this cool stuff the other day, and it means a lot!" Yeah. The difference between them and you is that they care more about socializing and exploring the intrigue in that manner...

That is a smart observation, in that it touches on the problem of fostering appreciation in people. Often people do not realize when they are confronted with something monumental, or, if they do realize, they do not have the faculties to do anything about it.

I’m different from most people in that my social drive is not typical. I don’t much care for chitchat and smalltalk, except in specific circumstances. I well and truly recognize that my own example does not make a good base model at all for the wider human condition. I accommodate that in my reasoning, but it remains an active area of investigation for me.

Know how words can invoke what emotions, and you become a master in mind-control.

I don’t want to control minds. That would make the world full of people who think like me. What I want is for people to use their minds. Having said that, it’s important to be able to direct people’s reactions to presentations, and that requires a powerful and broad-based understanding of human nature.

While the first part of this point is true, I sort of disagree with the latter half.

Do you detect the key logical fallacy you committed in that statement?

Firstly, yes, people are often distracted by their egos. But even for those that aren't, your methods are bound to hurt people's sentiments still. See, there's a time and place for everything in our world, and I've learned this the hard way. You use methods that are brilliant in a discussion room but are completely pointless in a social, empathetic field, no it's natural a lot of people would disagree with you, no matter how right you are, and accuse you for being an asshole.

Except for “completely pointless,” your remarks here are correct well put, and they address one of the reasons I created this thread. As you will recall I have asked for people’s suggestions on how I should deal with people whose egos resonate at the receipt of provocative information.

General opinion in this thread so far is vastly in favor of me being nicer, more courteous, and more respectful to people. Although I have yet to see a compelling argument justifying that approach, the fact that opinion overwhelmingly tilts in that direction is itself educational. It could be that humanity at large is not merely beholden to the impulse for social conformity, but is intellectually enslaved by that impulse.

Indeed, there has been very little discussion thus far about the actual merits of my philosophy. Most who have commented on it have only done so in passing, and have offered praise or a tentative posture awaiting further insights into its specifics. Awesomely, the hardest hurdle of any philosophy—intellectual integrity—seems not to be an issue. Instead, just as I suspected (which is why this thread is here), the big problem is not that I could spread a bad message, but that I could spread a message badly.

From my point of view, the challenge is straightforward: Ideally, people would consider this philosophy on the merits, and not get caught up in the color scheme of the presentation. For those who would get caught up, ideally I would preempt that reaction by tailoring my presentation to bypass their defensiveness and egotism. For those whose defensiveness and egotism I could not bypass, I would leave it to others to reach. My original problem is that second group; I can make it a lot bigger by dealing with such people better. “Being nice” may ultimately be the best solution, but I’m not persuaded at this point. It could well be that the best way to proceed is to rip people’s shoddy social frameworks out from under them through challenge and provocation. But at this point I’m not persuaded that that’s the best approach either.

Either way, I need to do is speak to things that people already greatly value, and therein win their inclined attention, at which point they will take care of some of the ego issues themselves.

But please, do understand what RW says: you don't need to hurt people's feelings for that.

Her point is well-taken. I don’t want to hurt people’s feelings any more than I have to, and ideally I wouldn’t have to do it at all. I don’t like making people feel bad. I like making people feel challenged—not to defend themselves blindly, but to consider new ideas and come up with their own take on those ideas.

...And this is what I don't like about this guy (but a trait I still keep for the character in my novel for crucial development): egoistically blind.

I certainly have a larger ego than average, and I allow myself to show it in contexts like these because it is to an extent necessary—although probably not to such an extent as I presently define. However, in addition to my strong personal self-discipline of ego, I also have a better grasp of the human ego than most people do. The apparent irony is not lost on me that in a thread like this where I spend a lot of time talking about other people’s failings of ego, my own would seem to be most prominently on display. That appearance, however, is purely superficial. Even you—perennially self-humbling—are more egotistical than I am, to the extent that egotism denotes an undisciplined ego.

The reason I persist on this front is that ego is a big problem when it comes to people embracing new ideas. Maybe the biggest problem, and in the company of indoctrination, incuriosity, and apathy. I’m sure I’ll have more to say about this, because I have yet to articulate it to my satisfaction.

There's this problem in our society that if four mad men point at a sane man and call him mad, it's the sane man that gets take away. Regardless of evidence, if a rumor goes around that a person was caught being infidel, although his family and friends would know better but his acquaintances and other strangers would rely on that false knowledge and thus the person's social position is undermined and he is defamed.

This is one of the major flaws of relying on social status and secondhand information to relate to people or appraise them, and constitutes a segment of my argument that such systems are not worth keeping without heavy reform.

I find myself debating and arguing with a Christian friend, who I admit is one of the most open minded people in the world (yeah, even more so than you -- don't be surprised)...

It’s possible. There are people out there who are more open-minded than I am. I have met a handful. I’m not concerned with your perception of my open-mindedness, except to the extent it might hinder your consideration of my ideas, but for your own awareness you should know that when you make statements like that I don’t put any credence in them, as you have demonstrated a limited grasp not only of me but of the underlying concepts.

I expect—although ultimately it is a guess—that you mistake steadfastness or perhaps even feistiness for non-open-mindedness. It could also be that you have disproportionately encountered a side of me which does not highlight my open-mindedness. (I don’t spend much time on the Compendium musing, for example. You might look in the Love thread for more insights.)

I would also like to point out when you said that people react weirdly to criticism even though they deserve it. First, I could ask you, "Who are you to decide who deserves what?"

If you did ask me that, I would answer thus:

It is incumbent upon all of us, in the adherence to our closest convictions and the observance of our highest principles, that we criticize people. Criticism is not a bad thing, tushantin. We only label it a bad thing because it makes too many people uncomfortable too much of the time. Criticism—both for the person making the criticism and the person receiving it—is one of the main pathways to self-improvement. I don’t criticize people to be flippant, mean, or ugly. I criticize people when my ethics demand it. If somebody opposes the right of all females to get an abortion, I criticize that. And so forth.

See the problem here: many people criticize for the weirdest reasons, regardless wether it's right or wrong, but their own opinions are right (read, Rise Of The Mooks).

That’s a very good point. One of the dangers of a philosophy that obligates people to uphold their convictions is that it mandates people to take action, so that people with shitty philosophies—or no philosophy, who float on the winds of popular sentiment—can potentially cause a lot of injury and destruction. Unfortunately the reality of power is that we must embrace it wisely rather than shrink away from it, which means giving people the opportunity to crash and burn and potentially burn a lot of others on the way down. The obligation of a society is to establish a law—not a single piece of legislation, mind you, but a judicial ethos—that protects people from one another in a society which encourages dangerous behavior.

I will be brief on this point (don't want to waste too much time on this). The method of argument you choose sounds excellent in paper, is excellent in systematic debates in courts, companies, organizations, etc. but is mostly useless in social welfare. There are different methods of criticism in their respective fields, and a smart bloke like you ought to exploit that. Provoking and intimidating people in general would make them naturally hate you, because whether or not you mean the things you say it also undermines their prestige, and it doesn't even matter if you're right.

I welcome your further thoughts on this.

You're not the first to think that you have "better Ego control than average people" (majority of the people say exactly the same thing, a situation that is contradictory to what you and they say), and I do see your air-tight control leaking but, in this case, I'll take your word for it.

Just because many people claim a thing incorrectly does not mean that anyone who makes the claim is incorrect. That’s a very simple mistake for you to make.

You go on to say you’ll take my claim at my word, in the same sentence as you say that my claim is incorrect. That’s incoherent.

I knew I was intelligent, but I never knew I was this analytic.

That’s a very enjoyable moment in life, realizing for the first time the extent of your current powers and the potential for how far you can yet take them. With experience, practice, and study, you’ll get more keen and become less susceptible, I hope, to faulty reasoning and conceptualizations.

I pondered what Z or Lord J would think of this people, but I instantly knew the moment I asked. If you guys were here watching with me, Lord J would call it a parade of mooks, RW would probably giggle, Syna would watch the parade in joyous intrigue (or even join them), Z would scratch his head and go back to fixing his resume, etc. But me? I saw them as these people as the most brilliant people in the planet.

Do you realize, I wonder, that you’re doing the exact same thing you have disagreed with me for doing? Except, unlike me, you are doing so in a very haphazard way. How much would you stake on your prediction of the reactions of those others and myself?

What I see, in your remark, is an unintentional acknowledgment of how you feel you have personally been treated in your interactions with us, with respect to each of us individually. I don’t particularly see the truth in it, not least because I doubt my own reaction to such a parade would be as you describe.

Five years ago I hated my nation for its inferiority to many countries like US and UK based on material quality of life and law. Today, I learned to see things subjectively, and I also realize that America (and other nations) is still fighting a strange social situation that India has already resolved a hundred years ago, which makes India socially, ethically and culturally superior to the majority of nations in the world. I grew to love my country in ways I never thought.

Hah! Yes...I gathered your patriotism when I offhandedly made a criticism of India recently that sent you into the web forum equivalent of conniptions. The United States probably could learn a thing or two from India. Well, no, let’s be honest: The US could learn an awful lot from India, and many other nations besides.

On the other hand, India is the major engine of the world’s population problem and is likelier than any other rising or established power to collapse in this century. The government is more corrupt even than America’s, the cultural ethos is even more cynical, and the social institutions are vastly more primitive. Many of the best Indians, come here.

It’s important to understand and respect what one’s own country does well. I acknowledge and appreciate that you have come to find things to admire in your own nation. I expect your previous disdain for India was not born of an actual understanding of the nature of your country, but of defensiveness at the cultural perception, passed onto you by your surroundings without you really understanding it, that India is inferior.

As you come to learn these things for yourself, you will unfortunately discover as though for the first time your nation’s ills and weaknesses, as surely as my sunny patriotism of ten years ago has since had to come to grips with the fact that the United States is a disheveled, drifting mess.

So enjoy appreciating the good aspects, and don’t forget them. Until we transcend the concept of nations, we must hitch ourselves to the nations in which we reside.

Almost everything Lord J or someone else says has a worldly, stringent definition but words do not remain the same the moment they enter someone else's mind. This explains why misinterpretation is common, why there are disputes, etc. but I can also see the beauty beyond this tragedy. This morphing meanings has nothing to do with people's ego, but their bias, and it brings colors to our bland world.

You’re talking about the subjective experience. Our concepts exist only in our own minds, and although we attempt to communicate them through objective media such as language, and even objective media backed by evolutionary queues, such as gesticulation, it is ultimately insufficient to the goal of communication merely to communicate in a manner which is comprehensible to us. We must also be similarly understood, and that, as you say, is an ongoing, colorful, and difficult aspect of our social existence.

Indeed, much of your own misunderstanding of me, I can tell, stems not from underlying ignorance on your part but from faulty interpretation of the various J signals you have received from me. Much conflict and woe, if not the majority of it, arises from a dearth of mutual understanding in the world. Understanding is even more powerful than empathy, and it is a precious commodity fraught with impurities and contaminants.

A good philosophy, of course, would have some observations and prescriptions about all this... =)

[Thought]

Out of curiosity, Josh, what is the purpose behind these lengthy replies of yours? These seem a bit at odds with your stated purpose of this thread. If you are interested in how to communicate with others effectively, then it is other peoples impressions of you that are important, not as to if those impressions are justified in your mind. Indeed, the latter is entirely irrelevant. Presumably some of this is to not let people continue to operate under a false impression? A good goal, but misguided in this case. People who are posting here are trying to help you, so let the focus be on you. If someone would like you to defend or explain the reason behind the perceptions, perhaps it  would be better to ask that such individuals add a note to their post requesting it. You are, after all, allowed to be a bit self-centered in a thread about yourself.

There is a danger in your lengthy replies, which is in that it is daunting. You are getting responses from people who know you well enough to be willing to slosh through at least some of it, but I, at least, hope that you as of yet might hear from one of the less vocal members of the forum, some who has observed more than they have interacted. Yet, if that is the sort of response they get, then they would likely be better off not posting. Not because you have been mean, exactly, but because your responses are so long as to require a significant investment of effort on people who are already doing you a favor.

The above being said, it has been quite fascinating to listen to you think out loud as you digest some of these comments. It is not that I wish such responses to stop, but rather that it seems you are getting off track.

Just a, as ever, distracting

Thought

[Lord J Esq]

I had a similar thought when I was replying to tushantin earlier this evening. It is off-topic. However, I ignore him so terribly often, through no fault of his own, and since he was considerate enough to comment in this thread, I figured it was the least I could do to offer him a detailed reply.

Anyone who wants to address the main topic is welcome to, and I hope they will. It is optional to get caught up in the ensuing discussion.

[rushingwind]

Gah!! I took almost THREE FRIGGIN HOURS to write all this! I don't believe it! x_x" My time's too precious.

Tushantin, I feel your pain. I spend hours working on my replies too! I am busy and tired much of the time, but I don't want it to seem like I'm ignoring posts, either.... A dilemma!

Now for you, Josh...

Now, as for your distaste at my using live human beings to illustrate my examples, I don't really think you have a valid point. You're implying here is that dishonesty is acceptable when done in the name of discretion.

No. You're wandering way off subject. I'm not implying anything. I am clearly stating that antagonizing people to make your point is unacceptable, and that point should have been absolutely crystal clear. If you're looking to criticize, that's one thing. When you make statements designed to stir hostility in others, especially with no overarching purpose, that's antagonism. As I pointed out in my initial brief reply to Tushantin, criticism is not the same thing as antagonism. I don't think criticism is a bad thing, or I wouldn't be posting now! You are brusque with some people, yes, and I've always just assumed that's part of your debate style. But debate isn't what I'm referring to here... I want to illustrate that when you go too far, when it is beyond a "helpful push" or constructive criticism, it serves no purpose other than to stir hostility.

Daniel Krispin is a great example example (and one you even admit to going too far with). You chased him off, plain and simple, just because you were irritated with his views/him/whatever. I'm sure there were some people here (myself included) who would have liked him to stick around. Chasing someone off is beyond criticism or helpful debate. That's antagonism. It wasn't necessary to antagonize him until he left. That is not criticism. That is unacceptable.

You've belittled Mr. Bekkler,  antagonized ZeaLitY, chased off Daniel Krispin, and that's just off the top of my head. However you feel about your exchanges with them (whether you believe you were justified or not), the Compendium currently hosts many powerful thinkers, and if you'd refrain from antagonizing some of them, they might be among your greatest allies. Either way, I'm sure we can agree that hostile comments are not a way to make allies, or even keep the peace. This antagonism serves no constructive purpose and should be something you strive to become more aware of, especially if it's unintentional on your part.

So to answer one of your original questions, you can "deal with people like that" by not antagonizing them, because that kind of talk is not about "pushing people to be better," nor is it criticism. It's about making people angry and manipulating them into a certain response (such as chasing off Daniel Krispin). You can reply with how it might compromise your philosophy or nature, but there's really no debating this point. If you actually, truly want to deal with these people, you're going to have to play by at least some of society's rules. This isn't a debatable point. If you don't play by the rules, no matter how uncomfortable they make you, you'll be ignored and you'll end up with enemies.

What I gathered from your reply is that you are defending and justifying how you deal with people already, instead of actually considering what's being said (Admittedly, I am beyond exhausted so I may be interpreting things incorrectly). If all you want to do is to defend your position, then why did you ask the question in the first place? To ask a question only to deconstruct and brush away the answers is an exercise in pointlessness.

You can be a good Josh without having to be dishonest to your values. ^_^ Indeed, I know very well that you can be a good Josh! So just to reiterate: To criticize someone is acceptable. To antagonize them is unacceptable. If you have nothing constructive to say and have no intentions of "pushing them to be better," then it's fruitless to engage with them (especially if the only thing you might say is inflammatory).

It's self-defeating to antagonize people who might one day become allies!


Oh, wow, there went four hours of time on this post. Alas, I should know better than jumping into threads like this when I'm so low on sleep!

[Mr Bekkler]

Thanks for pointing out that example, RW. I was really angry with J after that and actually left the forum for a little while. I came back with the understanding that I can't be EVERYBODY'S friend, he's not going to like me, and I'm better off not talking to him directly, lest I fall into the trap tushantin has (I won't be told I'm an idiot and then call the person who told me so that they are brilliant. Ever.).

I'm sorry J, I don't like you or dislike you. But I rarely pay attention to you anymore. You babble inefficiently, talking down to people at great length, and what that does is it lowers you to the level of the "mooks" as you call them. Writing pages and pages and pages of insults are not a good way to make people think you're smart.

You do not affect my life, and you likely never will. RW has a crucial point about antagonizing people and the effect that has on them. Some take it in stride as though you have some sort of dispensary of intelligence they can take like a soda from a vending machine, but most know it's just a waste of quarters on empty cans. ESPECIALLY online.

If you want people to listen to you, be nice. If you can't be nice, you obviously don't really want it. That's about all I'm going to say. Thanks again RW. Bye, thread.

EDIT: I want to clarify I don't dislike J. For example, he said he's in a relationship with someone from the Compendium. Congratulations, I'm happy for you, and think I know who it is but I really don't care. I'm glad you've branched out socially, that's a step toward the goal of being more personable.

[tushantin]

(Disclaimer: Wrote this response at work, since I realized this was the only time I'd get for a quick answer. A frustrating night, and thus expect my response broken and shallow)

Sigh. I give up. This guy is unreal! I say this despite knowing that I couldn't win this argument, just because I was never born to be a debater. But this... Then again, Thought and RW have said enough of what I wanted to say, and even better than I could have. While I do want to reply good, lengthy and detailed apparently I don't have sufficient time to do so, and thus I surrender trying to hand advises because of his tendency to waive them off, in turn justifying what he does and what he does not and refraining to improve upon his character.

Not that justifying oneself is wrong, but his justifications are ironic. On paper, theory and linguistic structure his statements seem valid, but practically they're incredibly contradictory (even in his own behavior and practice in statements). It kinda makes me wonder what social circle he belongs to in real life (while this could also possibly give insights onto his own strengths, and his improper attributions towards people).

And at the same he's steadfast on his decision of refraining from interacting with mooks as he calls them. It's his decision, and I won't force him. I don't have the world on strings.

While it's true that Josh is capable of seeing horizons further than any of us it's still true that he simply cannot, or wishes not, to see what's actually right under his nose. If I were to put this in an analogy, he seems to me like a hyperopic eagle flying high with no desire to go lower. So, Josh, let me educate you to the basics of words and its psychology.

When I said that I'd take your word for it, it was anything but contradictory because I specified why I would. It is true that that words have multiple implications, but you seem to be misattributing with what is actually a concern in social discussions; and you never seem to get it right, and thus your dilemma. In fact, your judgement towards people is even worse than what you state about my judgement. Even your thinking is constrained to (stringent) definitive value than subject, purely emotional or psychological. And it seems that the world in your mind is Black and White (I repeat), where (judging by the way you put things several times) you either label things, or construct analyses upon, as either one or the other: This or that, flattery and criticism, intelligent and mook, and I'd point out pertaining to this topic is "Humility vs Pride".

Yes, you are correct in a way that I am also egoistic, but I don't let my pride blind my judgement. From the concurrence that

(Point: humility - antonym to Pride, but coexisting, not contradictory
dyslexia, social incapabilities, born inferior - no room for pride
eq: influence of artemis fowl: End)

(derogatory, synonymous;
"In that case, build your own language" = Class 2)

(cpr: "You're a sexist" = criticism, accusative;
"Dude, you sounded sexist there" = empathetic criticism, non-accusative, non-antagonistic)

(Sense of words, reshape; bird structure, psychology and necessity;
cpr: Josh and FW; objective and social intelligence; superiority and wisdom;
synt: "There's a lot you could learn from FW in this case" - mntn causes, effects and strctd reason)

EDIT: You know what? Fuck that. I'm outta time at work anywhos.

Josh, here's the simplest answer. You may be have the best intelligence but you don't have the social skills to interact with "mooks" in this case. You may want empathy prevalent, but you may not be able to fathom its depth, nor do you go about in ways that may be proper to seek it. You may have developed skills and brilliance, but you don't have developed sentiments and wisdom, or "Bhawna" as they seem to call it here.

I don't mean to discourage you from what you do. You're your own person, and you'll bring about change in your own way. Simplest answer would be that if you want to share your philosophy, just do it. No questions asked. As for interacting and educating people who can't cross the gaps between them and you, don't worry, we'll help fixing that.

As for a proper response, if you want it, I'll prepare one eventually.

[tushantin]

Just clarifying one thing, Josh:

...I'm better off not talking to him directly, lest I fall into the trap tushantin has (I won't be told I'm an idiot and then call the person who told me so that they are brilliant. Ever.).

Ouch.   Sorry for befriending my enemies, but I see what you mean.

I'm sorry J, I don't like you or dislike you. But I rarely pay attention to you anymore. You babble inefficiently, talking down to people at great length, and what that does is it lowers you to the level of the "mooks" as you call them. Writing pages and pages and pages of insults are not a good way to make people think you're smart.

Josh, Bekkler's post is the best example of what I've been trying to tell you (and I probably failed in that trial since you couldn't see my point, sorry). If you aren't interested in interacting well with the common folks or learning the methodology on different kinds of interaction in various fields, or even gaining some social and empathetic, first-hand experience, then I'm sorry to say that you're just not cut-out for this. There's a different way to place criticism in different circumstances, and you should know better. Although I do understand that with great intelligence and an excellent processing mind makes one too proud and at times incompatible with the wavelengths of a commoner, I find myself fortunate for being a Super-Mook, someone in between who can get along with both. I may not be a genius as many RL folks perceive me to be, nor as talented as many online folks think of me, but I tell you this:

Regardless whether you're right or not, regardless anyone's interested in the intelligent topics we discuss, nobody will care what you have to say if you disrespect them in such a way (and that does not mean you have to flatter your way in -- you just need to be honest and respectful). An argument or discussion doesn't have to be antagonistic.

In the end, the decision lies upon you on how you want to introduce the world to your philosophy.

(As for that, I also apologize to everyone since I have too been very hurtful at times -- especially you, Alfadoredux.   Sorry)

[Kodokami]

How do I interact with people who get in the way when they really should be valued participants?

(A direct representation of your question more for my own use than any other.)

Josh, had I arrived upon this thread sooner and given a reply then, my advice would be similar to rushingwind's. It still is. It is not out of conformity that I agree with her. If anything, it suggest there is a basis to our claim. Instead of trying to justify your actions try to understand the reasoning behind the claim. If the advice gathered in this thread does not persuade you, then take what you will and be done with it. It is not your obligation to argue, although you are certainly not withheld from doing so; just know that it won't gather you many fans.

If I may offer an example, consider yourself a teacher and your audience (for your philosophy) your students. No one method will succeed in teaching each student, so it is the teacher's goal to understand the students' needs.

I do not often take part in the Compendium's general discussions. What Thought said is true: It is a daunting task to sit through such immense reading. Even when I do, I have little to say--not because my opinions are small but because I prefer simplicity. Regardless, I hope the advice I and the other Compendiumites have given have, and will, aid you and your philosophy. Speaking of which, it has come to my attention that few Compendiumites, if anyone, know of your philosophy in its entirety. Perhaps you wish to keep it that way. I am interested nonetheless, and should you wish to enlighten me more on the subject, shoot me a PM. I'm up to the challenge.

[Mr Bekkler]

Ouch.  Sorry for befriending my enemies, but I see what you mean.

I don't mean for you to take that personally. I respect you for your attitude toward learning as much as you can from everything and everyone around you. I wish I was as optimistic about the world around me as you seem to be.

[Ramsus]

Josh, if you find that you have trouble communicating your philosophy to certain people, but you still want to keep trying, then you should start a cult. First target the weak, the lonely, the needy, and the helpless and open them up to your ideas while supporting them and giving them a sense of belonging. Once you've indoctrinated enough members, you can surround yourself with an inner circle who act as a buffer between you and everyone else. From there, you should only try dealing with giving speeches, writing doctrines, and administrating the cult, and any outlet should be planned and insulated to the cult itself, so that you can have complete control over your image.

The actual acts of recruiting and proselytizing can be delegated to newer members wanting to prove their resolve as well as social uplift programs sponsored and managed by the cult. As you spread to help more and more people, your members will increase in diversity and eventually you'll have a positive feedback loop where recruiting becomes easier and easier.

If all else fails, martyr yourself for the good of the cult, so that it becomes even more empowered to fulfill the spreading of your philosophy.

Alternatively, I suggest writing books and getting your ideas published and marketed. Also, try to maintain a well-documented personal-wiki that others can read. Start with the core tenets and expand from there.