This is a stupid question but I'm going to ask anyway thread

[AvalonAuggie]

My stupid question is one that's both embarrassing to ask and difficult for me to put into words, but it needs asking, so here goes.

I find my ability to participate in this guild is being limited by my lack of understanding of....debate? logical argument? The business that goes on here. I've been skimming the stickies in ED for some sort of primer, and while I can easily find lists of fallacies, the information isn't sinking in as much as I'd hoped. And I'm getting frustrated at my own stupidity.

I guess what's bothering me is that I don't have a grasp of how and why this system became so formalized and something we all have to adhere to.  

[maenad nuri]

Trust me -- this isn't formal debate. It's more formal and more argument based than what goes on in a lot of places, but formal debate it still isn't.  

[TeaDidikai]

What Nuri said.

AvalonAuggie

And I'm getting frustrated at my own stupidity.

What the ********? Look, you and I don't always agree- but this isn't stupidity by any sense of the word.

Quote:

I guess what's bothering me is that I don't have a grasp of how and why this system became so formalized and something we all have to adhere to.

Why logical became formal? Or the guild in general?

Logic developed as a response to common errors in understanding and relating to the world.
The guild likely adopted it as a means to help educate.

My understanding of logic is craptastic and self taught for the most part.
All I do is recognize patterns- and the way I learned to do it was by constructing analogies that are so absurd as examples of the fallacies, that I would have some hope of recognizing the pattern elsewhere.  

[FlySammyJ]

TeaDidikai

What Nuri said.

AvalonAuggie

And I'm getting frustrated at my own stupidity.

What the ********? Look, you and I don't always agree- but this isn't stupidity by any sense of the word.

Quote:

I guess what's bothering me is that I don't have a grasp of how and why this system became so formalized and something we all have to adhere to.

Why logical became formal? Or the guild in general?

Logic developed as a response to common errors in understanding and relating to the world.
The guild likely adopted it as a means to help educate.

My understanding of logic is craptastic and self taught for the most part.
All I do is recognize patterns- and the way I learned to do it was by constructing analogies that are so absurd as examples of the fallacies, that I would have some hope of recognizing the pattern elsewhere.

But a lot of formal logical concepts are used pretty regularly around here, and lots of us don't come from backgrounds that use that exact kind of logic. I've developed a few problems with it as a mode of communication lately myself. Recognizing the patterns is useful, but sometimes it seems like people slip into just looking for logical flaws to point out without contemplating the content. It's part of the debate setup, I think. In a debate, you aren't trying to come to a consensus or even compare and contrast your positions - you're just trying to prove yourself right. It's like when you have a conversation with someone, and you can tell they're not listening so much as forming their argument for when it's their turn to speak.

p.s. - maybe TMI, but I've been on my moons for about two weeks now and I'm prone to saying and feeling rediculous things, so don't pay too much attention to me right now  

[TeaDidikai]

demisara

But a lot of formal logical concepts are used pretty regularly around here, and lots of us don't come from backgrounds that use that exact kind of logic. I've developed a few problems with it as a mode of communication lately myself. Recognizing the patterns is useful, but sometimes it seems like people slip into just looking for logical flaws to point out without contemplating the content.

That might be a function of the fact that not everyone here is willy nilly about telling people what to think in any given situation.

Someone says something really ignorant, it gets pointed out. Someone makes an honest mistake, their tradition isn't my own, I don't know what their religion says about mechanics or what not- so rather than saying
"You're wrong, it's really this..." we simply point out the error.

Quote:

It's part of the debate setup, I think. In a debate, you aren't trying to come to a consensus or even compare and contrast your positions - you're just trying to prove yourself right.

News to me. stare

Quote:

It's like when you have a conversation with someone, and you can tell they're not listening so much as forming their argument for when it's their turn to speak.

And if they don't understand your position, that's a problem. But if they don't care about agreeing with you but do understand and are able to point out why you're wrong, good for them.  

[FlySammyJ]

But what happens to the constructive exchange of ideas? I'm not saying that correcting errors is wrong. I just want to learn what is as well as what isn't.  

[TeaDidikai]

demisara

But what happens to the constructive exchange of ideas? I'm not saying that correcting errors is wrong. I just want to learn what is as well as what isn't.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

The common mistakes people run into is thinking that pointing out an error means they can't further explore other options.

Well, that- or they go off the deep end with a persecution complex because how dare anyone correct them.  

[Bastemhet]

AvalonAuggie

My stupid question is one that's both embarrassing to ask and difficult for me to put into words, but it needs asking, so here goes.

I find my ability to participate in this guild is being limited by my lack of understanding of....debate? logical argument? The business that goes on here. I've been skimming the stickies in ED for some sort of primer, and while I can easily find lists of fallacies, the information isn't sinking in as much as I'd hoped. And I'm getting frustrated at my own stupidity.

I guess what's bothering me is that I don't have a grasp of how and why this system became so formalized and something we all have to adhere to.

First, I check wiki. xd

If I still don't get it, I just ask. Most everyone here has been very accommodating to my ignorance and patient with my questions. Framing the questions respectfully and without too many assumptions also helps. I have really learned a lot here but I don't try to master everything, either.

Also, you're not stupid. There's no such thing as stupidity. People have different ways of understanding things, and click with certain things much faster than others. It doesn't matter if you're not getting it quickly- what's important is that you're trying, and you should really treat yourself to something yummy because of this. That's an awesome attitude to have. smile  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

There's no such thing as stupidity.

I agree with everything else you said except this.
I see stupid happen on a regular basis.

That doesn't mean that just because we disagree or don't understand why someone did something it was stupid, but it also doesn't mean that stupidity doesn't exist.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Bastemhet

There's no such thing as stupidity.

I agree with everything else you said except this.
I see stupid happen on a regular basis.

That doesn't mean that just because we disagree or don't understand why someone did something it was stupid, but it also doesn't mean that stupidity doesn't exist.

I mean our understanding of intelligence and stupid are based on tests that do not justify these qualities existing objectively in the first place. Check this out for a more eloquent description of why. Thankfully there are new tests out that "measure" people's abilities in varying areas, and my boyfriend doesn't have to think he's stupid anymore just because he's slower with the English language than I am, yet excels exceedingly at spatial interpretation/visualization.  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

TeaDidikai

Bastemhet

There's no such thing as stupidity.

I agree with everything else you said except this.
I see stupid happen on a regular basis.

That doesn't mean that just because we disagree or don't understand why someone did something it was stupid, but it also doesn't mean that stupidity doesn't exist.

I mean our understanding of intelligence and stupid are based on tests that do not justify these qualities existing objectively in the first place. Check this out for a more eloquent description of why. Thankfully there are new tests out that "measure" people's abilities in varying areas, and my boyfriend doesn't have to think he's stupid anymore just because he's slower with the English language than I am, yet excels exceedingly at spatial interpretation/visualization.

The fundamental flaw in the application of this to what I am saying is the assumption that stupidity and intelligence are personal characteristics, rather than an individual's actions.

Ableist Word Profile

If some people are intelligent, some people are stupid.
...
And here’s where we really get into why intelligence is an ableist concept: Stupid is a perception, usually based on the perceived ability to communicate.

Again, if there is bias, I can understand why the application to a person would be inaccurate- but at the same time, this argument creates a false dichotomy based on proofs by assertion- that 1) We are commenting on an individual's intelligence/stupidity as a static trait and 2) that the application of the word is contextually rendered through this filter.

It presupposes that an individual's status as being considered intelligent or stupid is based upon a statistic from a flawed test, rather than an observation of long term behavior and choices being examined within accurate context.  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

The fundamental flaw in the application of this to what I am saying is the assumption that stupidity and intelligence are personal characteristics, rather than an individual's actions.

How can an action be stupid? In order for that to make sense, stupidity and intelligence rely on the idea that people can be either stupid or intelligent. An inanimate object or an event itself cannot be stupid because these things do not have consciousness on the level of human consciousness, and cannot have varying degrees of intelligence. Our understanding of something being stupid is based on the idea that the people doing them can be stupid.

Quote:

Ableist Word Profile

If some people are intelligent, some people are stupid.
...
And here’s where we really get into why intelligence is an ableist concept: Stupid is a perception, usually based on the perceived ability to communicate.

Again, if there is bias, I can understand why the application to a person would be inaccurate- but at the same time, this argument creates a false dichotomy based on proofs by assertion- that 1) We are commenting on an individual's intelligence/stupidity as a static trait and 2) that the application of the word is contextually rendered through this filter.

What do you mean by static trait? And I addressed why the context is inexorable from the word itself above.

Quote:

It presupposes that an individual's status as being considered intelligent or stupid is based upon a statistic from a flawed test, rather than an observation of long term behavior and choices being examined within accurate context.

The history of the word is such that this test is used to justify the use of the word to oppress groups of people in favor of other people who have more "intelligence." The idea that intelligence is measurable is based on the conclusions of the people who made this test (and the people who then took it out of context to mean this). This is what people are referring to when they consider how intelligent someone is as supposed to how stupid. My personal bleah factor is when a word that has been used to oppress or insult others is tossed around, because it relies on this understanding in order to be effective. When you can trade in another word that would be just as effective without hurting other people, I would opt in favor of this word instead. So now when I think "that's stupid" I would rather say "that sucks" or "that's shitty."  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

In order for that to make sense, stupidity and intelligence rely on the idea that people can be either stupid or intelligent.

Actually, that's in direct contradiction to the point I am making.

My position is that intelligence and stupidity do not rely on the idea that people are stupid or intelligent, but instead, relies on the fact that people can make good choices or bad choices, thus allowing individuals regardless of their predispositions towards thinking in different patterns to either contradict their best interests, ignore them, or indulge them.

Quote:

An inanimate object or an event itself cannot be stupid because these things do not have consciousness on the level of human consciousness, and cannot have varying degrees of intelligence. Our understanding of something being stupid is based on the idea that the people doing them can be stupid.

Speaking for me and others now huh?

Quote:

What do you mean by static trait?

Look at the piece. It's written from the perspective that these concepts sprung from the early 1900's when in actuality these concepts are several hundred years older in this very linguistic form.

The entire premise is that this narrow application of the word is justified by a single historical turning point- I don't see any evidence of such- nor do I see this demonstrated in the application of either word I am personally familiar with.

Quote:

The history of the word is such that this test is used to justify the use of the word to oppress groups of people in favor of other people who have more "intelligence."

I'm sorry, but the history of the word is much older than these tests. Hundreds of years in fact.

Quote:

The idea that intelligence is measurable is based on the conclusions of the people who made this test (and the people who then took it out of context to mean this). This is what people are referring to when they consider how intelligent someone is as supposed to how stupid.

Really? I want proof for that one- because last I checked, there is no requirement for US Citizens to take these tests.

What is far more common is that by an individual's actions, there is commentary upon consistent patterns of behavior.

Quote:

My personal bleah factor is when a word that has been used to oppress or insult others is tossed around, because it relies on this understanding in order to be effective. When you can trade in another word that would be just as effective without hurting other people, I would opt in favor of this word instead. So now when I think "that's stupid" I would rather say "that sucks" or "that's shitty."

And yet- when there is actual stupidity involved, why wouldn't you use the accurate term?  

[TeaDidikai]

Words like intelligent and stupid are much like other words that can be misapplied. They have no inherent ability to bestow privilege against others, but they can be applied to sound that way in much the same why there are individuals who manage to make me feel dirty by calling me any number of accurate terms (wife, woman, Rroma etc).  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Bastemhet

In order for that to make sense, stupidity and intelligence rely on the idea that people can be either stupid or intelligent.

Actually, that's in direct contradiction to the point I am making.

My position is that intelligence and stupidity do not rely on the idea that people are stupid or intelligent, but instead, relies on the fact that people can make good choices or bad choices, thus allowing individuals regardless of their predispositions towards thinking in different patterns to either contradict their best interests, ignore them, or indulge them.

Then why use the word stupid at all if what you really mean is good or bad? Why is stupid a necessary factor in this instance?

Quote:

Quote:

An inanimate object or an event itself cannot be stupid because these things do not have consciousness on the level of human consciousness, and cannot have varying degrees of intelligence. Our understanding of something being stupid is based on the idea that the people doing them can be stupid.

Speaking for me and others now huh?

I know you're animist, which is why I differentiated between consciousness and human consciousness. I apologize if that offended you, but I would not hold a desk to the same consciousness as a human. Unless I'm missing your point, in which case please explain.

Quote:

Look at the piece. It's written from the perspective that these concepts sprung from the early 1900's when in actuality these concepts are several hundred years older in this very linguistic form.

This is where my hang up is, I admit that in the context explained I agree that stupid can be ableist, but can you give me an example of stupid used in ancient cultures to mean the same thing that we mean today? If you're just citing the idea that stupid was not always used to oppress people, I would say that may not have been the conscious intent but the effects achieve that.

Quote:

Quote:

The idea that intelligence is measurable is based on the conclusions of the people who made this test (and the people who then took it out of context to mean this). This is what people are referring to when they consider how intelligent someone is as supposed to how stupid.

Really? I want proof for that one- because last I checked, there is no requirement for US Citizens to take these tests.

You don't need to take the test itself to come to the conclusion that because there are tests, then objective intelligence is measurable.

Quote:

Quote:

My personal bleah factor is when a word that has been used to oppress or insult others is tossed around, because it relies on this understanding in order to be effective. When you can trade in another word that would be just as effective without hurting other people, I would opt in favor of this word instead. So now when I think "that's stupid" I would rather say "that sucks" or "that's shitty."

And yet- when there is actual stupidity involved, why wouldn't you use the accurate term?

Because there are terms that are equally as accurate that aren't oppressive in that they don't rely on the marginilization of one group over another in order for it to be used.