|
On April 02 2012 17:36 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 17:33 SwizzY wrote:
Well from YOUR perspective it seems that the guy really spoke out like a real asshole - it's never a pleasant experience to have someone you respect treat you any worse than you have treated them. It's a piercing feeling really, and your "friend" lacked the empathy and maturity to treat others how he would want to be treated.
Like, reading that reply, there is literally 0 constructive criticism or thought to develop yourself from - he's essentially telling you to stfu and that your talks were more or less worthless to him.
Tell him to go fuck himself. Seriously. Friends aren't pompous fuckwads to friends. Neither are colleagues. There IS a respectful and cordial way to tell someone that you don't agree with their ideas, that you have a deeper understanding of a concept than they do (which you should clarify with in your rebuttal), or that you simply don't wish to talk about it.
However eloquently he put it, he still showed his hand - he's a grade A asshole.
But again, this is what I derive from YOUR perspective. What is the respectful and cordial way?
[Azera]
This is just one response he could have chosen:
My personal opinion of all the topics you insist on bringing up is that they are quite vapid, and under close scrutiny hold no intellectual value. In all honesty, they frustrate me. Not in their "complexity" mind you, but instead, in their leading me to presume that you are some faux-intellectual merely wishing to score brownie points with me. I hope this is not the case.
- Sure, this is written in my voice. But it says exactly what he said. But it doesn't disrespect, it illustrates the viewpoint of your friend completely, and it still leaves the avenue for future discussion wide open.
Which is why I am lead to the conclusion that your friend meant to disrespect you simply because of the fact that words on a page cannot teach empathy or maturity. Oh and his condescending tone, particularly at the end of his response, is a mark of his pretentiousness and over-inflated ego.
|
I think you two would be better off if you learned to more naturally express yourselves. I take Wing Chun for this reason. If you learn Wing Chun you will be able to express yourself better.
|
daaaaam yall niggas smart why u gots to flaunt it for
|
On April 02 2012 17:40 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 16:47 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 17:23 itsjustatank wrote:
If it isn't an April Fools joke that he or she is trying to play on you, that post is laden with enough pompous malice combined with pitiful self-defeating elements that it marks this person as probably not being worthy of the kinds of meaningful conversations you are trying to have with others. What's a self-defeating element? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JHVLC.png) If anything sounds of being 'nincompoopery' and is 'faux[ly]-intellectual,' it's his pompous word choice. Feels like he is the kind of person who writes a deficient paper in Microsoft Word and tries to make up for it by right-clicking in certain places to bring up the thesaurus function in order to pick the longest word provided without regard to actual meaning simply because it sounds smart. Doing that is, by the way, being 'false[ly] sophisticat[ed].' Either this person is trying to be funny and failing miserably at it, or they are just pompously vacuous. Edit: To be clear, this person is a tool.
Thanks for the explanation!
On April 02 2012 17:56 Dagobert wrote:Well, looks like he was spot on. Besides not-copy-pasting stuff people post on the internet (especially if it's faux intellectualism!), you can read and apply this when having written conversations with people: http://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-Edition/dp/0205747469/ . Show nested quote +The demystification of the present (nonsense) is the precondition of praxis, which (ambiguous) is necessarily future-oriented (unsubstantiated claim) and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable (double negative, unsubstantiated claim). This is not something you can discuss, it's nonsense. If you genuinely want to make a point, or steal someone else's point, you present a case and an argument. 1) Define an actor (" We need to" - by using 'need to' you also replace the useless "precondition" with a useful construction). 2) Define what you mean by "demystifying the present". 3) Replace "praxis" with an action that can be performed by the actor, because as it stands, this is meaningless. 4) Resolve the ambiguity. It is rarely a good idea to use "which" after having introduced several nouns. 5) Present arguments ("since...", "because...") for every claim you make. 6) Use affirmatives instead of multiple negatives, otherwise... "Except when expenses do not exceed $250, the Insured may not refuse to provide the Insurer with receipts, checks or other evidence of costs." (example taken from Style)
I didn't just copy and paste it randomly from the Internet.
1
2
On April 02 2012 17:56 RedJustice wrote:
I don't think that he had a kind or tactful response, but I think I identify with what he is trying to say. (Or at least with what I think he is trying to say.)
You said: "I was comfortable talking to about more abstract and fascinating things than mundane stuff like school work and whatnot. I usually like to talk about the vast and majestic universe, current affairs, and literature. "
From this statement I get the feeling that you place value and your idea of wisdom and intelligence around these certain abstract deep ideas, while finding your studies a necessary but intellectually 'lower' thing. While you might be quite sincere in your efforts to explore these topics, if that is indeed your attitude, it can be a very obnoxious one to other people.
One reason this can be obnoxious is because of what Precipice writes about communication. It often appears (to others) that needlessly large words are chosen for the benefit of your own ego, and that similarly, needlessly 'intellectual' topics are also chosen-- purely for egotistical and self-image reasons. This impedes any real learning.
A second reason this can be annoying, is that your attitude can convey to other people that the ideas that they are passionate about and their studies and intellectual work are not valuable to you, or that you consider it 'lesser', and by association that you consider them less intelligent as well.
Finally, I question your attitude towards your friend-- you have put him in a unfortunate position. You expect answers and wisdom from him (apparently very frequently from his statement). Yet if he is at all wise, he will know that he is probably not equipped to give you these answers, and that it is better to find them through self-reflection or equal peer discussion rather than a student-teacher type of relationship. He may feel frustrated by your desire for an answer because he doesn't know the answers.
His response, as I mentioned before, is not kind or tactful. It seems like an explosion of pent up frustration (probably let out by some little thing that tipped the scale). However, if you value him as a friend, you should recognize that everyone has moments like this and attempt to discuss it with him. Before you do this, make sure you consider the points I raised before very honesty. If you have in any way been doing it to pump up your own ego, apologize. If not, let him know that you are very sincere about it, and talked to him because you honestly thought he enjoyed discussing these things with you. Ask him why this is not the case, and listen to what he has to tell you carefully.
I never talk about these topics because I want to boost my ego or anything. As I said, I talk about these things to learn.
|
He's right but also a hypocrite
|
On April 02 2012 18:01 DeekZ wrote:
daaaaam yall niggas smart why u gots to flaunt it for
Please don't use that word.
|
On April 02 2012 18:06 Scarecrow wrote:
He's right but also a hypocrite
How is he a hypocrite?
|
Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with.
EDIT: If he has entirely misread your intentions, the best solution is to actually communicate with him about it. Similarly, you may have entirely misread his response, but no one in this blog is actually going to be able to provide you with an answer-- the best solution is again to actually communicate with him about it. The mature thing to do in these situations, which unfortunately always happen in relationships, is to extend the benefit of the doubt and clarify with the other person what the real problem is and what they were actually trying to say. If you two have an entirely different understanding of what's going on and what is meant in your conversation, all kinds of problems will happen.
|
Honestly he doesn't sound like someone who deserves your friendship and respect Azera. In fact, judging by his reply to you, I wouldn't be surprised if he has a greatly over-inflated sense of his own intelligence and knowledge.
@Precipice I have to disagree with this statement:
"When someone tells you, "I know what I want to say but I can't think of the words for it," they are wrong. All knowledge exists on top of words and symbols. If you cannot speak with clarity or precision then you do not *know* what you are trying to say."
Language is not knowledge, language is a vehicle for expressing knowledge. Knowledge is just electrical signals in our brain, and that is not something which necessarily has any connection with words and symbols. How do infants learn things before they know how to speak or identify symbols? Humans would never be able to develop if knowledge was reliant on communication.
|
On April 02 2012 18:08 RedJustice wrote:
Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with.
How others perceive it?
I only almost exclusively talk to him about these kinds of things because when we first met he displayed a remarkable amount of knowledge on these things. I just wanted to learn from him and be friends.
|
On April 02 2012 18:06 Azera wrote:I didn't just copy and paste it randomly from the Internet. 12I never talk about these topics because I want to boost my ego or anything. As I said, I talk about these things to learn.
Well, why did you send him the quote instead of the 'translation'? If your goal is to discuss the matter with him, why would you want to obscure the meaning by going back to the antiquated quote? You can present the actual claim in everyday language and then attach the quote as a source.
|
On April 02 2012 18:12 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:06 Azera wrote:I didn't just copy and paste it randomly from the Internet. 12I never talk about these topics because I want to boost my ego or anything. As I said, I talk about these things to learn. Well, why did you send him the quote instead of the 'translation'? If your goal is to discuss the matter with him, why would you want to obscure the meaning by going back to the antiquated quote? You can present the actual claim in everyday language and then attach the quote as a source.
So that he can learn what I learnt, and I thought that he might not even need the translation.
|
On April 02 2012 17:56 Dagobert wrote:Well, looks like he was spot on. Besides not-copy-pasting stuff people post on the internet (especially if it's faux intellectualism!), you can read and apply this when having written conversations with people: http://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-Edition/dp/0205747469/ . Show nested quote +The demystification of the present (nonsense) is the precondition of praxis, which (ambiguous) is necessarily future-oriented (unsubstantiated claim) and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable (double negative, unsubstantiated claim). This is not something you can discuss, it's nonsense. If you genuinely want to make a point, or steal someone else's point, you present a case and an argument. 1) Define an actor (" We need to" - by using 'need to' you also replace the useless "precondition" with a useful construction). 2) Define what you mean by "demystifying the present". 3) Replace "praxis" with an action that can be performed by the actor, because as it stands, this is meaningless. 4) Resolve the ambiguity. It is rarely a good idea to use "which" after having introduced several nouns. 5) Present arguments ("since...", "because...") for every claim you make. 6) Use affirmatives instead of multiple negatives, otherwise... "Except when expenses do not exceed $250, the Insured may not refuse to provide the Insurer with receipts, checks or other evidence of costs." (example taken from Style)
I'd say your criticisms of the quote in question are kind of harsh. Yes, the quote is not efficient at delivering the message at all, but it is effective. The style is irrelevant. It's a legitimate quote to analyze and mull over - it was the friend that overreacted with a bitch fit over the fact that it APPEARS try-hard, when in actuality it really is not.
|
On April 02 2012 18:10 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:08 RedJustice wrote:
Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with. How others perceive it? I only almost exclusively talk to him about these kinds of things because when we first met he displayed a remarkable amount of knowledge on these things. I just wanted to learn from him and be friends.
That doesn't mean he doesn't perceive your intentions that way at all. In fact from what he said, I'd say he probably does. faux intelligence and nincompoopery? That sounds like a strong possibility of any of the perception issues I mentioned. Of course he could also just be a jerk and think poorly of you, but seriously you shouldn't make that assumption about him any more than he should make assumptions about your reasons for wanting to discuss these topics. (see my previous edit about communication and talking to him about the issue)
|
On April 02 2012 18:17 RedJustice wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:10 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:08 RedJustice wrote:
Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with. How others perceive it? I only almost exclusively talk to him about these kinds of things because when we first met he displayed a remarkable amount of knowledge on these things. I just wanted to learn from him and be friends. That doesn't mean he doesn't perceive your intentions that way at all. In fact from what he said, I'd say he probably does. faux intelligence and nincompoopery? That sounds like a strong possibility of any of the perception issues I mentioned. Of course he could also just be a jerk and think poorly of you, but seriously you shouldn't make that assumption about him any more than he should make assumptions about your reasons for wanting to discuss these topics. (see my previous edit about communication and talking to him about the issue)
I think some background knowledge would be helpful for you -
He is in a "better" class than me (when he was at my level). He takes 8 subjects and I take 7.
He is in the Student Council (same as me) and some other student board and the school's Journalism club. He has a lot of Co-Curricular Activities.
Smart as shit.
|
On April 02 2012 18:20 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:17 RedJustice wrote:On April 02 2012 18:10 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:08 RedJustice wrote:
Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with. How others perceive it? I only almost exclusively talk to him about these kinds of things because when we first met he displayed a remarkable amount of knowledge on these things. I just wanted to learn from him and be friends. That doesn't mean he doesn't perceive your intentions that way at all. In fact from what he said, I'd say he probably does. faux intelligence and nincompoopery? That sounds like a strong possibility of any of the perception issues I mentioned. Of course he could also just be a jerk and think poorly of you, but seriously you shouldn't make that assumption about him any more than he should make assumptions about your reasons for wanting to discuss these topics. (see my previous edit about communication and talking to him about the issue) I think some background knowledge would be helpful for you - He is in a "better" class than me (when he was at my level). He takes 8 subjects and I take 7. He is in the Student Council (same as me) and some other student board and the school's Journalism club. He has a lot of Co-Curricular Activities. Smart as shit.
Um.... these are completely irrelevant or maybe your brain has made some fantastic leap between his ability to be involved in co-curricular activities and not be mistaken in his perception of your intents? That also gives no support for him being a jerk. So I fail to understand your point.
|
@Makra (and the other guy who disagreed with me)
I'm only going to respond to this once since I do not wish to derail this thread.
Infants acquire language and understanding through the establishment of heuristics (which translate into symbols). These symbols allow them to develop more knowledge etc etc. The rest is really just symbolic interactionism.
If you want to dive into a debate about the legitimacy of symbolic interactionism etc, sure, okay, I guess that's fine. But if you do so, please give me something from your quest. I have suggested a simple point. Writing and speaking are a display of one's ability to organize thoughts. Tell me: how can you understand a complex philosophical point or argument without organizing your thoughts? Further, how can you transmit this information to others without this ability. You cannot. Knowledge grows through interaction. How can you have a theory of knowledge which does not accept language - communication itself - as fundamental to its growth and continuation. If you want more to think about... go do some research on the human organism before the bicameral brain. Lastly, please do not try to rip this apart through some tautological debate over the word "language" - the counter-argument is flawed and I'm not going to respond to it anyways.
|
could it be that even before this answer he somehow tried to tell you that he doesn't want to talk about the stuff you bring up?
i can relate to him. some people "harass" me with their shit too. like super detailed battle reports of their latest gold 3v3, even though i already told him several times that i really do not care and that he should stop telling me.
that's what this sounds like to me.
|
On April 02 2012 18:23 RedJustice wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:20 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:17 RedJustice wrote:On April 02 2012 18:10 Azera wrote:On April 02 2012 18:08 RedJustice wrote:
Well if that's the truth you still haven't addressed the problem of how other people perceive it. That may be the real problem and the solutions are varied and not always available, depending on the person you are dealing with. How others perceive it? I only almost exclusively talk to him about these kinds of things because when we first met he displayed a remarkable amount of knowledge on these things. I just wanted to learn from him and be friends. That doesn't mean he doesn't perceive your intentions that way at all. In fact from what he said, I'd say he probably does. faux intelligence and nincompoopery? That sounds like a strong possibility of any of the perception issues I mentioned. Of course he could also just be a jerk and think poorly of you, but seriously you shouldn't make that assumption about him any more than he should make assumptions about your reasons for wanting to discuss these topics. (see my previous edit about communication and talking to him about the issue) I think some background knowledge would be helpful for you - He is in a "better" class than me (when he was at my level). He takes 8 subjects and I take 7. He is in the Student Council (same as me) and some other student board and the school's Journalism club. He has a lot of Co-Curricular Activities. Smart as shit. Um.... these are completely irrelevant or maybe your brain has made some fantastic leap between his ability to be involved in co-curricular activities and not be mistaken in his perception of your intents? That also gives no support for him being a jerk. So I fail to understand your point.
Ah , I guess the fact that we come from completely different cultures slipped my mind. The thing is, with all his involvement in all these co-curricular activities, it means that he is very capable (reason why he has so many). They don't let you get involved with so many things if they think you can handle it.
|
On April 02 2012 18:27 Precipice wrote:
@Makra (and the other guy who disagreed with me)
I'm only going to respond to this once since I do not wish to derail this thread.
Infants acquire language and understanding through the establishment of heuristics (which translate into symbols). These symbols allow them to develop more knowledge etc etc. The rest is really just symbolic interactionism.
If you want to dive into a debate about the legitimacy of symbolic interactionism etc, sure, okay, I guess that's fine. But if you do so, please give me something from your quest. I have suggested a simple point. Writing and speaking are a display of one's ability to organize thoughts. Tell me: how can you understand a complex philosophical point or argument without organizing your thoughts? Further, how can you transmit this information to others without this ability. You cannot. Knowledge grows through interaction. How can you have a theory of knowledge which does not accept language - communication itself - as fundamental to its growth and continuation. If you want more to think about... go do some research on the human organism before the bicameral brain. Lastly, please do not try to rip this apart through some tautological debate over the word "language" - the counter-argument is flawed and I'm not going to respond to it anyways.
Derail my blog with a debate? Hah. Please continue ^_^
On April 02 2012 18:28 beg wrote:
could it be that even before this answer he somehow tried to tell you that he doesn't want to talk about the stuff you bring up?
i can relate to him. some people "harass" me with their shit too. like super detailed battle reports of their latest gold 3v3, even though i already told him several times that i really do not care and that he should stop telling me.
that's what this sounds like to me.
No, nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
