| Pages:
1
2 |
Diachrynic
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 23-9-2017
Location: western spiral arm of the galaxy
Member Is Offline
Mood: zenosyne
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by JJay  | | Quote: Originally posted by Diachrynic | So, really not the labels are at fault but the people misusing them and not being reasonable and logical.
People insisting on a simple and clear division into categories will be disappointed by reality.
JJay, your example is what I believe a logical fallacy known as post hoc.
Event 1: The janitor stole something.
Event 2: Now something has been stolen.
post hoc: The janitor stole it.
I don't think labels are to blame here, but rather people being unreasonable. |
Actually, that's a different fallacy. I never said the janitor stole anything. Rather, I said that the janitor is a thief.
|
Wait... There are thiefs who didn't steal?
| Quote: Originally posted by NEMO-Chemistry |
If you read the post really carefully (its done so its not obvious BTW), notice I am not attacking labels, but i constantly use the term.
|
Nemo, that turn is contradictory.
we apologize for the inconvenience
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Diachrynic | | Quote: Originally posted by JJay | | Quote: Originally posted by Diachrynic | So, really not the labels are at fault but the people misusing them and not being reasonable and logical.
People insisting on a simple and clear division into categories will be disappointed by reality.
JJay, your example is what I believe a logical fallacy known as post hoc.
Event 1: The janitor stole something.
Event 2: Now something has been stolen.
post hoc: The janitor stole it.
I don't think labels are to blame here, but rather people being unreasonable. |
Actually, that's a different fallacy. I never said the janitor stole anything. Rather, I said that the janitor is a thief.
|
Wait... There are thiefs who didn't steal?
| Quote: Originally posted by NEMO-Chemistry |
If you read the post really carefully (its done so its not obvious BTW), notice I am not attacking labels, but i constantly use the term.
|
Nemo, that turn is contradictory.
|
Yes it is, its meant to be! Have you read the entire thing?
Labels are mentioned time and again, but is the post actually about labels or classification?
I dont think your going to get it, maybe your a bit too logical to get what the post about.
I am not being funny, the whole point of the original post was to illicit different responses dependending on the type of reader.
[Edited on 9-2-2018 by NEMO-Chemistry]
|
|
|
Diachrynic
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 23-9-2017
Location: western spiral arm of the galaxy
Member Is Offline
Mood: zenosyne
|
|
I have, and now I'm just confused...
Okay, give me five minutes, I need to read that all again.
[Edited on 9-2-2018 by Diachrynic]
we apologize for the inconvenience
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
LOL, it was a psychology experiment, at its most basic level its designed to see what type of people focus on which aspect of the post.
Most have focused on the term label, I didnt expect it to be so highly triggering. LABEL is a red herring in the entire post, you associate label with
the main context of the post. Actually Label was the term used to take focus away from classification.
In the main post the actual classification is Taxonomy. If it had been a 'real' post, I would have spoken directly about the taxonomic system, I would
have been direct.
I wouldnt have spoken about labels when describing (what was called box's), its really really interesting to see such a difference between the
different groups where I posted it.
But seriously you can let it go, if you want to talk about Taxonomy, my views are actually pretty normal. I am reasonably happy with the current
system, considering no system is ever going to be perfect.
But the post in reality wasnt a discussion on this, it was a post to see reaction to certain words etc.
Do you get it now?
on the side....
I assumed Janitors wee given keys to the entire building, what muppet gives keys to thief?
So we know it wasnt the Janitor, so who did nick it? Bet it was the Boss 
[Edited on 9-2-2018 by NEMO-Chemistry]
[Edited on 9-2-2018 by NEMO-Chemistry]
|
|
|
Diachrynic
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 23-9-2017
Location: western spiral arm of the galaxy
Member Is Offline
Mood: zenosyne
|
|
So you made the post to test how people can get distracted by "trigger words", so they would go rambling about the trigger words but not the content?
(I'm sorry if I'm kinda slow at this, English is not my first language, so I probably I didn't got all subtle details.)
What did you conclude from this experiment?
we apologize for the inconvenience
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Diachrynic | So you made the post to test how people can get distracted by "trigger words", so they would go rambling about the trigger words but not the content?
(I'm sorry if I'm kinda slow at this, English is not my first language, so I probably I didn't got all subtle details.)
What did you conclude from this experiment? |
Well As I said above I did it in two places. One was a facebook group for soapmakers, they tend to be arty types, but part science. On reflection they
were probably a bad choice, they did actually respond as expected, but with alot more aggression.
The soapmakers Focused on specific content of the post, which is what had been predicted by the experiment from the original book.
It predicted depending on the specific personality type, they would focus on things like Sexuality, for example many posted it was disgraceful i held
such views and I was homophobic.
They entirely ignored the fact, i had used sexuality as an example of classification, and they ignored the fact, or didnt care, about what this did.
So in this group on SM, you have scientists. They tend to have ordered minds, the main beef here was not the content or examples given, but what was
perceived as an attack on giving something a name (label).
When if you read really carefully, it is supposed to be about levels of taxanomic classification. And how deep do you go in order to make every thing
fit into a category or type.
It was supposed to be well hidden, it was supposed to get linear logics to focus on the concept and what I would call the emotional's to focus on the
specific content and not the underlying principle.
There isnt a conclusion as such, I copied so parts from different experiments, I wanted to see if it was true. Do science types focus more on the
concept and ignore the specific examples, and do the emotion driven group focus on the actual examples and ignore the concepts.
There is also more specific types, no one is in a single group, so I knew different people would pick different aspects etc.
|
|
|
Diachrynic
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 23-9-2017
Location: western spiral arm of the galaxy
Member Is Offline
Mood: zenosyne
|
|
Ah, I think I got it now. Thank you for your detailed explanation ^^
There is a lucid dreaming forum I'm active in, they are very open-minded and tolerant people. I might try something similar there, it is interesting.
[Edited on 9-2-2018 by Diachrynic]
we apologize for the inconvenience
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Diachrynic | Ah, I think I got it now. Thank you for your detailed explanation ^^
There is a lucid dreaming forum I'm active in, they are very open-minded and tolerant people. I might try something similar there, it is interesting.
[Edited on 9-2-2018 by Diachrynic] |
I suggest a little reading first, things like Neural Linguistic Programming techniques, you need to pepper trigger words in, these are the diversion
and designed to promote an emotional response.
Or put another way, you use them to wind people up a little, then you pick a topic, you make it the base. But your examples must use a different
(borderline) term.
It must also fit so its a trigger word, trust me it took ages to put together and I still didnt get it totally correct.
Label is an a totally harmless word, if i called you a sticky label you would probably laugh and think I was nuts. If I called you a foofing Homo lady
parts (insert C word), you would be offended.
So your looking to get people to react a harmless word as a trigger, while thats going on you have to actually talk about something that if you were
to use all the correct terms would make sense.
So I used labels and box's, Box's reinforced the idea I was talking about separating things into groups. Then I turned the word Label into one the
trigger words, the easiest way to do that, i think is to do what I did.
Make that the main title reference, people tend to focus on words used in a title.
Then just keep dropping your words in, put them where they are ok in context but not really the correct term, sort of dumb yourself down a bit.
Then rant away about nothing in particular, but equally discuss a subject. So I ranted about labels on things while talking about the further
splitting up of the taxonomic system!
Hopefully you now have a good idea whats going on, all I can say is........ Its takes alot of time, its been done before and those hours you spend you
aint getting back!
But yes its really interesting if you like reading about psychology, also you have to use two groups that are different by nature.
Last tip...
I suggest you wait for an opening, as it happens it fell into my lap here, someone brought up about different types of thinking, so your audience is
already primed for a discussion like this.
Be warned though, get it wrong and you get a hard time, the soap people banned for a while, even now some wont talk to me!!
You have seen on here, despite going into detail about it not being real, people carried on. Be prepared for that, dont expect everyone to take it
well, some will be offended simply because its a kind of trick, some because they are a test subject.
Good luck and let me know how it goes.
|
|
|
Melgar
Anti-Spam Agent
Posts: 2004
Registered: 23-2-2010
Location: Connecticut
Member Is Offline
Mood: Estrified
|
|
I understand your point. MY point was that if we are to move into the territory that LGBT activists would prefer, our goal really ought to be to do
away with labels. Not completely, but the "52 genders" thing that facebook did is absolutely the wrong way to go. We don't label people by their
non-sexual interests and preferences. I don't refer to myself as bi-interest to describe my interests in chemistry and programming. (Really, it'd be
more like dodeca-interest, but that's beside the point) People should be able to describe themselves sexually in terms of who and what they like,
rather than "who they are".
I don't actually think there's any reason to lock this thread, if people want to keep it going. Maybe have a mod split it off into a new one though.
Also, you should know better than to whack a hornet's nest with a stick. 
[Edited on 2/10/18 by Melgar]
The first step in the process of learning something is admitting that you don't know it already.
I'm givin' the spam shields max power at full warp, but they just dinna have the power! We're gonna have to evacuate to new forum software!
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Melgar |
Also, you should know better than to whack a hornet's nest with a stick.
[Edited on 2/9/18 by Melgar] |
Not if your scientifically evaluating which stick works best lol.
I did mess it all up a bit, i did jump in too quickly at the start.
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
People worry more about delinquents who have stolen in the past than thieves who will steal in the future. The fallacy is self-evident.
|
|
|
Diachrynic
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 23-9-2017
Location: western spiral arm of the galaxy
Member Is Offline
Mood: zenosyne
|
|
So the word thief can also apply to people who commited all sorts of criminal acts?
we apologize for the inconvenience
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
You ask as if you think you know the answer. Why do you ask?
|
|
|
Melgar
Anti-Spam Agent
Posts: 2004
Registered: 23-2-2010
Location: Connecticut
Member Is Offline
Mood: Estrified
|
|
Fair enough.
But you can't just tell the hornets to get back in their nest because it was just a test to see how mad they'd get when their nest was whacked with a
stick. You kinda have to run away and evaluate from a distance.
The first step in the process of learning something is admitting that you don't know it already.
I'm givin' the spam shields max power at full warp, but they just dinna have the power! We're gonna have to evacuate to new forum software!
|
|
|
Diachrynic
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 23-9-2017
Location: western spiral arm of the galaxy
Member Is Offline
Mood: zenosyne
|
|
I ask because I don't know. There is no other reason behind it.
Was my question worded wrong?
You used the word thief in a way which lets me think it can also be used to describe any sort of criminal - but I am not sure.
Quick recap:
In my initial statement I assumed the janitor had stolen something in the past because you said he was a thief.
Then you said that you never stated he had stolen something, just that he was a thief.
That got me confused 'cause I assumed thiefs are people who steal.
You replied by using criminal and thief more or less interchangeably.
So I asked again.
It's not that I don't understand your point about the janitor being the one who stole just because he had stolen. I get that.
The reason I asked is because it confuses me.
(As I said, I don't know English as my first language. I don't use it all the time.)
we apologize for the inconvenience
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
so who stole what???
Yeah I didnt plan the experiment past whacking the nest. Funding cuts and all that
|
|
|
Melgar
Anti-Spam Agent
Posts: 2004
Registered: 23-2-2010
Location: Connecticut
Member Is Offline
Mood: Estrified
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by elementcollector1 | | Supposedly, the reasoning behind this is that referring to a transgender person by their 'deadname' (original name before the change) is hurtful to
them, as it implies others' perceptions of their gender have not shifted (which, as far as I'm aware, is the entire point of transgender behavior in
the first place). |
Fair enough. But I've heard plenty of real transgender people in NYC say "back when I was Ted" or "back when I was Sarah". I'm surprised this isn't
common knowledge. I think that it used to be that transgendered people would be really self-conscious about their past and try to hide that they're
transgendered, but that isn't really the case anymore. It's almost a fad now, at least in more liberal parts of the country.
| Quote: Originally posted by elementcollector1 | | I agree that completely overwriting their history with their prior name is an incorrect use of the label, but referring to them in the present tense
with their deadname in a Wikipedia article doesn't seem to be the correct approach either, if only for politeness' sake. Jenner's article seems to
cleverly get around this by referring to her as 'Jenner' during her Olympic history instead of 'her', 'Caitlyn' or 'she' - thus retaining a correct
label for the time period and avoiding the issue entirely. |
Yeah, initially it was really weird reading those articles, and apparently I'm not the only one who thought so, since they've smoothed that over quite
a bit since I last read them. "Avoiding the issue" is exactly right, but I feel like we can't avoid the issue indefinitely. I think you're entirely
right about referring to them by their old name in the present tense, but I feel like very few transgendered people would be offended if their prior
name was used to distinguish between the "before" and "after" times in their lives. I've also noticed that transgendered people would prefer that
people not worry about stumbling over pronouns as long as the meaning is clear, since they'd prefer not to be a source of social awkwardness.
I also agree with your assessment that labels are a mental shortcut and a way to avoid unnecessary thinking. Some people don't like to think, dammit!
I guess that's a problem we're unlikely to ever solve.
The first step in the process of learning something is admitting that you don't know it already.
I'm givin' the spam shields max power at full warp, but they just dinna have the power! We're gonna have to evacuate to new forum software!
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Diachrynic |
I ask because I don't know. There is no other reason behind it.
Was my question worded wrong?
You used the word thief in a way which lets me think it can also be used to describe any sort of criminal - but I am not sure.
Quick recap:
In my initial statement I assumed the janitor had stolen something in the past because you said he was a thief.
Then you said that you never stated he had stolen something, just that he was a thief.
That got me confused 'cause I assumed thiefs are people who steal.
You replied by using criminal and thief more or less interchangeably.
So I asked again.
It's not that I don't understand your point about the janitor being the one who stole just because he had stolen. I get that.
The reason I asked is because it confuses me.
(As I said, I don't know English as my first language. I don't use it all the time.) |
I never said the janitor had stolen. You said the janitor had stolen. I said that the janitor is a thief. If I have a stick of dynamite, it is an
explosive even if it hasn't blown up yet. A thief who has not yet stolen remains a thief.
|
|
|
Melgar
Anti-Spam Agent
Posts: 2004
Registered: 23-2-2010
Location: Connecticut
Member Is Offline
Mood: Estrified
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JJay | | I never said the janitor had stolen. You said the janitor had stolen. I said that the janitor is a thief. If I have a stick of dynamite, it is an
explosive even if it hasn't blown up yet. A thief who has not yet stolen remains a thief. |
Has he also never cleaned a building? Is he just very bad at stealing things? Or is he more like one of those kids who just got out of university
telling people he's an engineer? Wouldn't he just be a person, if he's never stolen anything? So many questions!
The first step in the process of learning something is admitting that you don't know it already.
I'm givin' the spam shields max power at full warp, but they just dinna have the power! We're gonna have to evacuate to new forum software!
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well currently he is a Hominini, or its likely for now your pretty safe with Homo, but for the ultra anal we have Homosapien. I cant see person
anywhere so i guess thats just your label  .
His title would be janitor, so still no need for labels, mainly because even if you want to stick Pan into Homo, then logic says not many Pan are
janitors. So with the title you could get rid of the label altogether and use the proper system.
Dont even need Title, but we like titles, hence we now go straight back full circle, titles are now redundant.
Common use was for Gender specification, seeing as we dont use titles for other Genus on the whole, would make sense to ditch them and reclassify
them for use of description.
So thats still a huge pile of labels we dont need.
And still no one has explained, why would you give the entire building keys to a thief? Regardless of his guilt, you get heads sooner or later if you
toss the coin.
[Edited on 12-2-2018 by NEMO-Chemistry]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
