| Pages:
1
2 |
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Why are we so set on labels?
No not chemical labels as such, but labels in general. If I had access I would put this in whimsy, but I dont have access. A number of events, and a
couple of recent threads on here, got me thinking.
Labels, we are obsessed with labels, WE being mankind. I do some ramblings on a blog, and one of the topics that cropped up was the kingdoms.
We are currently taught the 5 kingdom system in school, unless you goto the school in the next town, they teach mainly the 3 kingdom system.
So what started the debate? well the fact we cant seem to rest without sticking everything into a box with a label, all kind of neat and tidy.
If you mention Life in biological or theological or even psychological terms, is not neat and tidy. Lets take some examples.
A pencil.
Well its wood or metal or plastic outer, but mainly the thing that defines it as a pencil is the graphite inside that makes the mark.
If I use one, even a fancy roll out one, most people who ask, what am i drawing with? Are happy with the answer a pencil.
Few people get upset if I dont actually define it, or fully label it. If I say I am using a wooden 7 inch, graphite core,red eraser ended writing
device, of the order pencil. Would look at me strange!
True there is likely some (probably on here), who would not be happy with a simple, I am using a pencil.
We have even started to sub divide and label people, it was reasonable, maybe even helpful to have for example, Heterosexual and Gay people. Ok like
the 3 Kingdom system I can see a reason for it, and in some situations it is helpful for those in some situations.
Now we have decided this isnt enough, so like the 5 kingdom system, we have decided we need to sort out the two groups and make them neater, more
tidy, better fitting.
Now this isnt about sexuality as you will see, but it happens to be a relevant example, of what I perceive as a almost obsessive compulsive desire to
stick labels on everything.
Worse than that, we need to make sure the label is accurate to 6 Decimal points. So we split it to Hetro, Gay, and Bi. Ok great thats a bit more tidy,
me personally being lazy, would have just used the hetro or Gay label depending on my need at the time.
But even that isnt good enough, now we have letters because the labels are many, something like LGBTQ or whatever.
If your in a group and one of those letters describes you, I am sorry if your offended. You just happen to be a good example of what i see in the
Kingdoms system.
So lets go back to that.
Animal, Plant and Fungi. Great each is defined, I dont need to describe what makes something fit each group on here!
Then we decided actually some things are not that neat and tidy, so we need another group, we added Monera. Yes I am ignoring the 6 Kingdom system for
now.
So we got Plants covered, animals covered, fungi covered and bacteria covered. Great Job done, except no it isnt is it. because if your super anal and
arrange your home library using the Dewey Decimal system, then your unhappy with 4 Kingdoms.
You could at a push make do with it, but it would bug you wouldnt it, you would find something that didnt exactly fit one the boxes, now your label
wont be super accurate.
So what do we do??? Ok we add a catch all box for the junk, the stuff that dont fit, the box we hide under the stairs ready to sort another day.
BTW blame euglena for this post!
So rather than save on boxes and labels, we didnt drop a box and just get a large catch all the junk that dont fit, we added another box. Protista!
Great surely thats it!! No not really because while we call the American system six kingdom, we cheat. Actually the 6 kingdom system if your getting
so anal you need 6 kingdoms, is actually 8. But I guess people thought 8 was going to far, so we use a slash/. the slash lets us stick a divider in
the box.
So why cant we have 4? seeing as we have a junk box for stuff that dont fit, why not be happy with just sticking things not in the main 3, into the
fourth?
Why do we feel compelled to break it down further? Some of us dont to be fair, many have dropped the kingdom system. Ok we have sort of made matters
worse, but dropping Kingdoms allows you to (figuratively speaking, go from Hetro,Gay and Bi, to LGBQT).
So then we start a thread a thread on religeon, ok it wasnt started on religeon as such, but it got there. It start with the believers and non
believers, Great two sides! Two box's and labels.
Then slowly we start to sort those groups, we get those that dont know, so we give them a box (agnostic), but as soon as you do that, another group
wants to be more precisely defined.
And so on it goes, as a species we are unable to except some things just dont fit, some stuff dosnt conform to how we think it should. At what point
if any, are we as a species going to be happy?
Is there a point at which we sit back, look at the boxs and say, great thats it, all neatly sorted?
Dosnt matter what you look at, everything is slowly being labeled. Everything is slowly having to get a label or it bugs us. Take gender fluid, now ok
to some the following is highly offensive, I am sorry you are offended. BUT In most cases, medically speaking 99.9% of the planet has XX or XY
chromosomes, yes ok a few do indeed not conform to this.
But gender fluid? No need for the box or label, if you wake up and feel XX then sure if it makes you happy, if your asked that day what you are, say i
am female today.
If you wake and feel XY then FFS, just for the day say your male. Because biologically speaking your messing up the other box's.
We dont actually have a real thing where your X's and Y's change back and forth by the day, or whatever. So if your so anal you need 6-8 kingdoms, you
need to except that if something fits a box precisely, then thats it, thats job done.
Even if your Euglena, you got a box now. I know even Euglena is currently being looked at with a view to splitting it up!!
But in reality if you got animal bits and you can also qualify as a plant (like Euglena), then you got ya box already. Believe it or not this isnt a
rant, also it is certainly not having a gop at those who want to say they are fluid.
Truth is I dont care what you label yourself, I do care however when on the one hand, we have more than enough box's and yet despite something fitting
that box perfectly, we try and find an excuse to make another box.
Now that is actually a direct rant at something I read about Euglena, its in one of last years science journals (think its last years). See Euglena is
something I culture alot of, both for feeding fish fry and other stuff, but also because its a oddball.
Then the gender fluid thing got me because, the person who said to me they are fluid, insisted that Euglena was really nothing at all to do with
plants, it just happened to have a chloroplast, but having a chloroplast shouldnt make you part plant!!
Bloody cheeky to have XY chromosomes, declare you are fluid, and then diss my beloved Euglena!!
Now to make it clear, my view is the following. Lets get rid the labels for people, your just a person. You have certain tastes but all you really
need is a box marked person!
mark it Human, seriously I dont care what you call the box. But for me personally I am happy you, me and everyone else is a person, i dont need it
broken down more than that. it also takes care of the ever increasing number of letters we are getting each day.
AND just for the record.... LEAVE the fucking Euglena in protista! I like it being an oddball, I dont want it broken down more, I didnt want bacteria
broken down into Archaea and Archaea/bacteria.
Stop now with prions, virons and phages. Seriously stop the labels, except the world is never going to fit neatly into your world view.
As a side not I love tropical fish, I except that L numbers have become excepted for Loricariidae. Its never going to get sorted properly, so be happy
with the number system.
Stop moving killi fish about!! Do that now, i lost first place in a show fairly recently, simply because I didnt know one my fish, has for the fourth
time in 10 years been reclassified!! So I got the name wrong. I got disqualified, a great fish lost because a numpty with a label machine and box
fetish had moved it again.
Same with religeon, you believe or you dont believe, what you believe in is your business, i dont need to know your label, your a person.
Going back to the pencil thing, your a pencil, i dont need to know, nor do i care, if your a red bodied, wooden cased, graphite inner, black eraser,
extendable, replaceable lead pencil.
I am just happy your a pencil and not a pen. Although obviously if your a pen thats ok too, its just I am looking for a pencil, i do also use pens and
i have nothing against most pens.
not over keen on ball point pens, I prefer gel pens, actually black gel pens, with a rubber grip  .
End of semi rant.
Has anyone understood the post? how many are going to jump on a couple of words and phrases? Will most see what its about, or will there own world
view colour it and label me?
This is the reason for the post, I want to see the reaction, who actually understands the post, and who just grabs the bit that annoys them and
focuses on that.
Be careful with the box and label for me  . My real view is actually completely
neutral, apart from Euglena and fish.
|
|
|
Σldritch
Hazard to Others
Posts: 309
Registered: 22-3-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
A national hazard expressing his dislike with one of humanitys most distinguishing traits has me slightly worried...
Giving up cathegorizing would mean giving up science and progress. I prefer people being offended by sterotypes than banging my head against a wall
for the rest of my life. Categroising things is just way too useful, if progress is to be made we will need more complex categorisations. Of course it
does mean we should catagorise without bounds but to maximize its usefulness.
|
|
|
Sulaiman
International Hazard
Posts: 3558
Registered: 8-2-2015
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Member Is Offline
|
|
I agree with the above and would add that I think that it is a natural human trait to give things names, it makes conversations possible 
CAUTION : Hobby Chemist, not Professional or even Amateur
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Labels are simple, easy to use and usually wrong. Most things doesn't fit in neat categories, they exist on a sliding scale. Often with more than 2
extremes.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
wg48
National Hazard
Posts: 821
Registered: 21-11-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I am guessing it was a slow morning for Nemo
Oh wait I used labels, The person writing this post is... oops more labels
How about, The top biped communicating via a symbolic language is…
No that will not do either even more labels: One of the most intelligent life forms on the third rock from the round emitting light thing in the sky
with the first even number of long things he walks on transmitting this information via….
No I don’t see it being workable and apparently a slow morning for me too. LOL
PS I don’t like being experimented on either.
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Clearly, but you are a very good subject I knew I could rely on, thank you for the reply.
Sulaiman
Σldritch
Thank you both, I wasnt sure if Sulaiman would answer how he did. Had me worried.
4 more to go, one is a tricky one. Its likely he is going to see through it, or inadvertently avoid it by trying to squish it, we will see.
[Edited on 8-2-2018 by NEMO-Chemistry]
|
|
|
Bert
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
A map is a useful tool.
Don't confuse the map with the terain.
Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
Labels facilitate communication and logic. They have their uses.
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Ok but that isnt really what I was saying. Which is cool, very cool actually.
At what point do you stop classifying? Take the examples literally, if you have say protist, why then do you need to break it down anymore?
Or take the pen and pencil, why are we not happy to have a draw marked pens and one pencils? Why the need to add a draw that says ball point pens,
then black ball point pens, then black ball point pens with a cap, black ball point pens no cap, black ball point pens no cap half full?
Actually some I have u2u, but the flood thing grabs me, so instead I will just give the link after a couple of specific people have answered. Or after
a time limit, after a certain time the post becomes null.
Which isnt going to make sense yet.
JJAY thats an avoidance defense answer.
[Edited on 8-2-2018 by NEMO-Chemistry]
|
|
|
Bert
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
Can we file this under:
| Quote: |
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has
simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
And go back to watching porn and blowing stuff up?
Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Bert  | Can we file this under:
| Quote: |
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has
simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
And go back to watching porn and blowing stuff up? |
Yeah sure, but personally i dont do both at the same time
Oh the link to the book!
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l4-KrgEACAAJ&dq=verb...
[Edited on 8-2-2018 by NEMO-Chemistry]
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
In a sense you are partially correct. I could write a dissertation on the subject, but is there a coherent connection to mad science?
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JJay |
In a sense you are partially correct. I could write a dissertation on the subject, but is there a coherent connection to mad science?
|
Well depends if you except madness and genius are just different sides of the same coin, a £1 coin from 2016 with 4 chips from the ......ok i stopped
now
Seriously though, the link i sent you was the base of the trigger words, but the layout etc was from a really good book. the other thread about being
model driven etc sparked it off.
I really wanted someone in particular to reply, but never mind. I messed it up by replying.
I felt kind of guilty lol.
The science type people and those like yourself, tend to not go in on the attack. So as one thing seems the book was right about, even if people are
going to be polite, there is no way to avoid replying.
If you see what I mean, I nearly chose some more contentious subjects, but figured that would just get it going too far. Also I messed up the order a
bit.
|
|
|
wg48
National Hazard
Posts: 821
Registered: 21-11-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Its procedural people who tend to go on the attack. Other than a simple statement of their view and some times backed up by pseudoscience they have
no other option except go on the attack.
A lot of science people are modellers. Modellers can also make statements about their view and of cause can go on the attack too. But they have the
extra option of explaining why they hold the view they have and why the opposing view may be wrong or not as beneficial as theirs. They tend to want
to invite discussion to learn as opposed to kicking off a slinging match. The only thing you can learn from a slinging match is how nasty people can
be.
|
|
|
Diachrynic
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 23-9-2017
Location: western spiral arm of the galaxy
Member Is Offline
Mood: zenosyne
|
|
Soo, Nemo, uhhh... What exactly bothers you about labels? I don't really get it.
Basically, a label is just a word to group things together. Oh look, there are some things growing on that tree, and they're different from the things
growing on that other tree. Let's call those ones apples and those other ones cherries.
So, a label is really just a word to describe something. What is the problem there? If we want to communicate, we need to use labels. Labels we agreed
on. If you were to use different labels than I do, we would not understand each other. "Apples? What's that? Do you you mean those things on that
tree? Oh, I call them Uilikenxidn."
Really, it would be like speaking in a different language.
Now, what is wrong with the wish to describe things? Surely you don't want to say "that thing" or something like that every time for every thing you
see.
I guess there is a need to describe things. What we can't describe scares us, we can't talk about it. Give it a name and - tadaa! - suddenly you can
talk about it.
Now, labels are not perfect. Those are apples, that are cherries, now somebody shows you something in between. Add a new label to describe that.
That's not wrong, that is completely normal.
Labels tend to offend some people. But really, being described and classified is going to do that. Without a description, how would you talk about
you?
"Do you like apples?" - "Yeah, sure." - "So you are an apple-enjoyer?" - "Wooo, stop there, you assigned me a label!" - "... A person who likes
apples?" - "Still a label."
And, lastly, labels are useful. If you for example talk to someone and tell them "My pencil broke!" some image is appearing in their head. Maybe it is
a orange hexagonal pencil with eraser. Maybe it is a grey triangular one without eraser. Maybe it is a round mechanical one. Now, if you say " My
mechanical pencil broke!" you make the range of things they could imagine smaller, making a clearer and better conversation. "My mechanical pencil
broke!" - "Maybe the spring is stuck."
I don't see the thing that's wrong with labels.
As long as there is language, there will be labels, and there will be new labels being created.
we apologize for the inconvenience
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
The problem with labels isn't the labels at all but rather those that insist everything must fit into clear and distinct groups. Reality doesn't
really care about semantics.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
There's also a problem with people jumping to conclusions as a result of labels. If someone steals the piperonal out of the freezer and the janitor is
a thief, it doesn't mean it was him, necessarily.
|
|
|
elementcollector1
International Hazard
Posts: 2684
Registered: 28-12-2011
Location: The Known Universe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Molten
|
|
Many people insist on putting labels to things so they can figure out and remember what those things are supposed to be. However, when the labeled
object defies their expectations, that usually makes them irritated or even outright furious.
Scientists, on the other hand, would look at the object in question and ask themselves why the label they chose to associate it with was no longer
working.
I think part of humanity's obsession with labels is linked to its obsession with black-and-white thought. Everything must have one of two opposing
labels; good or bad, right or left, strong or weak, Team A or Team B, and so on. There is no room for in-between categorization there, and so it
carries over into the more mundane parts of life with a need to categorize as many things into as neatly-fitting an order as possible, so as to lump
them more accurately into one of the two opposing categories.
You can see this in many other places, if you look - chocolate recently jumped the gap between 'unhealthy' and 'healthy' when people discovered it was
good for your heart somehow. People who once claimed chocolate products would lead to an early demise are now holding them up as 'heart-healthy' food,
ignoring that the old argument - that chocolate usually contains copious amounts of sugar - still had merit. There's no room for a 'somewhat healthy'
food. Then you start thinking of the 'food pyramid' and all its reorganizations over the years, and... well, now I'm just hungry.
Elements Collected:52/87
Latest Acquired: Cl
Next in Line: Nd
|
|
|
Diachrynic
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 23-9-2017
Location: western spiral arm of the galaxy
Member Is Offline
Mood: zenosyne
|
|
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.
we apologize for the inconvenience
|
|
|
Melgar
Anti-Spam Agent
Posts: 2004
Registered: 23-2-2010
Location: Connecticut
Member Is Offline
Mood: Estrified
|
|
Okay, I actually had an argument with an LGBT activist about the fact that these Wikipedia pages just seem wrong to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Jenner
Pronoun and name changes should NOT be retroactive! Doing so implies that these individuals identified as female for their whole lives, when this
probably isn't true. It makes more sense to use male pronouns and names to describe them during periods of their lives when they identified as male,
and vice versa. To do otherwise assumes that gender fluidity is not possible. I think I actually got my point across well, which is hard to do with
activist types.
Anyone that's read anything about Kinsey's studies knows that most people have at least some characteristics of the opposite sex. Mammalian sexuality
is controlled by hormones mainly, and genes only indirectly. This allows things like fathers to experience maternal instincts, which is probably a
positive evolutionary development. Plenty of other examples exist.
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 | 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.
|
|
|
elementcollector1
International Hazard
Posts: 2684
Registered: 28-12-2011
Location: The Known Universe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Molten
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Melgar | Okay, I actually had an argument with an LGBT activist about the fact that these Wikipedia pages just seem wrong to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Jenner
Pronoun and name changes should NOT be retroactive! Doing so implies that these individuals identified as female for their whole lives, when this
probably isn't true. It makes more sense to use male pronouns and names to describe them during periods of their lives when they identified as male,
and vice versa. To do otherwise assumes that gender fluidity is not possible. I think I actually got my point across well, which is hard to do with
activist types.
Anyone that's read anything about Kinsey's studies knows that most people have at least some characteristics of the opposite sex. Mammalian sexuality
is controlled by hormones mainly, and genes only indirectly. This allows things like fathers to experience maternal instincts, which is probably a
positive evolutionary development. Plenty of other examples exist. |
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).
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.
Gender issues and labeling is an ongoing debate with few right answers and many different opinions. Some believe in strict categorization (finite
number of genders, capping out at 54 last I checked) and others believe in slider values of 'femininity v. masculinity' (among others), but cannot
agree on 'feminine' behaviors versus 'masculine' ones due to the unavoidable reference to gender-divided societal problems (toxic masculinity,
neofeminism, stuff like that). It's a complicated social issue that more or less defies categorization, for the time being at least.
Still, it's yet another example of people desperately trying to categorize and neatly quantify something that probably shouldn't be categorized or
quantified. I would also bring up that categorizing something (or somebody) makes them familiar to you, and allows you to associate them with what you
believe of that group, good or bad. Some use this to alienate others by associating them with a group they consider inferior, while others use this to
excuse actions of a bad seed in a group of what they consider wholesome people. I suppose my hypothesis at this point is that categorizing allows a
person to not have to think as much about the object in question.
Elements Collected:52/87
Latest Acquired: Cl
Next in Line: Nd
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Right STOP!!!!
STOP STOP STOP
Reverse up a bit, lets consider this done, because I have already given all the information! This was done here and on a closed soap making facebook
site. Exactly same type of post but instead of fish I exchange sodium and potassium hydroxide and the term Lye.
So final explanation of what it was about. Then you can stop replying to the thread!!
The link I gave was too a book, now had the others books been wrong this would now be over! But actually it worked too well.
Its was a simple Psychology experiment devised from 3 books, i mixed 3 different experiments up a little. I then used the book I linked too to find
trigger words.
I knew that those who had replied to the model or procedural thread, were primed to answer. I had a rough idea from that thread who would react and
who wouldnt. I didnt know which way you would fall though.
So the point?
Well the post is actually irrelevant, you pick a subject that relates in a wide way to your audience. In this case ORDER, you then put in words that
should trigger negative responses in themselves. For example here everyone jumps to the defense of the notion we should drop classification and tidy
boxs. It did your brains in to think of a world where you couldnt drill down and classify to the nth degree.
Had I of not put trigger words in hardly anyone would have replied, so what happened on the soap site?
EVERYONE jumped on the subject matter, no one even mentioned classification and order, it was solely about the content. I was accused of denying
people to have the right to be who they wanted to be etc.
I was called homophobic, I even got accused of being biased against pens!! WG picked up on it straight away, but then still couldnt resist defending
the right to have order.
So a quick recap.
I read some books, it fascinates me, i see an opportunity to repeat some the stuff from the books, I take it.
I spent over 5 hours picking the words and order (fucked the order up however), I then take a guess who will be on what side. I was expecting more
dismissive people, Bert was the key dismissive. Its a fairly rare traignt according to masters and singleton.
So it was a simple experiment, I have nothing against labels, pens, pencils or people. Apart from euglena (thats bit true), the rest of it was simply
designed to illicit responses and see if the books are correct.
On a science site you expect the principle to be focused on, and it was, but within that you look for three main types of response.
On the soap site you expect the actual examples and content to be attacked, and it was. But it didnt work so well, I got banned for 24 hours lol. It
really upset people, maybe the subject matter was a bit far for those types.
What I didnt actually consider was the soap group was a bad choice. Soap making is part art and part science, I expected a mix of answers, but it
seems those that are part science minded and part art minded, are actually pretty aggressive. Thats a worry as I fall into that group!
So its done and dusted, you can keep your labels, I have no problem with the current system. I would have posted it in whimsy, but in some ways it is
science. The one I couldnt at all decide how they would respond, didnt respond at all. Shame
I was waiting for aga to reply, that would have been really interesting, i guessed he would be the third type. But we wont know now .
So order is restored, thank you all very much for replying, sorry if anyone was offended by anything said. None of the post contains any strongly held
views I have, to do so would have dragged me into it.
I had to pick things I am pretty neutral about, the only one I am not neutral about is the classification euglena but thats not the point at all,
please dont focus on that.
The reason for euglena is simply a personal one.
In biology at school we were taught what makes a animal and what makes a plant etc etc, bog standard school stuff about cell walls and so on. My
teacher had never even heard of euglena. So i stuck my hand up and asked what is a organism with no cell wall and uses chloroplasts to feed, he
replied non existent. The rest is history so to speak.
So there you go, the post was carefully made up just to see who would fall into which group.
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen | | The problem with labels isn't the labels at all but rather those that insist everything must fit into clear and distinct groups. Reality doesn't
really care about semantics. |
Sorry I missed this reply, its a perfect example.
Fulmen understood what was being attacked (by me) was classification and not labels as such.
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.
The actual gist of the post is, more about the kingdoms of life, we rarely actually need to talk them, we talk about an apple tree etc, but few
conversations need you to mention its a plant.
Apple is good enough, when you need to talk about plants, then you need another layer, hence the whole system of classification we have with taxonomy.
The further down the taxonomic tree you go, the less you actually need to ever mention that part. What I mean is this......
Take a person, any person. How often have you talked about someone in particular and related them to the fact they are a eukaryotic system?
John, man he is a disgrace to eukaryotes. No you might say, John is a total disgrace to mankind, or John is bad person. So if you read carefully I am
actually talking about breaking classifications to the point that everything has its own ultimate box.
But reality is you cant do that, it was tried with Protista. But recently attempts are being made to subdivide that.
But dont focus on it at all, I am explaining what the topic was. But the fact everyone debated labels etc, it isnt about labels.
Besides, its not a real post!! It was crafted really carefully, which is why some simply said I dont have a clue what your getting at. Because those
people are highly logic based.
They read it and discovered the subject was classification and yet the content was labels using highly charged subjects that people have strong
opinions on. So for them it didnt compute.
Right get out my lab now, thank you for taking part lol
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Can someone lock this please, it will rumble on otherwise, its done and dusted. I learnt a huge amount and its actually made me really interested in
psychology.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
