66Likes
1
Post By sculptor
2
Post By John Galt
1
Post By adelady
2
Post By John Galt
1
Post By sculptor
4
Post By adelady
1
Post By scoobydoo1
1
Post By adelady
3
Post By Paleoichneum
2
Post By John Galt
1
Post By Beer w/Straw
1
Post By sculptor
3
Post By John Galt
3
Post By John Galt
1
Post By John Galt
1
Post By wegs
1
Post By John Galt
2
Post By sculptor
2
Post By adelady
1
Post By John Galt
2
Post By seagypsy
1
Post By sculptor
3
Post By seagypsy
3
Post By wegs
2
Post By seagypsy
2
Post By Tranquille
1
Post By Neverfly
1
Post By Tranquille
1
Post By seagypsy
4
Post By adelady
1
Post By Hill Billy Holmes
2
Post By Tranquille
1
Post By Dywyddyr
1
Post By babe
1
Post By babe
2
Post By seagypsy
1
Post By seagypsy
2
Post By scoobydoo1
1
Post By seagypsy
November 17th, 2013, 01:43 PM
patterns within patterns
operant conditioning rewards leading to group think?
a behavior tends to last longer (after the rewards have stopped) with erratic rewards for a behavior rather than constant rewards.
erratic response(rewards) to behaviors tend to produce depression
Is it the known patterns of response that creates a desire to be part of "community"?
I doubt it is in effect here. All my efforts to improve the clarity of your posts by operant conditioning have been an abyssmal failure.
Are they really?
Sometimes, I wonder.
As/re "me": Do you remember what I said about the saluting experience?
Know that I am degreed in psychology from a very experiment oriented behaviorist department?
Inculcation of objective knowledge can lead to a distancing of one's self from subjective participation within the field of knowledge.
The question obtains:
Did it?
And John's point is demonstrated yet again.
So, if your experiment is to see how long it takes to piss someone off by posting juvenile philosophy in incoherent English, be aware we passed that point a very long time ago. I repeat that your insistence upon this style is, at heart, anti-social and rude, and is not - in my opinion - in the interests of the forum. The other mods disagree with me on this point. I think they feel anyone can see you are a fool and will ignore most of your posts. They may choose to correct me on this interpretation of their views.Originally Posted by sculptor
Gee dad, that's a tad harsh. If you intended that as a gesture of politeness, I gotta tell you that you are way off the mark.
Is ophiolite trying to crack your Galt shell again?
(wild guess du jour)
My knowledge of behaviorist psych far outdistances yours.
What you see as philosophy just may be derived from a rather extensive education.
Which, brings us back to the point of the creation of this thread.
I suppose that each of the lines which i used to start this thread could be expanded into entire paragraphs, but, I prefer to not be a cure for insomnia.
My beloved spouse has mentioned that quite often, I assume that everyone will know the subject matter, and/or what I see as obvious connections between various studies, when actually, much seems esoteric to those who've followed a different course of study.
That being said:
Allow me to rephrase thusly:
We know that operant conditioning can be used effectively in both experimental settings, and in altering aberrant behaviors(for the bulk of the population). What I was getting at is what might well be unconscious/subconscious operant conditioning.
Which I short handed to "group think".
Just how much of what we do is due to welcoming certain conditioning effects, and replaying them for others, and whether it is understanding or accepting these operant triggers that forms the comfort of community.
For instance: If I know ahead of time that you tend to act as a cranky bastard with much knowledge of rocks and mountain building, Then, this knowledge of you creates a character within the interplay of community. If then I understand the niche within community that you fill, then just having you reassure the aforementioned knowledge is in and of itself representative of the comfort of community.
ergo: "patterns within patterns.
The posed question:
remains unansweredIs it the known patterns of response that creates a desire to be part of "community"?
but
thanks for the effort anyway.
Last edited by sculptor; November 17th, 2013 at 10:46 PM.
On the part of the inducer or conditionee?
Is this a statement or a question? If it is the former, the word you are looking for is confusion instead of depression. If it is the latter, my answer is No.
Well, that depends. With over three thousand posts in nineteen months, have you ever experienced this desire at any point?
A) ... Both, first as conditioned(conditionee), then through group think to conditioner/inducer------------posed as a question.A) ... On the part of the inducer or conditionee?
B) ... Is this a statement or a question? If it is the former, the word you are looking for is confusion instead of depression. If it is the latter, my answer is No.
C) ... Well, that depends. With over three thousand posts in nineteen months, have you ever experienced this desire at any point?
B) ... Statement--based on rat studies--(applicable to humans=? ethics and all...) If a rat knows that if the blue button is pressed, the rat gets water, if the red button is pressed, the rat gets food, and if the white button is pressed the rat gets a shock, pretty soon, you have a happy rat that avoids the white button. Toss this rat in a pool of water, and the rat will tread water for over 12 hours.
Now randomize the "reward"/response for pressing the various buttons, and pretty soon, you have a depressed rat who sits sullen in one corner of the cage. Toss this rat in a pool of water and within an hour the rat gives up and drowns, and that is depression.
C) ... Yes, But, what I was wondering is how others experience this phenomenon.
...............................
once past this hurdle, the constant that remains unanswered, is whether or not, as a species, we are bound by certain psychological predispositions which predispose us to gathering and disseminating knowledge within certain rigid frameworks which may preclude acquisition of certain fields of knowledge.
Sometimes I think a thorough grade school education is more helpful.What you see as philosophy just may be derived from a rather extensive education.
Elements of a curriculum that would be helpful for written communication in forums such as these.
1. How to write a sentence.
2. Punctuation.
3. Paragraphs and how to connect them to other paragraphs.
4. Logical structures.
5. Conversational and casual modes of writing.
6. Essays and other formal modes of writing.
I don't claim to be a paragon of communication excellence, but I do like it when others play their part in making communication easier. There are enough difficulties in communicating scientific and academic concepts without deliberately going out of our way to make our comments mysterious or obscure or otherwise incomprehensible.
If you seriously wished to discuss operant conditioning and its possible relevance to communication and community sentiment, particularly in their online instances, then you could have started with a simple wiki reference Operant conditioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Then you could have done the briefest possible review of the quite extensive library of papers available at Google Scholar or your favourite technical psychology journal and picked out a couple that advanced a view you agreed with.
Then. Then we could have a sensible discussion.
Adelady
What I was wanting to know is how you and other forum members felt about this supposed phenomenon/ set of circumstances/ conditioning.
Wiki is, in this instance way below my knowledge base.
You may read theory and other's experiments for thousands and thousands of pages, but, it is the essence of the individuals response that holds the key if a key is indeed held.
forget the formatting. If you do not understand what I an keyboarding in, please refrain from responding.
Thanks for your criticism on "formal modes of writing" but the water went under that bridge decades ago.
So, if you could be so gracious as to actually address the questions posed in the op, I'd be grateful.
Only if gratification in the perceived cohesiveness plays a part in decision making, otherwise No.Both, first as conditioned(conditionee), then through group think to conditioner/inducer - posed as a question.On the part of the inducer or conditionee?
May I ask for a citation to read the material for myself?Statement - based on rat studies (applicable to humans=? ethics and all...) If a rat knows that if the blue button is pressed, the rat gets water, if the red button is pressed, the rat gets food, and if the white button is pressed the rat gets a shock, pretty soon, you have a happy rat that avoids the white button. Toss this rat in a pool of water, and the rat will tread water for over 12 hours.Is this a statement or a question? If it is the former, the word you are looking for is confusion instead of depression. If it is the latter, my answer is No.
Now randomize the "reward"/response for pressing the various buttons, and pretty soon, you have a depressed rat who sits sullen in one corner of the cage. Toss this rat in a pool of water and within an hour the rat gives up and drowns, and that is depression.
Since your answer is Yes; can I to assume that the pattern of responses you have observed and possibly received were perceived as favorable/positive to you.Yes, But, what I was wondering is how others experience this phenomenon.Well, that depends. With over three thousand posts in nineteen months, have you ever experienced this desire at any point?
Answer: No.
As a species, we aren't predisposed to preclude acquisition of "certain fields of knowledge". The keyword here being knowledge as opposed to musings.
Exactly.Wiki is, in this instance way below my knowledge base.
If you want to discuss this topic with people who have less expertise than yourself, you have to set the stage.
Let's be honest, you didn't even put in a disclaimer that operant conditioning wasn't the same as classic conditioning. This is an important distinction for people who've only ever heard the term conditioning and, possibly, names like Pavlov and Skinner - without knowing the first thing about either of them and probably totally confused or conflated what little they might have heard.
And that use of group think is inadequate at best, misleading at worst. There's a whole cartful of baggage associated with that term and I'd be extremely unwilling to engage in any discussion where that word was bandied about in much the same way other psychological terms and concepts are so casually mangled in magazines, newspapers and blogs.What I was getting at is what might well be unconscious/subconscious operant conditioning.
Which I short handed to "group think".
You have to be explicit about what you're advancing. In this particular case, you might have got a better response, or at least some discussion, if you'd asked whether anyone thought that group think was appropriate or that another word or concept might better suit your purpose.
TO be honest Sculptor, I haven't actually read something you've posted in several months, specifically due to the fact that you choose to post and a wholly incoherent manner despite repeatedly being told not to AND you displaying the full ability to when you want to. At this point you are nothing more then a troll that is being much to willfully tolerated by the mod team here.
I would like to formally request that you STOP posting like an ass. If not I will lobby for you banning.
Really explanitive, the rat and a display of mental multitasking ,cept bad of course for the rat as a whole. This is a display of at least two new things,one that phycolagy could be valid as a field, totally aside from just the harvard mapping of mechanics and stuff, and two ,I see a test tube being presented ,though a very scary one in the case of the experiment with the rat. Studies and surveys done graphs presented toard the advances in phycology could be invalidated do to lack of a controlled environment or test tube that might have to include singleness of mind. True a study can only accuratly represent exactly only the studied .In this case you only do get what you pay for. Aside from the read what really seems to be troubling you, in english.
don't know if you'd have seen the humor ....
Congratulations on one-upping Sculptor.
Sculptor
I believe you and me have talked about your odd way of communicating before, but in the end I have learned to tolerate it as to me you are mostly harmless and every now and then you produce something amusing. Only in trying to figure out what you are saying every time you post does frustration surface. Just being honest.
Musing, sculptor style.
Shortness, of intellect? Probably. What else?
Anti-social, well my aunt was never all that social. Freud and Jung , no longer friends, but united in death and indifference.
Hold on. May be making some sense here; best to talkup my immense knowledge and extensive education so ..... well, you know the rest.
Cartesian tennis anyone?
How about a challenge on the putting green.
Well, personally I ignore great big walls of text, but you, sculptor, could probably add a wee bit more.
Sadly, this was one of many experiments we did in the basement of the behavioral sciences building(oddly enough known as the BSB building around campus) (which would make it the behavioral sciences building building----the irony was thick as a brick and easier to slice through than a room full of smoke) circa 1978-80. It was replicated by another group of experimenters. I wouldn't know the key words to search for the study on-line.
May I ask for a citation to read the material for myself? ... .Statement - based on rat studies (applicable to humans=? ethics and all...) If a rat knows that if the blue button is pressed, the rat gets water, if the red button is pressed, the rat gets food, and if the white button is pressed the rat gets a shock, pretty soon, you have a happy rat that avoids the white button. Toss this rat in a pool of water, and the rat will tread water for over 12 hours.Is this a statement or a question? If it is the former, the word you are looking for is confusion instead of depression. If it is the latter, my answer is No.
Now randomize the "reward"/response for pressing the various buttons, and pretty soon, you have a depressed rat who sits sullen in one corner of the cage. Toss this rat in a pool of water and within an hour the rat gives up and drowns, and that is depression.
Alternately, the same randomization of punishment or reward was said by Gregory Bateson to lead to a schizophrenic break in a schizophrenogenic family/group setting
As/re conditioning. Reference Eugene Ionesco's play rhinoceros and the character Berenger---------Not everyone is capable of turning into a rhinoceros.
Long nights, spreadeagled in hope, bones made cold in loveless waiting.
Coruscating emanations penetrate the dulled lithosome.
Consciousness stirs, but is not stirring.
What to be? When to be? How to be?
Then the thought, soaring, engaging, enriching.
Fuck me, this shit is really easy.
Downside, downsize, feather Eiderdown. Rejoice for Joyce and three quarks for muster mark, or should it now be mustress Euro?
Allusions deepen; illusions steepen. Fit the three tiers of meaning, why not four? Address a range of audience, or at least a rangy one. Will it be grasped?
The Pied Piper was a medieval instance of care outside the community. Drat!
Three quarks for muster mark. Mark is a verb?
Lucky.......................
Are you rewriting your lines again?
Think slave think!
Didn''t you understand? I've written it with the necessary multiple meanings to each phrase. (At least three in all cases. I grant you some of the third layer meanings are initially obscure, but not if you use the thematic second layer as a gestalt guide. Do you need help?)
Pity.
Now, would you like to piece together a coherent statement/question that ties what you have brought up so far and into your OP & thread title?
No it is a name: Mr Mark.
Sure he has not got much of a bark
And sure any he has it's all beside the mark.
A multi-tiered reference. Three quarks for muster Mark is a line from the James Joyce novel Finnegan's Wake. This seemed appropriate for several reasons:
Joyce was also known for stream of consciousness writing, which sculptor appears to employ.
Quarks were named by Murray Gel-Mann based on this passage, which is apt for a science forum.
I mistakenly thought when I posted it that Joyce began writing it in 1921 and I expected to form post 21, so it was a nice synchronicity. It turns out he began a year later, so I should have delayed posting.
Rejoice for Joyce is a rather obvious pun.
The Mark has been replaced by the Euro as the currency of Europe. So, Angele Merkel becomes mustress Euro.
It's all rather juvenile, but I find it keeps the brain active and sometimes yields surprising insights.
I think I know what you're getting at...there have been studies done showing that people who frequently use Facebook, and receive a certain number of 'likes' per day/week/month, etc...grow accustomed to that, and likely need more likes to keep the euphoric feeling going. When they post pics or comments that receive no likes, the study revealed that many FB users become depressed. Definitely a connection between people's upbeat moods and the responses (rewards?) they receive via social media. (And a connection can be made as to the opposite transpiring--people become depressed when they are not receiving positive responses via a particular internet community they wish to belong to.) I don't think this is exclusively an internet issue--people by nature, like to feel a part of or accepted by a community, I suppose.
Deep John very deep..
I had thought that this topic would just muddy the waters. I was aiming at any conditioning, and thought that distinction unimportant compared to whether the conditioning were intended, subconscious, or societal memes?
But: OK
(if memory serves)
the 2 key differences between classical and operant conditioning were thought to be
1)classical uses a neutral stimulus,
operant doesn't necessarily,
2)classical leads to an involuntary response like salivation, increased heart rate, etc...(do people who pray before every meal salivate during prayers?-----Do they salivate during church services?)
operant leads to behavioral changes
The problem arises with emotional responses. Are emotions involuntary? (the old saying, "the heart wants what the heart wants").
Emotions do change behavior, but they are not behavioral changes per se.
If involuntary, then emotions are tied to classical conditioning?
If the stimulus is not neutral, then emotions are tied to operant conditioning?
I thought this conundrum antithetical to the discussion I had hoped to engender.
but you asked so now a new question presents it's self: (as a roadblock to the discussion I had hoped for?)
Are emotional responses involuntary responses?
And there you write a clear and concise post, confirming, were confirmation needed, that your typical posting style is an affectation. Why do you feel this need to be different?
Do I need help?Didn''t you understand? I've written it with the necessary multiple meanings to each phrase. (At least three in all cases. I grant you some of the third layer meanings are initially obscure, but not if you use the thematic second layer as a gestalt guide. Do you need help?)
Yeh dad all I can get.
No, I didn't understand. The esoteric point is well taken. Joyce is much like Chaucer, It only starts to make sense if read aloud, then the neural pathways from the ears alter the meaning of the associated letters so I get a glimpse of his meaning. I know nothing of century old Dublin slang, so maybe that's a contributing factor.
Let me communicate this one more time------------------------I DO NOT THINK IN ENGLISH
When I do think in language, I think in what (for me) are reference points to a an interplay of knowledge fields between or connecting component parts of a concept.
I go with whatever seems the most accurate way of separating the continuity of thought into concise (stand alone) pieces. All inter-related, and all part of the general concept of the moment.
Oft times, the more I think it, the more complex it becomes until the words obstruct the goal.
As a young man I was a master of the "snap shot" wherein, focusing on the target led to raising the weapon and firing in one fluid motion. If I stopped to aim, I missed more often. It seems that the focus was lost in the interim.
So to with translations into common english usage. If in verbiage clarity be lost, then of what value is the attainment of standard format and syntax?
'nuff said, can we readdress the op?
Standard format and syntax are aids to clear communication.If in verbiage clarity be lost, then of what value is the attainment of standard format and syntax?
Unnecessary verbiage is an obstacle to clear communication.
Unnecessary abbreviation is also an obstacle to clear communication.
No, but we frigging well read in English and you are making it frigging difficult to understand as a consequence of your frigging intransigence on this point. Let me communicate this one more time............It is frigging rude.Let me communicate this one more time------------------------I DO NOT THINK IN ENGLISH
I must be a weird one. Like everyone else who has complained,sculptor's style use to really annoy me. But rather than constantly demand that he change it, I broadened my perspective and have gotten used to it. His way of speaking is poetic and I see it as such. Shakespearean English isn't easy for people to understand today, but I grasp it quite quickly. I have taken to sculptor's style as if it is another literary style in which one must put more effort into understanding.
Now I only have to read his posts twice to understand them. But that's how many times I have to read everyone's posts. I just have to set my universal translator to the language of the individual who typed the post. We all sort of speak in our own language. I agree that having a standard language makes things easier. But I really don't mind the challenge.
Maybe my ability to adapt is due to the fact that I also do not think in English. I think in pictures and video. Sculptor's posts usually do create imagery that I can relate to.
eye of the beholder babyNo, but we frigging well read in English and you are making it frigging difficult to understand as a consequence of your frigging intransigence on this point. Let me communicate this one more time............It is frigging rude.Let me communicate this one more time------------------------I DO NOT THINK IN ENGLISH
You nailed itI think I know what you're getting at...there have been studies done showing that people who frequently use Facebook, and receive a certain number of 'likes' per day/week/month, etc...grow accustomed to that, and likely need more likes to keep the euphoric feeling going. When they post pics or comments that receive no likes, the study revealed that many FB users become depressed. Definitely a connection between people's upbeat moods and the responses (rewards?) they receive via social media. (And a connection can be made as to the opposite transpiring--people become depressed when they are not receiving positive responses via a particular internet community they wish to belong to.) I don't think this is exclusively an internet issue--people by nature, like to feel a part of or accepted by a community, I suppose.
The beginning of this curiosity was the "like" feature, which got me thinking about conditioning, and then wondering what is intended, and what is part of the social fabric, and what is conscious or unconscious.
I wana try it, dark into light mountain peak into road
I would suspect that it is an evolutionary trait. We are a communal species. Our safety is in maintaining a collective. As long as we are an accepted member of the collective, the collective will protect and provide for us. In the case of a forum like this. One may feel more inclined to support a member who consistently likes their posts. Positive rewards, like a dopamine rush, can be addictive. This addiction to positive feedback from a group will sustain one's survivability. Often one who is not favorably responded to, ends up being banned. In more real life situations, one who is a social outcast, is less likely to be helped when they are in need. Whether that need is for food, shelter, or legal representation.You nailed itI think I know what you're getting at...there have been studies done showing that people who frequently use Facebook, and receive a certain number of 'likes' per day/week/month, etc...grow accustomed to that, and likely need more likes to keep the euphoric feeling going. When they post pics or comments that receive no likes, the study revealed that many FB users become depressed. Definitely a connection between people's upbeat moods and the responses (rewards?) they receive via social media. (And a connection can be made as to the opposite transpiring--people become depressed when they are not receiving positive responses via a particular internet community they wish to belong to.) I don't think this is exclusively an internet issue--people by nature, like to feel a part of or accepted by a community, I suppose.
The beginning of this curiosity was the "like" feature, which got me thinking about conditioning, and then wondering what is intended, and what is part of the social fabric, and what is conscious or unconscious.
For instance, if you were a firefighter and you had a burning building. Within the building were two individuals. Both having exactly the same chances of surviving a rescue. But you can only choose one. Pretending for a moment that both of these individuals are both still alive. One individual is Carl Sagan and the other is Jeffery Dahmer. You would likely choose to save Carl Sagan over Jeffery Dahmer because, well, we like him more. He behaved as he was expected to, unlike Dahmer who decided to pour battery acid into the skulls of young men and make them into zombie pets until time to eat them.
Life inside a collective is more efficient, productive, and sustainable.
Likeability = survival.
No man/woman is an island...online OR offline.
I agree. There isn't a single poster on this forum that hasn't posted in a manner that is perceived as rude by at least one other poster. Rude, in my opinion is subjective and therefore tolerable. When rude changes to confrontational without purpose, ad hom attacks, and false accusations, then the behavior has crossed over into intentionally disruptive. I don't recall sculptor having ever crossed this line. I wish I could say the rest for everyone else in this thread, including myself. I agree with Kalster. Sculptor is harmless. If his posts are too troublesome to read then ask him for clarification rather than taking his style as if it is a personal attack.eye of the beholder babyNo, but we frigging well read in English and you are making it frigging difficult to understand as a consequence of your frigging intransigence on this point. Let me communicate this one more time............It is frigging rude.Let me communicate this one more time------------------------I DO NOT THINK IN ENGLISH
In the words of marnixR or whoever he quoted: "Don't go out of your way to be offensive, Don't go out of your way to be offended."
I don't need to go out of my way to be offended by someone who abuses the tools of communication and fails to communicate. This is simply unacceptable. There is also a damned difference between being occassionally rude and being rude and anti-social on every damned post. Corrupting communications is not harmless. Sculptor is not harmless.
And several beolders here appear to agree with me. Can I take it you do not intend to change?
When I first got here, I found him to be peculiar. Yes, he does not always make himself clearly understood.
Is it annoying sometimes? Yes. But is it really necessary to go after him in this fashion because of it?
I have never found him to refuse requests for clarification. Certainly, sometimes his clarification left me scratching my head, but I realised a while ago from his sentence structure that he may not think in actual words and instead visualised what he was trying to say. If this is incorrect, then my apologies to Sculptor.
He clearly said he does not think in English. This is not unusual and his writing seems to reflect that.
I think in light of all that is going on on this site, the masses of spam bots, some who blatantly attempt to corrupt science with utter rubbish, going after someone because he writes a bit strangely is a somewhat unfair. I get your annoyance at it, we've all felt it, but is all of this really necessary when a PM asking him to please try differently might have been better?
Just my 2 cents.
Don't keeel meh!
So an interesting topic derailed by a syntax beat down? I've seen it all now.And several beolders here appear to agree with me. Can I take it you do not intend to change?
Warning: I will talk about someone in front of him as if he's not present.
Far be it from me to agree with Tranquille... But I, too, was initially annoyed by Sculptors odd posting style. Rather than get too abrasive about it, I imitated (And still do imitate it, on occasion).
But it does not bother me, anymore.
Adelady is quite correct- Clear and effective communication is important. But I do think that part of that includes listening. The onus is not entirely on the speaker.
I can easily see how an artist- a sculptor - would think visually.
Either way, over time I began to see how much substance his posts contain.
And his delivery no longer bothered me.
Frankly, even if it annoyed the hell out of me... What I see here is a bit of Clique style mentality- Conform; act as we tell you to act or we'll threaten you with action.
Because that's exactly how "Can I take it you do not intend to change?" comes across. I stayed silent on this because I was already giving Galt grief in another thread.
Oh well... I guess I'll give him grief here, too. He's earned it.
There is no requirement that you speak in a conformist manner that everyone else will like. The forums - all across the internet- would be more boring if there was such a rule. Individuality, diversity and argument is what makes and keeps them interesting.
It is not necessarily art or science- but people trying to communicate and the onus is on each one of us to do our best to do so and it's inevitable that each one of us will fail at it regularly.
...Or... to put it another way...
______________________________
Let's get a tad rad, dad.
As/re: Monkeys flinging poo get their point across. Or make a steaming pile of mess.
A wild guess du jour; I think those innate primates do it better.
In attempt to get this back on topic. Would you say our emotion of offense is voluntary or involuntary?
Can taking offense be something one is conditioned, either classically or operantly, to do?
Charming as usual.
Exactly.Adelady is quite correct- Clear and effective communication is important. But I do think that part of that includes listening. The onus is not entirely on the speaker.
I can easily see how an artist- a sculptor - would think visually.
This thread would make anyone who was fortunate or unfortunate enough (for the manner in which some have handled this issue in this thread, it would probably be seen as unfortunate if they were not a native English speaker) to have English as a second language post on this site.
I have come to find it somewhat refreshing.Either way, over time I began to see how much substance his posts contain.
And his delivery no longer bothered me.
Which is ironic given the thread topic.Frankly, even if it annoyed the hell out of me... What I see here is a bit of Clique style mentality- Conform; act as we tell you to act or we'll threaten you with action.
Because that's exactly how "Can I take it you do not intend to change?" comes across.
The reminder that if he does not conform, then he will not be accepted by the community. The punishment being his thread being trashed by people in positions of power because they don't like his sentence structure. Should he comply? He hasn't done anything wrong. Do the rules demand compliance with the Queens English with all the accompanying bells and whistles?
So what should he be changing?
How his brain works?
Which goes to the crux of this current issue. His brain may not be wired to language the way others are. My eldest son is exactly the same. He is artistic and bizarrely more inclined to mathematics. While he can read and write as well as any child his age, sometimes his sentence structure shows that he is more visual. Instead of brow beating him, his teachers are working with him to tap into that visual way of writing and he is now top of his class in English as well as everything else now. The way he is able to relay what he has experienced and the depth he brings into it. I am absolutely gobsmacked by it. My younger son is the complete opposite and thinks in words.
Works really well to the tune of Jingle Bells!______________________________
Let's get a tad rad, dad.
As/re: Monkeys flinging poo get their point across. Or make a steaming pile of mess.
A wild guess du jour; I think those innate primates do it better.
Sorry Sculptor! I do adore you and I think you are an asset to this site and any other site you may frequent.
I would like to know how he could be offended by Syntax and just what he experienced in life to condition him to be that offended by it that he would react as strongly to it.In attempt to get this back on topic. Would you say our emotion of offense is voluntary or involuntary?
Can taking offense be something one is conditioned, either classically or operantly, to do?
I sense a nun with a great big cane and much knuckle whacking in his childhood.
Certainly we may find many things offensive. Such as stupidity, bad smells, inane humour. But Syntax and sentence structure? This is a new one for me.
To each their own I guess. How sad not a lot of people apply that rule when it comes to differences in other people.
Damn you had me going for about a line....then it *cough* dried up!
got the point.
The issue frequently encountered with this form of processing is that it's users aren't training & utilizing their inner verbal monologue often enough to counterbalance the shortfalls when communicating with others who may face difficulties deciphering what is being conveyed. However, seeing that sculptor can at times string together coherent sentence when sufficiently motivated, it would appear that his preferred but unusual method of communication is voluntary and intentional.
If the purpose of starting a thread or making a post is to convey what one wants to say, I would expect some effort to make that message clear and decipherable at least to some minimum standard. But to be honest, I do find it a somewhat tedious task to do it over and over again, and have wondered if it truly worth the effort in having a conversation with someone like that.
He isn't the only one here with the knack for visual thinking or having invested years in the visual arts of sculpturing. Since I do not know the full extend of sculptor's technique (I'm assuming here that it isn't an inherent process), I am unable to offer any real advice to him other than ask him if how he posts is exactly how he speaks to people in person.
I would agree that it is voluntary only in the sense that the effort to change it is not made. But I see it as more being natural. A parrot naturally, and therefore voluntarily/intentionally, does not speak any human language. However, with proper motivation and training a parrot can and will occasionally choose to communicate in a human language. Though it is possible that this effort put forth is stressful to the parrot and that is why the parrot will only do so if there is a fair trade for the effort. So unless we are prepared to send sculptor crackers or cookies, I think it is unreasonable for us to demand that he speak in a way that is unnatural to him. It is likely that putting any words at all is an effort, and a compromise on our part to meet him half way is not unreasonable.The issue frequently encountered with this form of processing is that it's users aren't training & utilizing their inner verbal monologue often enough to counterbalance the shortfalls when communicating with others who may face difficulties deciphering what is being conveyed. However, seeing that sculptor can at times string together coherent sentence when sufficiently motivated, it would appear that his preferred but unusual method of communication is voluntary and intentional.
If he is anything like me, an artist as well, thought not nearly as skilled, he may not speak much at all to people face to face. I speak as little as possible. I find that computer language is easier for me to understand than spoken language. I prefer written communication so that I can reread and revise as many times as necessary to make my message clear. And that usually involves getting someone else to read what I have written before I submit it. Even my posts here are more often than not read to Neverfly before I post them to see if he interprets my words the way I intend for them to be perceived. Often I have to make revisions. Still, I get misunderstood and accused of saying things I did not actually say. Communication is a two way street. Both the speaker and the listener have to make efforts to understand and be understood.If the purpose of starting a thread or making a post is to convey what one wants to say, I would expect some effort to make that message clear and decipherable at least to some minimum standard. But to be honest, I do find it a somewhat tedious task to do it over and over again, and have wondered if it truly worth the effort in having a conversation with someone like that.
He isn't the only one here with the knack for visual thinking or having invested years in the visual arts of sculpturing. Since I do not know the full extend of sculptor's technique (I'm assuming here that it isn't an inherent process), I am unable to offer any real advice to him other than ask him if how he posts is exactly how he speaks to people in person.
I had no idea that vulgar language was permitted based on intent. I was under the impression that it's generally disallowed to use the F-word, regardless of intent.
Why is all of this seeming more and more like a loose cannon?
Be damned... Now I'm gonna stretch out further on my limb. I took a hiatus and came back to chaos. If moderators are going to enforce behaviors- they need to adhere to the same standard. No, Really. This is really starting to strongly come across as "Look what I can do that you cannot do."
And if it bothers, upsets, annoys or Pisses Someone Off that I'm pointing out the obvious and glaring poor behaviors here, I can well assure you that it's starting to piss me off.
I'm watching several well liked and respected members getting involved in a lot of heat and it all seems to center around one person.
And for a change- It is not me.
John Galt; I'll address you directly. I'm a mere member; You're a mod. I'm not on the mods good side- you're one of them.
So when I say this, I am fully aware of our unequal positions. I will say it anyway and Do Not Jump to the 'concussion' that it is based on a personal bias against you:
Read a book.
Get some hot tea.
Do whatever it is that you do when you need to chill out and take a break from something.
I was wondering where the angry hoodoo voodoo vibes had gotten to!
As for the rest of your post, great googalli I agree with you.
Enter that awkward moment where you realise you agree with the person you usually disagree with.
The Earth just moved for me. Did it move for you?
Although that could be from the storm damage we sustained yesterday. Hopefully my house is not about to slip down the driveway and into the road. Hmmm
Enough rambling! Back to topic.
We're all different. Most of the time I just ignore waffling. It doesn't matter for the occasional drive-by interpolated into other discussions after all.I have come to find it somewhat refreshing.
But when someone purports to initiate a discussion, they need to set out reasonably clearly what the topic is and what their view on it might be if that's relevant.
When we're talking about sculptor, we're not talking about a newbie. He's well educated. He has no language difficulties. He knows how to do this stuff when he applies himself.
I frequently find myself putting 15 minutes or more into writing a comment or drafting an OP on something - and then I delete the whole thing if I can't find the words to convey the ideas within my holistic/ visual/ kinetic/ other non-verbal thinking at the time. If I think it's sort of on the way if only I could tweak it just right, I might copy it into a doc for later revision. Only rarely does it see the public light of day. When we're communicating in writing, we don't have the freedom we have in conversation to fudge and fuss and umm and err and say the same thing half a dozen different ways until it's clear to others - or ourselves.
I am not an aural/oral perception and communication style person. (I'm mostly visual with occasional flashes of kinetic language preferences.) But. I. have. learned. to use a variety of words that suit a mixture of communication styles. I have also learned to abandon attempts to speak or write when words escape me. I might try again later if the words come to me, but usually things have moved on by then.
I realise that not everyone has had specific training in communication and perception approaches, let alone in public speaking or other public information matters. So I don't expect everyone to do as I do. But anyone with extensive education, who's also a native speaker of the language, and has more decades of life and language experience under their belt than many others here, has a bit of an obligation to put their best foot forward. Or at least their best words forward. Particularly if they're proposing discussion on a serious topic. The standard is not so high for brief comments in discussions initiated and conducted by others. (Entirely other standards - for want of a better word - seem to apply on joke threads.)
My apologies. You completely misunderstood the aim and intent of the question. If he confirms he does not intend to change, then I am out of here. It's a science forum, not Poet's corner. One adapts ones communication style to the character and aims of the community: this is effective and polite. If we plan to tolerate this anti-communication style then I'm not interested in remaining. I look forward to his response, not with any real hope of a favourable outcome.
I personally think that it would be a waste of words if one could not convey a simple idea without using an entire page.
How dramatic!My apologies. You completely misunderstood the aim and intent of the question. If he confirms he does not intend to change, then I am out of here. It's a science forum, not Poet's corner. One adapts ones communication style to the character and aims of the community: this is effective and polite. If we plan to tolerate this anti-communication style then I'm not interested in remaining. I look forward to his response, not with any real hope of a favourable outcome.
Or you could not read his posts.
Have you ever watched 'How to Tame a Dragon'?
There is a part where the father, Stoick, tells his very different son, Hiccup, some words of wisdom on what it means to belong to their community:
This is certainly a science forum and not the Poets' Corner.Hiccup: [Stoick has just thrust a large battle axe into his hands] I... don't wanna fight dragons.
Stoick: [chuckles] Oh, come on, yes you do.
Hiccup: Rephrase: Dad, I *can't* kill dragons.
Stoick: But you *will* kill dragons!
Hiccup: No, I'm really, very extra sure that I *won't*.
Stoick: It's time, Hiccup...
Hiccup: Can you not *hear* me?
Stoick: This is *serious*, son. When you carry this axe, you carry all of us with you. Which means, you walk like us, you talk like us, and you think like us. No more of... this!**
[gestures to all of Hiccup]
Hiccup: [miffed] You just gestured to *all* of me.
Stoick: Deal?
Hiccup: This conversation is feeling very one-sided...
Stoick: *Deal*?
Hiccup: [sighs, giving in] Deal.
** Emphasis added and mine.
One of the great things that science taught us was that diversity exists in all things. And sometimes, diversity is essential.
This is a science forum and if everyone wrote or thought exactly the same, then none of us would be here. If I want to speak to someone just like me, then I would leave post-it notes on my mirror and speak to myself. You can't expect everyone to be the same. Sculptor isn't offending or harassing anyone, well except for some with his [gasp]visual writing[/gasp]. Just writes differently. Hardly warrants the reaction he is getting because his writing style is somewhat different. Certainly does not deserve the gathering mob with pitchforks demanding he shifts or everyone will leave. He is not posting something blatantly false or incorrect, nor is he murdering science.
Are there rules that are being broken?
Has he harassed or abused anyone? Falsified studies? Plagiarised? Lied? Misrepresented scientific studies or facts? Does he believe in young Earth and Biblical Adam and Eve (raises pitchfork!)? Is he professing that he is a Prophet from Jebus, sent to save us all because he heard voices in his dreams telling him to (waves pitchfork and torch)?
There are some here who do all of that.
I think Syntax is the least of this site's concerns.
You should watch the movie. It's very sweet and may provide some life lessons.
This from someone who, in 129 posts, has managed to convey nothing except utter incomprehensibility or outright error on so many topics.
There are many of the forum with whom I disagree politically and in their interpretation of uncertain science. I am very happy to engage with them and enjoy the rough and tumble of debate.This is certainly a science forum and not the Poets' Corner.
One of the great things that science taught us was that diversity exists in all things. And sometimes, diversity is essential.
This is a science forum and if everyone wrote or thought exactly the same, then none of us would be here. If I want to speak to someone just like me, then I would leave post-it notes on my mirror and speak to myself. You can't expect everyone to be the same. Sculptor isn't offending or harassing anyone, well except for some with his [gasp]visual writing[/gasp]. Just writes differently. Hardly warrants the reaction he is getting because his writing style is somewhat different. Certainly does not deserve the gathering mob with pitchforks demanding he shifts or everyone will leave. He is not posting something blatantly false or incorrect, nor is he murdering science.
Are there rules that are being broken?
Has he harassed or abused anyone? Falsified studies? Plagiarised? Lied? Misrepresented scientific studies or facts? Does he believe in young Earth and Biblical Adam and Eve (raises pitchfork!)? Is he professing that he is a Prophet from Jebus, sent to save us all because he heard voices in his dreams telling him to (waves pitchfork and torch)?
There are some here who do all of that.
I think Syntax is the least of this site's concerns.
You should watch the movie. It's very sweet and may provide some life lessons.
I am very happy to see Creationists appear and those with crazy ideas about plate tectonics. They provide an educational opportunity.
I am not happy to sit in an environment in which a member is knowingly obtuse on a routine basis. Anyway, as I noted, this will shortly cease to be an issue.
Can't you just chuck him on "ignore"?
It is annoying to see so many "This message is hidden because..." messages - but it's better than reading his pseudo-intellectual bum-burps.
To quote many pub fights: "Leave it, John - e's not werf it!".
Shuffling feet, head down and muted voice......I have put people into ignore.....it saves me from calling them obscene names and making Mods Mad.......I am such a coward!! *sob*Can't you just chuck him on "ignore"?
It is annoying to see so many "This message is hidden because..." messages - but it's better than reading his pseudo-intellectual bum-burps.
To quote many pub fights: "Leave it, John - e's not werf it!".
That is not cowardly.
That is simply improving your forum experience.
Do you wash your clothes because you are scared of yesterday's dirt or it is because you prefer something clean and fresh smelling?
I consider the Ignore List to simply be a way of cleaning away the dirt - leaving the forum clean and fresh smelling.
I am quite a facetious person. I feel ZERO guilt when sticking an idiot into ignore. If they got in there, they EARNED their way. I do not tolerate demeaning people or fools. *S* Thanks for the words of wisdom however My BIGREDPANDA!!!That is not cowardly.
That is simply improving your forum experience.
Do you wash your clothes because you are scared of yesterday's dirt or it is because you prefer something clean and fresh smelling?
I consider the Ignore List to simply be a way of cleaning away the dirt - leaving the forum clean and fresh smelling.
I don't think a mod puts people on ignore.
This is true, Mods cannot put people on ignore via forum functions.
I personally have a few people on ignore via forum functions and there are many who I passively ignore. Some I ignore simply because the topics they discuss are way over my head and they don't do social casual chit chat. I ignore entire subsections of the forum, like physics and math. No point in me sticking my head in there or it would likely be that I would perceive everyone's writing in those forums to be the same as JG perceives sculptor's. Different topics tend to produce different writing styles. Psychology often leads to metaphors and analogies that are not generally used in other areas of science.
What I wonder is, why is writing in a style that a person is unfamiliar with considered rude? is it because it makes the reader, unaccustomed to the style, to feel stupid? I know I feel pretty stupid in the physics and math forum, the astronomy forum, and the biology forum. And probably most of the other ologies. But psychology doesn't make me feel stupid because it is what I am interested in. If I don't know what sculptor is talking about, I look up the terms he is using. I don't expect him to teach me psychology from the ground up just to understand a single topic. I would expect it is on me, to get myself up to speed with the topic at hand before jumping into discussion. That seems to be the general expectations on all other forums and topics. Why is this not applying to sculptor? He used a term in a generalized context. That is something a reader can look up. He did not specify any new age experiment that many may not be familiar with.
When JG talks about plate tectonics I have no idea what he is talking about and it is as foreign to me as Chinese. But I don't expect him to give me a beginners lesson in tectonics and then walk me up to the topic at hand. If I have no understanding of the topic and cannot catch up by my own research I simply read the conversation and do not butt in.
There is no obligation to anyone on this forum to participate in every thread presented. As a mod, they can simply watch for the obvious ad-hom attacks and respond to reports if any are made. So unless they are on a witch hunt for bannable offenses, there is no OBLIGATION for them to read any thread that does not particularly interest them. And that goes for the rest of us too. If we do not have interest in a thread other than to brow beat the OP we need not read it or respond to it. If the OP has violated any particular rules, those same rules say we are to report the post, not respond to it with attacks of our own. But few follow those rules and virtually none are admonished for ignoring those rules.
There's a huge difference between a newbie or someone unfamiliar with the language or the discipline being unclear or confused when drafting an OP or writing a comment and someone who's supposed to know what they're doing. We all know perfectly well that if someone new to the forums had contributed an OP like this, it would probably have received a few polite requests to clarify. (And maybe a couple of dismissive or annoyed comments about people not knowing what they're talking about.) It's entirely a different matter when members of longstanding have been repeatedly asked, frequently reminded, and positively nagged to be clearer in their writing ... and then go out of their way to use exactly the presentation that they've been asked to modify.What I wonder is, why is writing in a style that a person is unfamiliar with considered rude? is it because it makes the reader, unaccustomed to the style, to feel stupid?
This style is miiiiles away from unfamiliar. It's far too familiar. There are others who do similar things in the "hard" science forums - constantly misusing terms or expressing things in an annoyingly confusing way. Refusing to accommodate multiple requests that they use terms and expressions in the accepted manner. "I don't think that way" is not an acceptable response there either.
I can't think of any good reason why people contributing to psychology or history or any other such forums should get a get out of jail free pass to use obscure or confusing ways of expressing themselves which aren't acceptable in other topics. Just because topics like these have no equations or weird symbols doesn't mean that clarity of every kind is suddenly optional.
rpenner only locked this thread:
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Life First Started On Planet Mercury?
(236 pages of yuck)
After I posted in this thread:
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Does Youtube Allow Pornography?
And that link to the Sciforums thread didn't even make it to cesspool and got completely erased.
Point being, if mods aren't active, people can get really really pissed off.
With all due respect, I didn't find the OP confusing at all. My explanations are in red below:
Sculptor was far more clear in this op than he normally is in his fly by comments in other threads. I think he put in considerable effort to not only be clear but to engage interest in the topic. Much the way a narrator of a documentary starts off with short simple statements to trigger interest in the viewers... Even star trek the original series starts out this way..... "Space. The final frontier. These are the voyages of the Star Ship Enterprise."
I agree, that is why I said they should respond to reports. And people should use the report function rather than just bitching in a thread and hoping a mod will happen along and take their side in the issue. The point is, if a post is vile enough to get your feathers ruffled and cause you to want to cuss the person out, 1 of 3 things has happened. Either you are being overly sensitive, the other person has broken rules of discourse in the forum and your frustration is fully justified, or you are both being an ass. Giving the pissed off persons the benefit of the doubt, simply reporting the offending thread/post should get the mods attention and if they feel it is necessary to take action, they will. This is their job. It's what they do. And reporting bad posts makes it easier for them to do their job. Straightening out one poster after one off comment is much easier than hashing through an entire thread to determine who started it and who was right or wrong is a pain in the ass to the mods and can lead to them making hasty decisions that are not always perceived as adequate. Especially if they are having a particularly bad day. After all they are humans not drones. Like any and all other humans they are often inefficient, inadequate, and act by the mercy of their irrelevant, illogical emotions. But drones are not available to us so they are the best that we have , for now. We should give them any assistance we can in order to make the forum a more pleasant place to hang out.
You have me there.
As I usually only report spam.
You got no idea how much/how long/how valiantly I have striven to rid myself of the internal monologue.
The internal monologue
creates a fog
that obscures the view
of something new.
I find that I have a dominating personality, and perhaps, because I am broadly educated, many people will agree with me or follow me, even if I'm wrong.
(anecdote) I once wrote a 17 page paper for a seminar I was attending. After grades, the professor told me that over 17 pages, I had stated a non main stream hypothesis, and supported the component parts of it with well reasoned excerpts from published peer reviewed sources. He went on to say that by page 17, he was thoroughly convinced that I had a valid hypothesis, and then, after the conclusion, I offered an untested null hypothesis and dashed his soaring hopes by posing that last unanswered question.
I have no desire to be "right", nor get people to agree with me.
So, when I start many threads(this ain't nothing new) I tend to offer a couple of the starting points as I have perceived them, and allow people to contemplate their perspectives unencumbered by my conclusions.
let us look again at the beginnings of this op(why is it called an op? instead of a thread?)
communities within communities within societies within cultures wherein commonality and disparity have equal valuepatterns within patterns
(hell, I could write a book on patterns across time and cultures and the interplay of light and shadow, knowledge and ignorance, beat frequencies when patterns are off by small amounts, like the joy of hearing music that uses fifths. We live within patterns that were here before we arrive and some that we repeat and amplify and reintroduce, and some that we alter by fifths to enlighten the senses.)
I humbly submit that we live and die within interconnected patterns that span the whole freaking universe and most likely beyond.
(anecdote) I once read of a Polynesian sailor who studied the waves. It was written of him, that by observing disturbances-beat frequencies--within the waves' patterns he could navigate based on islands which were over the horizon by the pattern he had learned to see.
Perspective matters.
If I were to constrain "patterns within patterns" to my perspective of the particular pattern I am trying to understand, I run the risk of leading someone else's mind down the blind alley i seem to have wandered into. If however, i leave the simple statement open to other's perspectives, the chances that I/we might actually learn something increase.
OK, this is rough background into conditioning.operant conditioning rewards leading to group think?
a behavior tends to last longer (after the rewards have stopped) with erratic rewards for a behavior rather than constant rewards.
Erratic response(rewards) to behaviors tend to produce depression
This is one question out of my current basket of queries.Is it the known patterns of response that creates a desire to be part of "community"?
Jeeeeezzz dad:
2 meanings of obtuse-------------between you and me, we got 'em both covered.(before i looked up obtuse in the dictionary, I'd have said that I was being obscure, while you were intentionally feigning obtuse
If you understood Joyce's Finnegan's wake, understanding me should be a piece of cake.
Last edited by sculptor; November 19th, 2013 at 02:30 PM.
So it is a technique you have chosen to utilize rather than an inherent form of processing. You do realize that your application of this technique carries with it inherent drawbacks when conversing with others; even those who are well versed in visual dialogue, much less those who aren't.
May I ask how long have you been practicing this technique? Because it would appear that you have not applied it's supplementary 'translative dialogue' to achieve effective communication with external parties.
If you aren't already aware, by choosing to participate in a discussion forum, you have an obligation to make yourself clear, and should your favored practice impedes this effort, it is counterproductive where communication is concerned.
Edits: I would very much like to know if you converse with people in person - the same way you post on the forums.
scoobydoo
zen studies and reading Castaneda, maybe 35 years?
If I have questions, i tend to vagueness in my queries, unless it's a simple technical question.
If I have answers, I tend to be as precise as possible.
For me, answers are but stepping stones leading to the next question, the next stone hidden just below the waves of uncertainty and obscurity.
When I pose an open query as in this op(why is it called an op instead of a thread?), feel free to pick up any piece of it and run with it. Your destination enlightens me.
...................................
from post #48
yes for offenseWould you say our emotion of offense is voluntary or involuntary?
Can taking offense be something one is conditioned, either classically or operantly, to do?
and, i'd say that for me, it's involuntary, but not completely beyond the control of the voluntary.
For a few years there, gunshots or fireworks would send me diving for cover, and feeling extremely offended by whatever insensitive jerk had done the deed.
That's under control now and does not elicit an emotional response.
I used to be offended by the noise from the powerboats out on the lake(a fat spot in a dammed river actually) until, one day while helping a friend launch his sailboat, I saw a pod of those boats with the big v8 engines that the drivers almost perched on rather than sat in. Another of the thunder boats rumbled in and the pod opened a gap to welcome him. Conversation and sharing a beer followed to much laughter, whereupon the late comer said: "Time to go have some fun" as his engine roared to life, then put put put as he backed into the channel, then he shifted into forward and hammered that puppy to the cheers and fist pumping of his pod mates. They were having so much fun, that now, when I hear that once annoying noise, I smile in remembrance of their joy.
When taking offense, one is taking something that should best be left on the shelf.
.......................
OK?
lets focus on the "like" feature: Did the people who created it intend it as a conditioning device, or was this an accidental outcome of something intended to make people happier?
Were you given formal training in this technique, or at the very least received some form of guidance to mitigate the severity of the drawbacks that comes along with it?
The few people whom I know that practices this technique (including myself) were trained to supplement it with 'translative dialogue', and over time; able to switch modes given ample preparation. For those unfamiliar with this and without divulging too much; it is a visualization technique that involves building a foundational language from scratch in place of verbal inner monologue; using imagery as representations of intent (abstract or otherwise). And as far as I know, no two people perform it in a similar fashion. The difficulty commonly faced when applying this technique is that it may appear highly unstructured and possibly incoherent to non-users. Needless to say, its a technique best applied in one's own head and not with the others on outside world (so to speak).
Does vagueness facilitate clarity for others who are attempting to decipher what sort of answers are appropriate to offer you? How has that worked out so far?
Such as using #1 from your OP in place of #2 from your reply to me?
- "erratic response(rewards) to behaviors tend to produce depression"
- "Statement--based on rat studies--(applicable to humans=? ethics and all...) If a rat knows that if the blue button is pressed, the rat gets water, if the red button is pressed, the rat gets food, and if the white button is pressed the rat gets a shock, pretty soon, you have a happy rat that avoids the white button. Toss this rat in a pool of water, and the rat will tread water for over 12 hours. Now randomize the "reward"/response for pressing the various buttons, and pretty soon, you have a depressed rat who sits sullen in one corner of the cage. Toss this rat in a pool of water and within an hour the rat gives up and drowns, and that is depression."
OP means opening post, or in other circles; it is used to mean original poster(OP)/thread starter (TS).
A conditioning device for what purpose?
There is another forum where likes are tracked as rep points, and there exists the diametric opposite of "like", the "downvote". Each post tracks a total rep for that post. It doesn't appear to be an abused feature, though the modding there is fairly intensive.
A conditioning device for what purpose?
I would guess to encourage conformity. Humans normally have a desire to fit in and be accepted. When we get positive reinforcement (social approval in the form of a public "like") we tend to want more and will post in whatever fashion that elicited that like before.Were you given formal training in this technique, or at the very least received some form of guidance to mitigate the severity of the drawbacks that comes along with it?
The few people whom I know that practices this technique (including myself) were trained to supplement it with 'translative dialogue', and over time; able to switch modes given ample preparation. For those unfamiliar with this and without divulging too much; it is a visualization technique that involves building a foundational language from scratch in place of verbal inner monologue; using imagery as representations of intent (abstract or otherwise). And as far as I know, no two people perform it in a similar fashion. The difficulty commonly faced when applying this technique is that it may appear highly unstructured and possibly incoherent to non-users. Needless to say, its a technique best applied in one's own head and not with the others on outside world (so to speak).
Does vagueness facilitate clarity for others who are attempting to decipher what sort of answers are appropriate to offer you? How has that worked out so far?
Such as using #1 from your OP in place of #2 from your reply to me?
- "erratic response(rewards) to behaviors tend to produce depression"
- "Statement--based on rat studies--(applicable to humans=? ethics and all...) If a rat knows that if the blue button is pressed, the rat gets water, if the red button is pressed, the rat gets food, and if the white button is pressed the rat gets a shock, pretty soon, you have a happy rat that avoids the white button. Toss this rat in a pool of water, and the rat will tread water for over 12 hours. Now randomize the "reward"/response for pressing the various buttons, and pretty soon, you have a depressed rat who sits sullen in one corner of the cage. Toss this rat in a pool of water and within an hour the rat gives up and drowns, and that is depression."
OP means opening post, or in other circles; it is used to mean original poster(OP)/thread starter (TS).
A conditioning device for what purpose?
This passive form of reward system will reinforce conformity to popular practices. About the closest thing to a dislike someone can give is to like a post that attacks the "offensive" member's character or ideas. A practice not uncommon on this forum.
Nothing so interesting, let alone satisfyingly emotional or manipulative. It's boringly practical.lets focus on the "like" feature: Did the people who created it intend it as a conditioning device, or was this an accidental outcome of something intended to make people happier?
The "Like" feature is the easiest way to avoid a lot of unnecessary posts saying nothing more than "Well said" or "Thank you" and other diversions/ distractions from the progress of the discussion.
Wouldn't the desire to issue a "Well said" or "Thank you" be motivated by the issuer's desire to encourage the recipient to continue in the manner displayed by the post in question?
Did anyone witness the long ago smack talk of physforum?
I avoid physics discussions. I can look dumb without their help.Did anyone witness the long ago smack talk of physforum?
Not necessarily. How do you indicate "I agree" or "I see" and nothing more on a forum - without posting a comment. We do it automatically in conversation.Wouldn't the desire to issue a "Well said" or "Thank you" be motivated by the issuer's desire to encourage the recipient to continue in the manner displayed by the post in question?
Remember this isn't conversation. We can't nod or smile or uh-huh or use other non-verbal or barely verbal signs of agreement or approval.
"Like" is our one and only, very limited, mechanism for indicating agreement, thanks, approval without diverting or cluttering up the discussion.
My understanding of the like feature (implemented with the software changeover of Bunsen and Beaker) was straight up taking the concept from Facebook. It has never been more then that, and Knowing who implemented it, there was very little chance of any ulterior motive.
I agree with you in terms of the forum. But what I am asking is back to what sculptor was asking. Why do we feel the need to express agreement, approval or gratitude. I personally don't really understand the purpose of compliments other than to tell the person, indirectly, that you want the person to continue with how they are behaving or being.
It's part of the reason I am stingy with compliments and am unsure how I am expected to respond to them. I hear people thank each other for giving compliments but again, its showing gratitude. Why is there gratitude? These probably seem like strange questions to you, but for me they are sincere. I'm not saying that I do not feel gratitude, I just don't tend to express it.
It seems to me that our society ( human society as a whole) is in a constant state of uncertainty of what is expected of them in order to be accepted. So people desperately seek out signs of approval or disapproval. And when one withholds their feelings on such things it leaves the one seeking it frustrated and unsure of themselves or the person they are seeking approval from. But even knowing this, I do not feel compelled to give in to the demands of others that seem irrelevant to my world view.
I am not exempt from seeking feedback regarding my actions. However, if one is not inclined to share their opinions with me, I simply do not feel anything in regards to it. I cannot rationally display a logical response to non-information. Granted, I do prefer to operate with a majority of my emotional functions shut off because they interfere with productivity. I tend to work on the default assumption that if I do something that is offensive, the offended will likely let me know in some manner whether I ask them to or not. I have met few people who get offended without speaking up in some way. But then there is also the issue that if I have no desire to be "in" with a particular individual or the group they are part of, their opinion of my behavior is of little interest to me.
I realize I am not normal in this regard. I am OK with that. But my life would be easier if I could at least appear to be normal around those who do not know me well. In some situations, perceptions are more important than reality.
Oh dear, did I go off on another findmuck tangent?
So it was just "monkey see, monkey do"? Seems those two weren't very creative.
Because we are, quite literally, social animals.Why do we feel the need to express agreement, approval or gratitude.
For most people most of the time, the desire to be in with others just doesn't apply. This is mostly simple go along to get along stuff. It's more about maintaining a reasonably comfortable social environment than anything else. There are no deepity emotional involvements or commitments here.But then there is also the issue that if I have no desire to be "in" with a particular individual or the group they are part of, their opinion of my behavior is of little interest to me.
I have found the best way for me to get along with others is to stay home and in my room. So far it has worked fairly well for me. None of my neighbors want me dead, as far as I know.
But then on the stray occasions that I do venture out, I don't tend to notice other people as people. Unless I am interacting with them directly that is. And then if I am interacting with them in a business transaction, they are merely tools of the business they represent. They are expected to function in a particular manner and I am expected to utilize them appropriately for the best results. Again, this process has served me well.
Any attempts to forge friendships have done nothing more than get me used and abused by those who "befriend" me. And these are usually people whom I have no personal use for in return.
Odd, I neither see the Like feature as a reward nor conditioning device. And I pretty much agree with adelady in that it enables us to acknowledge in a non-verbal way that we agree with a particular post without witnessing physical cues such as nodding in agreement. Although at times I have used it to represent me liking something that was witty and/or funny in the absence of physically smiling so that the other party knows it.I would guess to encourage conformity. Humans normally have a desire to fit in and be accepted. When we get positive reinforcement (social approval in the form of a public "like") we tend to want more and will post in whatever fashion that elicited that like before.A conditioning device for what purpose?
This passive form of reward system will reinforce conformity to popular practices. About the closest thing to a dislike someone can give is to like a post that attacks the "offensive" member's character or ideas. A practice not uncommon on this forum.
On the surface, there are two parts to what sculptor is proposing; specific to forum behaviour as hinted in the thread title. Firstly, that receiving a Like parallels a reward system rather than an acknowledgement and/or agreement notifier on a platform that limits the possibly of physical cues we usually detect in person-to-person interaction. Secondly, in receiving a Like may be intended by the sender as a reward (or perceived as a reward by the receiver) as some form of positive reinforcement to conform to the individual/collective standards of the locale. While I have my doubts that it is the case, we can perhaps look into the process in each phase and determine if that is in-fact the case.
One of the reasons why I've asked sculptor in post #7 whether he had experienced this was because he hasn't really conformed to anyone's standards other than his own. And having received over seven hundred Likes to date, with over three thousand posts, and over the course of nineteen months hasn't changed that.
There are over five hundred days in nineteen months, and even if we take into account the number of Likes received peaks and troughs in a non-uniform way when distributed over the total number of days + number of posts, it wouldn't appear to have changed anything. That is even neglecting to address whether there is validity in assuming the senders of Likes gave them (the Likes) to make him (both intentionally and unintentionally) feel part of the community and to conform to the standards of the sender; or the larger community.
A secondary question is were the Likes that sculptor himself have given out (over eight hundred of them) to achieve what he is proposing; or more in the manner and purpose of what adelady & I have mentioned?
Last edited by scoobydoo1; November 19th, 2013 at 11:15 PM. Reason: minor amendments
I agree with what you are saying but you are not catching what it is I am asking. What is the purpose of letting the poster and others know that you agreed with what they said? Why do we feel compelled to express our agreement? Whether it is in the form of a digital like, a nod of the head (if in person), or a direct verbal announcement. If the expression of agreement is not to cause some sort of effect, then why do we do it. If we agreed in silence would harm be done? Would harm be perceived? Are we able to resist the urge to voice our agreement in some manner? Why does it matter to us whether or not people, especially strangers, agree with us on something.Odd, I neither see the Like feature as a reward nor conditioning device. And I pretty much agree with adelady in that it enables us to acknowledge in a non-verbal way that we agree with a particular post without witnessing physical cues such as nodding in agreement. Although at times I have used it to represent me liking something that was witty and/or funny in the absence of physically smiling so that the other party knows it.I would guess to encourage conformity. Humans normally have a desire to fit in and be accepted. When we get positive reinforcement (social approval in the form of a public "like") we tend to want more and will post in whatever fashion that elicited that like before.A conditioning device for what purpose?
This passive form of reward system will reinforce conformity to popular practices. About the closest thing to a dislike someone can give is to like a post that attacks the "offensive" member's character or ideas. A practice not uncommon on this forum.
On the surface, there are two parts to what sculptor is proposing; specific to forum behaviour as hinted in the thread title. Firstly, that receiving a Like parallels a reward system rather than an acknowledgement and/or agreement notifier on a platform that limits the possibly of physical cues we usually detect in person-to-person interaction. Secondly, in receiving a Like may be intended by the sender as a reward (or perceived as a reward by the receiver) as some form of positive reinforcement to conform to the individual/collective standards of the locale. While I have my doubts that it is the case, we can perhaps look into the process in each phase and determine if that is in-fact the case.
One of the reasons why I've asked sculptor in post #7 whether he had experienced this was because he hasn't really conformed to anyone's standards other than his own. And having received over seven hundred Likes to date, with over three thousand posts, and over the course of nineteen months hasn't changed that.
There are over five hundred days in nineteen months, and even if we take into account the number of Likes received peaks and troughs in a non-uniform way when distributed over the total number of days + number of posts, it wouldn't appear to have changed anything. That is even neglecting to address whether there is validity in assuming the senders of Likes gave them (the Likes) to make him (both intentionally and unintentionally) feel part of the community and to conform to the standards of the sender; or the larger community.
A secondary question is were the Likes that sculptor himself have given out (over eight hundred of them) to achieve what he is proposing; or more in the manner and purpose of what adelady & I have mentioned?
A digital "like" is as you say, simply a way of expressing agreement or pleasure with a post. But what is the purpose of expressing that agreement. I think it is safe to say, being able to express agreement or lack thereof is something we are attached to. Few people choose to keep their views and opinions to themselves, even when ordered to do so. If they are verbally silenced then they may scowl in disagreement or their face will brighten and the corners of their lips will curl up if they are in agreement. It seems nearly impossible to completely avoid expressing agreement or disagreement.
I feel like I am repeating myself a lot. I don't really know how else to word my questions and at this point, I am not sure I am still in tune with what sculptor was trying to get to the bottom of.
Interesting. To your knowledge has this feature been known/observed to influence cohesiveness by way of conformity, and how does strength of personality play into this system?
In short; to be informative, and to facilitate the formation of additional articulative (textual) expressions of there are any. Disagreements would usually require explaining why we disagree, and the same for goes for corrections and/or non-corrective input of what has been said/written.
The nature of sociality requires communicative efforts between two or more parties.
Effect; Yes. But to influence social conformity or future compliance is a little more complex to say the least.
We express (dis)agreement to avoid ambiguity, confusion, and unnecessary repetition of what has been said. Efficiency saves effort/energy so that the conversation may move along rather than go about in circles.
Harm; No.
Silent agreement is when no disagreement is voiced or made known. Silent disagreement requires substantial motivation to not act; depending on the value one assigns to making their disagreements known or not known. An example of silent disagreement may be in the form of not responding to creationist banter after being aware of how futile it may be to correct them.
Yes, by allowing the conversation to move along.
Technically it doesn't, but depending on the nature of the agreement, I always make it a point to entertain corrections or additional input that may further improve on what I may have said/written.
I like to point readers to a recently unbanned member 8088's actions of indiscriminate giving of Likes in the "Science In A Science Forum" thread in the TrashCan. How does one interpret those actions?
You may absorb our exchange and recalculate whether repetition was necessary.
Edits: I like your new avatar; Seven of Nine.
Last edited by scoobydoo1; November 20th, 2013 at 12:57 AM. Reason: minor additions
I will have to re-read all that has been said in this thread. I do feel like we are saying the same things but saying something completely different at the same time. I will have to seek a means of reconciling the differences in my own head before attempting to carry on.In short; to be informative, and to facilitate the formation of additional articulative (textual) expressions of there are any. Disagreements would usually require explaining why we disagree, and the same for goes for corrections and/or non-corrective input of what has been said/written.
The nature of sociality requires communicative efforts between two or more parties.
Effect; Yes. But to influence social conformity or future compliance is a little more complex to say the least.
We express (dis)agreement to avoid ambiguity, confusion, and unnecessary repetition of what has been said. Efficiency saves effort/energy so that the conversation may move along rather than go about in circles.
Harm; No.
Silent agreement is when no disagreement is voiced or made known. Silent disagreement requires substantial motivation to not act; depending on the value one assigns to making their disagreements known or not known. An example of silent disagreement may be in the form of not responding to creationist banter after being aware of how futile it may be to correct them.
Yes, by allowing the conversation to move along.
Technically it doesn't, but depending on the nature of the agreement, I always make it a point to entertain corrections or additional input that may further improve on what I may have said/written.
I like to point readers to a recently unbanned member 8088's actions of indiscriminate giving of Likes in the "Science In A Science Forum" thread in the TrashCan. How does one interpret those actions?
You may absorb our exchange and recalculate whether repetition was necessary.
Edits: I like your new avatar; Seven of Nine.
As far as Seven of Nine is concerned. I relate to her. I have spent so much of my adult life purposefully remaining disconnected from my natural emotions that now even when they are apparent to me they seem fake and distant. I struggle in relating to how others think and communicate and behave now. My years of seclusion are coming to an end soon though and I really must find a way to re-assimilate with my original collective.
| « Is natural selection being overtaken by unnatural selection? | Psychopath = Aspergers? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
