3 ms·

Upvoted because you're right. But honestly, I wasn't trying to engage with that poster: I was trying to engage with readers, by fighting this kind of nonsense s

Upvoted because you're right. But honestly, I wasn't trying to engage with that poster: I was trying to engage with readers, by fighting this kind of nonsense simply by calling it out as such. I wish I could respond with a substance filled, evidence based response to such a claim, but where would I even begin with such a thing? His claim itself is so vague and unsupported that it's more of an emotional feeling than an opinion that can be criticized. Perhaps someone better than me should try.

kbenson 9y ago
> But honestly, I wasn't trying to engage with that poster: I was trying to engage with readers That's a valid reason to respond as you did. It was my assumption that you were targeting that towards the parent which was in error. > I was trying to engage with readers, by fighting this kind of nonsense simply by calling it out as such. That works well for getting people who agree with you to take notice. Unfortunately, if you don't use that to make a new argument to those that already agree with you, you're just preaching to the choir. I don't really have a problem with that, and I wouldn't have called it out if I interpreted it as that, but I also don't think it's all that productive (that's not really meant to be a critique, I'm just explaining my personal point of view on this at this point). > His claim itself is so vague and unsupported that it's more of an emotional feeling than an opinion that can be criticized. Perhaps someone better than me should try. When I can summon the strength myself to engage, I find that asking for more details and asking people to actually explain in more detail their belief works well. Often I find that what initially seems like an opinion completely unfounded in facts has some basis, but people are reluctant to go into them because of dismissive responses. I'm sure we all have a few opinions like that, where we would love to have a good discussion on it, but it's become decisive enough that trying to start a substantive conversation and keep it one track is hard when people make large assumptions about the details of your opinion without actually asking. For example, try starting a conversation on actual differences in how the brain functions between the sexes, and whether that does or does not lead to specific advantages or disadvantages for one sec in certain types of thinking, and whether that advantage if it exists is completely subsumed by environmental factors. I suspect that conversation will quickly approach uselessness if it gets any traction. Some discussions still have far too much cultural and social baggage to happen fruitfully in public, even here, where I'm sure a larger than normal percentage of people would identify as rational intellectuals.

kbenson 9y ago

> But honestly, I wasn't trying to engage with that poster: I was trying to engage with readers That's a valid reason to respond as you did. It was my assumption that you were targeting that towards the parent which was in error. > I was trying to engage with readers, by fighting this kind of nonsense simply by calling it out as such. That works well for getting people who agree with you to take notice. Unfortunately, if you don't use that to make a new argument to those that already agree with you, you're just preaching to the choir. I don't really have a problem with that, and I wouldn't have called it out if I interpreted it as that, but I also don't think it's all that productive (that's not really meant to be a critique, I'm just explaining my personal point of view on this at this point). > His claim itself is so vague and unsupported that it's more of an emotional feeling than an opinion that can be criticized. Perhaps someone better than me should try. When I can summon the strength myself to engage, I find that asking for more details and asking people to actually explain in more detail their belief works well. Often I find that what initially seems like an opinion completely unfounded in facts has some basis, but people are reluctant to go into them because of dismissive responses. I'm sure we all have a few opinions like that, where we would love to have a good discussion on it, but it's become decisive enough that trying to start a substantive conversation and keep it one track is hard when people make large assumptions about the details of your opinion without actually asking. For example, try starting a conversation on actual differences in how the brain functions between the sexes, and whether that does or does not lead to specific advantages or disadvantages for one sec in certain types of thinking, and whether that advantage if it exists is completely subsumed by environmental factors. I suspect that conversation will quickly approach uselessness if it gets any traction. Some discussions still have far too much cultural and social baggage to happen fruitfully in public, even here, where I'm sure a larger than normal percentage of people would identify as rational intellectuals.