Are we becoming to literally minded?

MarkD

MarkD

Keeper of the Hounds & Garden
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
“The philosopher C Thi Nguyen puts it this way: “The aims of communication are complex and many. Some of us want to transmit information or to persuade; some of us want friendship. Some of us want to join together in the pursuit of truth and understanding . . . Twitter invites us to shift our values along its prefabricated lines. We start to chase higher likes and retweets and follower counts — and those are very different targets.” He calls it the “gamification of discourse”.”

This complex, nuanced world has a right-hemisphere problem
 

I like that, “gamification of discourse”.

It's worth remembering, it's very rare that anyone changes their mind on Social Media. Instead that right-fight. Which is why actual debates are are rare as hens teeth. Instead there are back and forths until one of the people involved get bored or sufficiently insulted to give it up.

Conversation done face to face is a different animal to online discourse. Yet we're turning more and more toward the internet being the real world, and the real world more of an inconvenience. It seems to be in the nature of the virtual world. It's an abstraction, so people begin to act out.
 
I prefer debates to fighting and now that I know it could be that way it will help me to stay silent more. Fighting is the opposite of everything that seems most important for the world to achieve. :rolleyes:
 

chic said:
I prefer debates to fighting and now that I know it could be that way it will help me to stay silent more. Fighting is the opposite of everything that seems most important for the world to achieve. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's becoming a rare commodity. You ought to enter into any conversation with the mindset of respect, but that doesn't exist on Social Media, apparently. For me, it's okay if you have a different opinion on a specific topic. I'm not going to let it define you as a person. Of course, it does depend on what you're disagreeing about. So for example, there's no middle ground when talking to racists. But for the most part - politics etc. then you simply have to accept that sometimes we hold different points of view, and that it's okay.

The other thing I see a lot is the same old tired arguments being dredged up, even ones that have been debunked a few million times. Oh well.
 
In our "age of information" it is so easy to not "hear" the context of what we learn. I often catch myself scanning my memory for alternative "facts" to what I am reading and miss what the person is really communicating. I am actually aware of this tendency, so I re-read until I quit talking to myself and spouting off the literal knowledge I have swallowed. :)
 
I thought this was telling for the variety of ways our thinking can be arrested by a theory we can’t see past to the living world we are a part of.

“Some will say that literal-mindedness has always existed, and, to a point, I’d agree. It is not difficult to locate the Pharisees and Puritans in this tradition or, to skip forward, the Marxists of the 1950s, neoclassical economists of the 1980s and new atheists of the 2000s. In each case, we glimpse a difficulty in accommodating ideas that transcend rigid templates and a literal interpretation of sacred texts — the Bible, Das Kapital, The Selfish Gene. I remember talking to a disciple of Richard Dawkins who regarded it as reprehensible that a friend went to church, even when told that he attended out of yearning for companionship, hymns and existential solace.”
 
Fiction or Fact? They both are very important. Fiction can tell us a great deal about the context of the story. Fact tells us indisputable evidence. ( debatable:) )
 
Paco Dennis said:
Fiction or Fact? They both are very important. Fiction can tell us a great deal about the context of the story. Fact tells us indisputable evidence. ( debatable:) )
Click to expand...

Probably the facts we take as incontrovertible do the most harm. But really it is thinking that anything important must be able to be explained explicitly with words is the myth doing the most harm.
 
VaughanJB said:
I like that, “gamification of discourse”.

It's worth remembering, it's very rare that anyone changes their mind on Social Media. Instead that right-fight. Which is why actual debates are are rare as hens teeth. Instead there are back and forths until one of the people involved get bored or sufficiently insulted to give it up.

Conversation done face to face is a different animal to online discourse. Yet we're turning more and more toward the internet being the real world, and the real world more of an inconvenience. It seems to be in the nature of the virtual world. It's an abstraction, so people begin to act out.
Click to expand...

Including what at times seems like some people going out of their way to get offended when none was given or intended. They turn it into something personal about them as opposed to the discussion at hand. Within social media, it often appears that some immediately go on the defensive when no defense is necessary. A little later, the same person might go on the attack when it isn't warranted or necessary, and it adds nothing to the discussion. I observe this behavior far more in social media than in face-to-face discussions. We can see it on this forum too.

This behaviour often overshadows the sincere pursuit of truth and understanding in online discussions. Even when facts are presented, they tend to get ignored. It's as if facts themselves are sometimes seen as an 'attack,' even when that wasn't the intent. In response, people sometimes resort to a 'defence' based on hearsay or even the presentation of hearsay from individuals not involved in the discussion. This often leads others in the discussion to take sides, even when such divisions aren't necessary. These 'sides' further obstruct meaningful discussion. As a result, discussions often deteriorate. Once again, I've observed this happening much more frequently on social media than in face-to-face conversations.

I wonder if within social media, people are inclined to show their true selves. At times without them even realising it.
 
Paco Dennis said:
Yes. We concoct theories based on pre existing "facts" that we usually cherry pick. This too tells us a lot about "how" many people support each others biases. Many of these theories become accepted as the rule for some length of time. There is no end to theory making. :)
Click to expand...
My answer to @Pepper applies here too.
 
chic said:
Would you have said that about the theory of relativity? Einstein maintained he got paid to imagine. :unsure:
Click to expand...
My son's at work so I had to look it up:

What Is a Theory?​

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.
But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory
 
chic said:
My answer to @Pepper applies here too.
Click to expand...
I love Einstein's thoughts of fancy! :) Theories always play with "evidence". There are many ways humans define evidence. ( for them ) Is the law of gravity a fact? Did Columbus discover America? There seems to be hard evidence, which many say science uses. There is evidence we think shows "truth" when we agree with some social groups ways. There is also "evidence" that we find out by our own experience.

Einstein seemed to have an ever expanding mind. :) I can't fathom his mind. But the theory of relativity has blended into the background ( not disappeared ) of physics. All phenomena passes, goes extinct right? If not what remains? As @MarkD said "thinking that anything important must be able to be explained explicitly with words is the myth doing the most harm." That little phrase is a keeper! :)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top