What gives us the Ability to <fill in the blanks>

[dwai]

Surely cognition is really dependant on lingusitic context in one way or another. (and thus in extension cultural context), and this is very much how i interpreted your post.

But one again I don't understand why you brought that up, what is the point you're trying to make?

 

 

No aggression, i am just curious on what you're trying to communicate, so i am questioning you, my friend.

 

Where does this thought of aggression arise? Is it something about my syntax? And why would you say that my syntax would indicate aggresion? Much of our way of interepretion of emotions dissapears when we communicate through text, it is in a way suboptimal way of communicating because of this. (but that is why we have smilies i guess) How come you're interpreting my semantics as aggression?

I sensed aggression beneath the questioning. Its energetic more than anything else. That metacognitive process you just referred to often shows me energetic formations that are not directly apparent.

 

Did you read the article? And the hypothesis about bio-cultures? It documents the neurobiological processes via which different people process cognitive/sensory data input. 

[dwai]

Well Dwai , isn't especially tender , he can handle dispute. But for some folks any kind of questioning at ALL is taken as an attack . BUT  I'm not the best speaker to advise anyone on how to tone down a post in fact I suck at it , and am often misconstrued. All I'm saying is that I thought that post  read that way, not that your overall style of writing needs any adjustment at all. 

Well well,  thanks for the advocacy

The fact is that I'm weary and leery of disputation these days...there is no need for us to be combative and argumentative. We can learn from each other even if when we don't agree with each other...

 

And positions and understandings change. At one point in history - a few years back, Marblehead and I used to see and understand Dao quite differently. I think since then, my understanding has evolved (and I suspect his has as well). Now, we agree more than we disagree (*unless MH decides to disagree with me on this )

[Stosh]

I know what you mean entirely,! Im tired of the drama, the headbanging etc and blah blah for the most part. Theres still some knee jerk reflex ,, but its lazy. Even this here is far more attention to a pebble than a pebble warrants . Movin on..

[leth]

Well Dwai , isn't especially tender , he can handle dispute. But for some folks any kind of questioning at ALL is taken as an attack . BUT  I'm not the best speaker to advise anyone on how to tone down a post in fact I suck at it , and am often misconstrued. All I'm saying is that I thought that post  read that way, not that your overall style of writing needs any adjustment at all. 

 

I think that the idea that questions are considered aggressive, or a form of attack on statetment it is questioning is inherently bad for communication. It's rather common i have noticed, but i argue that questions are an important part of communication, and that reaction towards questions is  an emotional repsons to some sort of cognitive dissonance around the logic of deconstructing statements to be able to understand them. Or perhaps an insecurity around communicating ones ideas. I think a lot of people have small insecurities around communication since childhood.

 

No matter the reason for emotional responses to questions I think that trying to avoid questions in discussions to avoid such emotional responses are detrimental to the overal communication in that discussion. If we can't use questions as metacommunication I think we are much more prone to have miscommunication.

 

What are your(/anyones) thoughts on this?

[leth]

I sensed aggression beneath the questioning. Its energetic more than anything else. That metacognitive process you just referred to often shows me energetic formations that are not directly apparent.

 

Did you read the article? And the hypothesis about bio-cultures? It documents the neurobiological processes via which different people process cognitive/sensory data input. 

 

 

I read the article i think i understood the general idea hypothesis on bio-cultures. And while i agree to a certain extent, i would formulate it much differently, and I am very skeptical to the connections to certain areas of the brain in this area, such research is not yet mature enough to make such conclusions in my opinion. As a hypothesis, sure it and it's worthwhile to study. But We could just discuss such things withouth the need to discuss the brains function. We know more about how our mind works than we know how the mind realtes to the brain. We can make assertions on cultural and enviornemental factors in the midn without talking about the brain.

 

And while it was interesting, i don't understand why you brought it up, or where you wanted the discussion to go from there. This addition to the discussion seemed to diverge from the discussion that was already had and in a sense just a distraction from that which was discussied. In other words digressing.

 

Now there is nothing wrong with it, but i just can't understand what thepoint you where trying to make, or what it was that you wanted to discuss with me in regards to this. So I didn't know how to respond in any other way than to ask what your point was or what you wanted to discuss.

 

I could discuss the hypothesis you poseted, but then I'd expect some sort of question or statment to discuss around.

And i can't see a connection to it and the post that you responded to, so if you wanted to discuss something in connection to it you'd have to ask something or make a statement that is connecte to that post s taht i can understand what it is you're trying to communicate with me.

 

I'm sorry if I haven't been clear in this metacommunication, but metacommuncation is hard for me (all communication really), and i hope we have communicated in a good way about this now, and i thank you for your metacommunication aswell as it has helped to bring clarity in this discussion.

[leth]

The fact is that I'm weary and leery of disputation these days...there is no need for us to be combative and argumentative. We can learn from each other even if when we don't agree with each other...

 

It sure is bad to be combative, argumentative however is one of those words that can mean many things. Argumentative in the negative sense of aggresive contention i think we should avoid. However argumentative might just refere to the idea of using arguments in the sense of reasoning to dicssus a matter which is a rather neutral way to discuss things. And as such i think we should be argumentative, because arguments in the sense of logical reasoning and inquiries on the other persons statemants are constructive in communication, and a highly efficient way to gain understanding on the other persons thoughts.

 

And positions and understandings change. At one point in history - a few years back, Marblehead and I used to see and understand Dao quite differently. I think since then, my understanding has evolved (and I suspect his has as well). Now, we agree more than we disagree (*unless MH decides to disagree with me on this )

 

They do, and discussion is a great tool to gain further insight so that one can mature in ones reasoning, it is thanks to discussion and the exchange of ideas that allows us to develop our own cognition and knowledge. Personally i am a great fan of discussion for this very reason.

[leth]

I know what you mean entirely,! Im tired of the drama, the headbanging etc and blah blah for the most part. Theres still some knee jerk reflex ,, but its lazy. Even this here is far more attention to a pebble than a pebble warrants . Movin on..

 

Sometimes the pebbles are gold nuggets.

[Stosh]

Actually Im coming to the conclusion that argument or verbal contention is a totally bullshit venue for arriving at concensus. First of all not one person in a hundred exhibits the intellectual honesty required to push them into an admittal of being wrong. Unlike a court, where you can force someone to admit things, here you cant. Thirdly most folks just dodge issues they think , dont feed into the conclusions they already have. If youre going to understand someone elses rationale, you need to give it a run yourself, and frankly, we prefer the ideas we have for reasons we have already amassed. What is here for public discussion is rarely anything anyone truly has question about, tidbits do turn up, but really you arent looking to make major concessions.

 

[leth]

Actually Im coming to the conclusion that argument or verbal contention is a totally bullshit venue for arriving at concensus. First of all not one person in a hundred exhibits the intellectual honesty required to push them into an admittal of being wrong. Unlike a court, where you can force someone to admit things, here you cant. Thirdly most folks just dodge issues they think , dont feed into the conclusions they already have. If youre going to understand someone elses rationale, you need to give it a run yourself, and frankly, we prefer the ideas we have for reasons we have already amassed. What is here for public discussion is rarely anything anyone truly has question about, tidbits do turn up, but really you arent looking to make major concessions.

 

Consensus is not always a viable or even reasonable goal, I think a better goal is to understand eachother. Consesus should only arise if people actually agree, but there is nothing wrong with disagreeing and discussion will point out in detail how people do disagree. Sometimes it's worthwhile to understand the finer details how there is disagreement. Discussion is a way to both understnad others reasoning aswell as ones own resoning, and a good way to further develop ones reasoning and to learn new ways to reason.

[Stosh]

Concensus isnt a false situation, it literally means we Would be in general agreement.

If I understand that you are wrong... What good is it to you, or me, that we convey our opinion ,if all it amounts to is a rejection? If you really learned some new reasoning then your opinion would not remain entrenched exactly as it was. What is the desired end state ? to have successfully arrived at concensus ,,you or I would have shown the better light that another man can see IT for himself and benefit thereby.

[leth]

Concensus isnt a false situation, it literally means we Would be in general agreement. If I understand that you are wrong... What good is it to you, or me, that we convey our opinion ,if all it amounts to is a rejection?

 

It gives us understanding, and I posit that understanding is a worthy goal in itself. If i understand someone elses viewpoints then I can better behave accordingly and adapt to and show respect towards that person. I can for instance not follow a custom i do not agree to out of respect unless I understand what that custom is. There are many other reason why understanding is worhty to seek of course, i just wanted to give one example.

 

If you really learned some new reasoning then your opinion would not remain entrenched exactly as it was. What is the desired end state ? to have successfully arrived at concensus ,,you or I would have shown the better light that another man can see IT for himself and benefit thereby.

 

Even though my poinion has changed it does not have to lead to consensus in the debate. It can even lead towards a wider gap in viewpoints, none the less there has been progression.

 

Which ever way we see things, and whatever we think are better is not the same for others. We do not know whether the other person could have valid points that would cause us to gain better understanding of what we think is better, or if our ideas could inspire better understanding in the other person. But the progression would never happen in either parties unless there is a change of ideas and discussion.

Edited October 10, 2015 by leth

[Stosh]

Digging our heels in ,isnt progress. :-) Ill play the devils advocate ,and speak the often unspoken short version. " You are wrong, and must change your mind, I am not going to change mine because I am the one who is right. I am not even going to give your idea a benefit of a doubt ,since it would only be a self destructive opportunity ,,to do so. At some point I will give up trying to get through to you and just leave you to wallow in the mish mash ideas you are entertaining presently. "

[Stosh]

Compare that to, 'Oh, I see what you mean, that makes a lot of sense" thanks!