Ophiolite

You have clearly implied that the two are equivalent. Really! You stated in an earlier post that you were using directive communication to talk to me. Do I need to go to find the post where you said that? We are having an internet discussion. So on the one hand you tell me you are using directive communication to talk to me on a forum, on the other you say that you never stated such communication was applicable to such discussions. Which is it? Contradictions all the way. Or will you use the cheap escape route of saying you said directive thinking, not directive communication. Really! You are behaving illogically and with a strong stench of intellectual dishonesty. You provide a link from some course that uses one of dozens of ways of categorising communications and personalities and management styles. I provide a link from the creator of directive communication. Readers can form their own conclusion. Oh, wait - they already have. I'll let others judge my English. My employer, who rewards me with a substantial income, seems to think it is sound. I've received a number of nice compliments on it over the years. I strive to improve it and welcome genuine efforts to help me do so. I often find silly spelling and grammatical errors if I revisit a piece, but I think I manage a nice turn of phrase from time to time. Please send me a pm with specific errors, or start a discrete thread. I'd like to move to the next level. (By the way Shakespearean style English would be inappropriate on a 21st century science forum. But I am sure that, as an honourable man, you know that.) The responsibility for communicating clearly lies primarily with the writer, not the reader. When multiple, educated, literate readers say that the writing is not clear then it is very likely that the writer is at fault. I haven't been arguing law, I have been arguing about communication in general and writing in particular. I am expert in these areas. Demonstrate clearly what in my post showed I was out of my depth in psychology and point to the improper use of English language. Hmm. Perhaps this is your effort to answer the first point. Well, since you did not understand me, I must take responsibility for that. Here is an expanded version that may help you. 1. It is important to use current science. 2. Current science refers to those understandings, theories and methodologies that are generally agreed to be effective and most up to date in their field. 3. You have dredged up a rather dated description of communication styles that I'm sure I recall from the early 70s, when I first became interested in these things. 4. Like many such instruments in psychology it is only one example of and one perspective on, the complex ways in which we may view communication. 5. In particular, it is one developed for communication within businesses. 6. There are other, equally valid (and certainly newer) ways of classifying communication styles. 7. You have zeroed in on this one method to the exclusion of all others. 8. You have presented it as if it were the only way to view communication. 7. In summary, you have used an old - not current - concept and suggested it is the way to view things. 8. That's just dumb. It took more words. It is less elegant. I doubt any of the other thread participants had trouble with the original, but if you prefer this version I can do that for you in future.

If I am 100% correct, which I lay no claim to, but you do, then it would be completely pointless to look at it any other way. Yet, you proceed to take up a page of seemingly trivial discussion that takes us nowhere. It is true that many breakthroughs in science come through the juxtaposition of observations and theories from diverse fields, or arise from the asking of apparently bizarre questions. Yet in all the instances of which I am aware a link, no matter how tentative, has been perceived by the investigator. In contrast your technique appears to be to throw ideas together randomly, or to ask questions whose semantic content is very low. Will you not attempt to bring more focus to your thinking in future?

Further point: kristalris, you make repeated references to current psychology. From what I can see you are focused on a narrow sub-set of psychological thinking, related primarily to business applications. We can sit here all day discussing the relative merits of Maslow and Hertzberg, review the thinking of Hershey and Blanchard, see how Handy influenced current thinking, consider the cornucopia of test instruments that seek to place people's personalities, or communication styles, or management styles on two, or three dimensional grids. Great. What we should not do, which is what you are doing, is single out one methodology and treat that as if it were gospel and the only way to slice and dice human interaction. That, in any of the systems, falls into the category foolish.

Ridiculous. I have demonstrated, via quotes from Psychology Wiki and from the author of the concept of directive thinking, that: 1. Directive is not equivalent to direct. 2. Directive thinking is not applicable to an internet discussion. You claim this is nitpicking, yet provide no references or logical argument to substantiate it. This is against forum rules. Please address this issue properly. Should you fail to do so, that is, fail to follow the rules of this forum, I shall request via the Report function, that you be banned. Seriously, a diverse group of individuals have told you that you write badly. You mention the Netherlands in an earlier post. I suspect you are writing in a foreign language. All the Dutch citizens I know - and I know a great many - speak excellent English, but I know native Americans and Brits who speak excellent English and can't write to save themselves. You should consider the possibility that you fall into the same category.

This is silly. It is barely worthy of a response. You are using triangles as a metaphor to describe interaction that are, in many cases, far more active than a leak, and which are understood, qualitatively and quantitatively, in far greater detail, depth and richness, than a fourth rate metaphor. In a couple of hours I could come up with a better metaphor to describe what you are trying to describe, that was more intelligible, more relevant and more interesting than what you've produced. However, I wouldn't embarrass myself and waste other peoples time by parading it publicly. Excuse my harshness, but really you have absolutely nothing here. Stop wasting your time and take some serious courses in a branch of science that interests you. So, you don't understand fractional crystallisation - no shame there - but you can't even make your triangle metaphor apply in a meaningful way. Wrong? Certainly. I can't do the first two either. So, I leave tasks that require those skills to people who can. Anything else is arrogance.

Dirk, I have a considerable interest in evolutionary theory. In preparing this post I just did a quick check on my personal library catalogue, where I found I have the following: Human Evolution: 25 books General Evolution: 36 books Complexity in Evolution: 3 books Abiogeneis: 30 books Genetics: 12 books Biochemistry: 5 books Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, Mendel, etc: 41 books Palaeontology: 25 books That's a total of around 180 monographs, textbooks and popular science works directly or closely related to evolution. In addition I have in excess of 150 research papers on various aspects of evolution and a comparable number on abiogenesis. In gathering this material I would not expect to source any of it at somewhere like Smashwords, an internet publisher. What will you say that will convince me it is worth my time to read, let alone review what you have written? Perhaps you could place a short, but typical example of one of the pieces here, so that we could see if there was sufficient interest to pursue the matter further. I realise in this post you may find me coming across as an elitist snob. Not so. I'm an interested amateur who is just rather surprised at the idea that anything revolutionary, or even solidly interesting would appear where you are trying to promote it. I am ready to be persuaded, but I need to see something substantive for that to happen.

I view adaptation, as I think does the biology community at large, as being a process that leads to a better fit of a population for a particular environment. In evolutionary theory there is no expectation or requirement that such adaptation should be perfect. Arguably the notion of a perfect adaptation is meaningless. How then to decide if a population is adapted to an environment. That is simple enough. Does the population flourish in that environment? If so it is adapted. It may later become better adapted, or if the environment changes, less well adapted. But if it flourishes it is ipso facto adapted. Hundreds of millions live in North America today. Many millions lived there pre-Columbus. Human beings are biologically adapted to North America. Finis.

Let's explore this for a moment. Why would an arbitrary definition of states of matter have any influence on the colour of the sky? Our classification does not effect the reality of what we are classifying. Why do you think it does?.

Thoughts? This is painful, since I don't wish to offend you, but if I tell it straight I very well may. What you have written is lightweight, inconsequential, juvenile pseudo-philosophy. There are a handful of pertinent thoughts in it, that are - however - trivial and generally accepted. There are also some monumental misunderstandings on your part. In engineering we are not striving for perfection, or yet another decimal place. We are trying to use as few decimal places as possible - in dimensions and compositions and processes - commensurate with having the device work. Fewer decimal places means lower manufacturing costs: pretty basic, but you seem unaware of that. Demonstrate that is possible for even one system and you might get our attention. I've worked in knowledge management. We sure as hell weren't striving for perfection, but quality and accessibility and relevance. Please explain how each of the following is a leak? 1. Natural selection. 2. Fractional crystallisation. 3. Planetary accretion processes. I'm not fit enough. You have to be in shape for that.

Yes, I was afraid of that. I've run into the same problem working with spanish speakers, where the word for speed (a scalar quantity) is the same as for velocity (a vector quantity). Anyway, its a minor point, but worth being aware of. (What is your native language? The sensei suggests Japanese, but you may have chosen that name for another reason. If I am being to personal please excuse me.) Sorry, two posts went through while I was writing this: the post is in reply to sensei's number 36 post.

I don't want to be discouraging. (It just works out that way.) I don't think you're going to have the same problem here. I'm afraid Mordred has pretty much nailed it in his final paragraph. However, if you can summarise clearly what you are trying to say, perhaps members can suggest study you could undertake to pursue a particular angle.

Excellent post. Excuse me for being picky, but air is a fluid. I think you meant in a liquid. Fluids, in a colloquial sense, are equivalent to liquids, but in science the term covers liquids and gases.

When I post I try, towards the limits of my ability, to create a post that is clear, concise and comprehensive. I also try to make it informative and entertaining, though I have less control over that. To do otherwise is, in my opinion, rude and anti-social. To write in a disorganised fashion, to use overly complex sentences, to have no underlying structure, are all actions that make it difficult for the reader - and that, in my view is rude. I certainly don't think Iwodneraboutthings was doing it deliberately, but the effect on the reader is the same either way. So, I took the time, in a direct manner, to make him aware of it. I'm quite happy to be thought a rude, uncaring bastard, as long as I can help him to write more effectively. The first step is to be aware of the problem. If he wasn't before, he is now.

I too thought it was a reasonable question. What you don't appear to have appreciated, Iwonderabouthings, is that your chaotic, random, disorganised, flighty posting, in which you generally disregard the heart of anything other posters tell you, is itself rude and offensive. Yet members put up with it and seek to interact with you, since they sense an enthusiasm and genuine interest. If we can put up with your rudeness, should you not follow Strange's advice, grow up and put up with ours? I hope the moderators will delay acting on your request, to give you time reconsider. Edit: Cross-posted with Iwonder.

My impression is that the character of directive communication is quite well known in some circles. Here are some quotes that substantiate my understanding of the term. From the Psychology Wiki, "Directive Communication is a training and organisational development psychology developed by Arthur F Carmazzi that reveals how people act and react in groups while providing a structure for the influence of those groups." And from Carmazzi's own website (you know Carmazzi, the guy who developed the concept) there is this, "Directive Communication is a methodology that affects how people act and react in groups. It is a foundational science for influencing group dynamics and Teams to cultivate high performance work cultures and leadership across any discipline within an organization." The emphasis is that of Carmazzi. I am at a loss to see how you think talking to one person in a directive style is of any value, or relevance, when that person is not, in this context a member of any group or team, and is not in need of leadership within some non-existent organisation. Just what relevance do you think that has? It appears to me that you are conflating the words directive and direct. I work in industry, actively involved in training, knowledge management and organisational behaviour. One runs across things. Not according to Carmazzi, its originator. Are you claiming greater understanding of the process than its author? Carmazzi observes, "(directive communication) exposes individuals to the mental, emotional, and physical triggers that will lead to improvement in their quality of life in and out of work." In what way is your post going to lead to improvement in the quality of my life? It's rather darkened the last few minutes of it. Again note, this approach is directed at teams in the workplace, not individuals relaxing on a forum. Where have I said I prefer directive communication. I like direct communication. I like communication that is clear, concise and comprehensive. For the most part your posts lack those qualities. You are free to ignore this observation and thereby continue to fail to convince anybody of anything. It will cause me marginal sadness to witness that, but I'll get over it. You need to revise that conclusion. It is a science forum. I repeat: communications should be clear, concise and comprehensive.

Here are two alternative responses. Please select the one that you find most satisfactory: Response A There is no match at all: 1. If your speculation is based on observation, then it is observation you have misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misapplied. 2. Your suggestion, while not directly conflicting with prior, thoroughly validated findings, does not seem to intersect with them in any meaningful way. 3. Your argument contains no logical sequence I can discern. 4. You have not attempted to define anything and your comments are wooly, vague and rambling. My suggestion was that you abandon this misguided topic and try something else. My apologies for not being clearer - I was trying to break the bad news gently. Response B Unfortunately I quite lack the intellectual capacity to follow your rigorous and insightful perspective on these matters. Thank you for the glimpse of paradise.

Le Repeteux, it is a courageous person indeed who attempts to answer one of the big questions of science without having an immensely solid grounding in current theory and years of experience in researching that area. So, I applaud and stand amazed by your courage. To attempt to answer more than one big question, as you seem to be, leaves me quite speechless.

Since directive communication relates to interactions of people within teams and groups, I assuredly do not prefer it when conducting a dialogue. It was not conceived for that. I do prefer direct communication. I have managed just about every conceivable category of person any school of psychology has identified and hand waving, word salad, remains hand waving, word salad for all of them. So we are clear, hand waving, word salad = wooly. In general wooly writing reflects wooly thinking. And just to be clear, I am blaming you for your writing style. You are the one using it and failing to either improve it, or show any desire to improve it. Edit: correct minor typographical error.

By having, as a minimum, some of these characteristics: Being based on observation. Not conflicting with prior, thoroughly validated findings. Containing no illogical elements. Having tightly specified definitions. If the foregoing is true, I recommend you start a thread on a new topic.

And the HQ of Peco, the model railway manufacturers.

On the Science Forum we don't like to give "the answer" directly, since this does not help students to learn. However, I think you have grasped the principles involved here by the way you ask the question. So, I'll point you in the right direction - a wikipedia article - where I think you will find that your suspicions were correct. On a side note, I understand many teachers object to the use of wikipedia as a source and certainly you should be cautious about what you read there - or anywhere. But articles on mainstream concepts like redox reactions are generally sound: and the references at the foot of the page let you check more established sources. Hope that helps. Good luck with your studies.

This Thursday I'll be pitching a business case to upper management in Houston. So, both of us will be dealing with cliffs. You'll be looking up at one and I'll probably be being thrown off one.

You cannot poke holes in a cloud.

Yes. The effect will be to convince them that the mainstream Christian denominations have, indeed, been corrupted by the Devil. On a side note, I'd like to think that those forum members who believe religion is universally bad and useless and counterproductive and filled with unthinking fools will turn of their DogmaKneejerkTM button for a moment and reflect.

I thought he said "Yeuch! At least this stuff freezes pretty fast up here and then you can just brush it off."