Is here a place for open discussion, or a place of personal attacks, politics and protectionism?

[Mental Dynamist]

5/15 on https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119001-mental-momentum-short-essays-about-mind-and-brain/, I tried to post my ideas about how our mind and brain work (exactly the same material I posted in our thread). From then on, I’ve been receiving attacks from the moderators, not on the validity of my theory, but on my person. After I’ve addressed the issue, the moderator Strange made an insincere apology. Afterward, Strange constrained his/her posts on a theoretical level, but continued to deliberately impede me to publish my ideas without pointing out how my theories are scientifically invalid.

Around six hours after Strange’s insincere apology, another moderators swansont came in and posted a moderator note saying that I’m making the thread as my personal blog to soapboxing my ideas, while not engaging in discussion. swansont then said “if you think that you, personally, have been attacked, you should use the "report post" link at the top right of the post to report it, rather than bring it up here.” Finally, swansont said the thread will be closed if I continued to post my ideas while leaving others’ questions unclarified. From then on, the moderator Strange keeps soapboxing superficial questions nagging for clarification.

My dear moderators, I have a question to ask you:

Is this forum a place to openly discuss science, rather than a place to impose policies and protectionism?

Despite that I’ve kindly and patiently replied to comments that pertain my opinions of mind, including those with very hostile tones, I’m still tagged as ‘not open to discussion’. I don’t think so. I think you, my dear moderators, only want to impose your dogmas on our members. You want all others to accept your reasons while yourselves are not open to either reason or discussion.

Science talks about evidence, and here they are:

The Moderator Note made by swansont were made six hours after Strange’s insincere apology, not anywhere near my post containing my theoretical excerpts.

swansont, while questioning my sincerity in engaging in discussion, 1) said I should use ‘report post’ to report personal attack, and 2) threatened to close the discussion thread. Should I report the posts of mods so that every personal attack they made will be dealt with by themselves, rather than be open for all to see? But anyway, our dear mods clearly know how to delete individual posts without closing the whole thread. So why would swansont said to close the thread instead of just deleting the posts he thought I was soapboxing? Because our mods are on the losing ground in the discussion here in this thread, and they want to find a pretext to close it.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Mental Dynamist said:

My dear moderators, I have a question to ask you:

Is this forum a place to openly discuss science, rather than a place to impose policies and protectionism?

I've seen your attitude on at least three science forums I have been a part of in my time. On all occasions, the so called open discussion you speak of are no more then agenda driven hypotheticals or unevidenced ideas that people seem to pull out of their rear end. We have a place for mainstream science discussions that deals in mainstream science, and we have speculative sections where people can put ideas and be prepared to support them. In near all cases they cannot, and then start crying when their ideas are challenged.

S

Quote

Science talks about evidence, and here they are:

I don't see evidence, only unsupported opinion. 

[Mental Dynamist]

I'm not here to start an argument, what I really want is to present my theories and ideas and share my understanding of how the brain works. To do this, I have spent a while organizing my theory into the book chapter format I have presented here, believing that it is the best way to appeal the audience without any background in psychology or neuroscience. But as I'm new to any science forum online, I think I have tried my best to answer all the questions you have. As what I really want is to share my ideas, presenting my ideas in a more discussion friendly style may also be a worthwhile attempt. Again, I'm not rejecting criticism in any way, I only hope it pertains to the theories I have present. I do have complete and novel theories ready to be posted, if you all could be kind enough to let me present my ideas thoroughly before criticizing them (not attacking them for the sake of attack), that would be great.

[Dagl1]

2 hours ago, Mental Dynamist said:

I'm not here to start an argument, what I really want is to present my theories and ideas and share my understanding of how the brain works. To do this, I have spent a while organizing my theory into the book chapter format I have presented here, believing that it is the best way to appeal the audience without any background in psychology or neuroscience. But as I'm new to any science forum online, I think I have tried my best to answer all the questions you have. As what I really want is to share my ideas, presenting my ideas in a more discussion friendly style may also be a worthwhile attempt. Again, I'm not rejecting criticism in any way, I only hope it pertains to the theories I have present. I do have complete and novel theories ready to be posted, if you all could be kind enough to let me present my ideas thoroughly before criticizing them (not attacking them for the sake of attack), that would be great.

So what I understand is that you want to share your ideas and theories but in the thread in question, you seem to ignore (or more accurately evade) questions such as; what evidence is there for your conjecture, what evidence would point to the contrary, how do we test it.

You say that you don't want to start an argument AND you ask people to let you first post all of your ideas (no one has been stopping you, have they?) before people criticize them. Two problems; first off, that is exactly like making this your personal blog.... secondly, why should people hear out your entire ideas (which seem very very long winded and without effective or clear summary) when they have problems with certain parts. 

It is very possible to counter or criticize certain parts of your argument without hearing all of it. If you would be doing some math or physics equations, and before you have posted the ENTIRE thing, someone points out that you are saying 2+2 = 5, then that is completely fair isn't it?

-Dagl

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Mental Dynamist said:

From then on, I’ve been receiving attacks from the moderators, not on the validity of my theory, but on my person.

I see modnotes about not posting links without explanation, about not soapboxing and moving the thread to speculations. These are rules enforcement, not attacks.

Further, you were asked to report any posts where you think personal attacks are happening

Quote

After I’ve addressed the issue, the moderator Strange made an insincere apology. Afterward, Strange constrained his/her posts on a theoretical level, but continued to deliberately impede me to publish my ideas without pointing out how my theories are scientifically invalid.

Impede? How?

Quote

Around six hours after Strange’s insincere apology, another moderators swansont came in and posted a moderator note saying that I’m making the thread as my personal blog to soapboxing my ideas, while not engaging in discussion. swansont then said “if you think that you, personally, have been attacked, you should use the "report post" link at the top right of the post to report it, rather than bring it up here.” Finally, swansont said the thread will be closed if I continued to post my ideas while leaving others’ questions unclarified. From then on, the moderator Strange keeps soapboxing superficial questions nagging for clarification.

My dear moderators, I have a question to ask you:

Is this forum a place to openly discuss science, rather than a place to impose policies and protectionism?

It is a place to discuss science, but it has rules to facilitate discussion. You agreed to follow them when you joined.

Quote

Despite that I’ve kindly and patiently replied to comments that pertain my opinions of mind, including those with very hostile tones, I’m still tagged as ‘not open to discussion’. I don’t think so. I think you, my dear moderators, only want to impose your dogmas on our members. You want all others to accept your reasons while yourselves are not open to either reason or discussion.

Science talks about evidence, and here they are:

The Moderator Note made by swansont were made six hours after Strange’s insincere apology, not anywhere near my post containing my theoretical excerpts.

Perhaps you can understand the linear nature of time, and that people are not on the forum 24 hours a day. Posts are made only when one is online and visiting, and only after reading the posts one is responding to. 

Quote

swansont, while questioning my sincerity in engaging in discussion,

Excuse me?

Quote

1) said I should use ‘report post’ to report personal attack, and 2) threatened to close the discussion thread. Should I report the posts of mods so that every personal attack they made will be dealt with by themselves, rather than be open for all to see?

Asking you to follow the rules is not a personal attack.

Quote

But anyway, our dear mods clearly know how to delete individual posts without closing the whole thread. So why would swansont said to close the thread instead of just deleting the posts he thought I was soapboxing? Because our mods are on the losing ground in the discussion here in this thread, and they want to find a pretext to close it.

I'm not involved in the discussion in any way, so I don't see how I could be "losing ground". Further, it is not up to you to dictate how the staff deals with rules violations. You might consider that you are a guest in this house, and have the courtesy to follow the house rules.

Losing the huge chip on your shoulder would improve matters greatly.

 

5 hours ago, Mental Dynamist said:

I'm not here to start an argument, what I really want is to present my theories and ideas and share my understanding of how the brain works.

We have requirements for anyone who wished to present their own theories. It would behoove you to familiarize yourself with them. And also recognize that disagreement or calls for evidence are not personal attacks.

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Mental Dynamist said:

Around six hours after Strange’s insincere apology

Actually, it was a genuine apology for getting distracted by your poor examples. (Let's not mention that there wasn't anything else of significance to discuss and it wasn't clear what they were supposed to be examples of.)

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

I'm not involved in the discussion in any way

And I am involved in the discussion but not as a moderator. (We have rules about that sort of thing.) I haven't reported any posts in the thread and have not taken part in any discussions with the moderators about it.

[koti]

9 hours ago, Mental Dynamist said:

5/15 on https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119001-mental-momentum-short-essays-about-mind-and-brain/, I tried to post my ideas about how our mind and brain work (exactly the same material I posted in our thread). From then on, I’ve been receiving attacks from the moderators, not on the validity of my theory, but on my person. After I’ve addressed the issue, the moderator Strange made an insincere apology. Afterward, Strange constrained his/her posts on a theoretical level, but continued to deliberately impede me to publish my ideas without pointing out how my theories are scientifically invalid.

Around six hours after Strange’s insincere apology, another moderators swansont came in and posted a moderator note saying that I’m making the thread as my personal blog to soapboxing my ideas, while not engaging in discussion. swansont then said “if you think that you, personally, have been attacked, you should use the "report post" link at the top right of the post to report it, rather than bring it up here.” Finally, swansont said the thread will be closed if I continued to post my ideas while leaving others’ questions unclarified. From then on, the moderator Strange keeps soapboxing superficial questions nagging for clarification.

My dear moderators, I have a question to ask you:

Is this forum a place to openly discuss science, rather than a place to impose policies and protectionism?

Despite that I’ve kindly and patiently replied to comments that pertain my opinions of mind, including those with very hostile tones, I’m still tagged as ‘not open to discussion’. I don’t think so. I think you, my dear moderators, only want to impose your dogmas on our members. You want all others to accept your reasons while yourselves are not open to either reason or discussion.

Science talks about evidence, and here they are:

The Moderator Note made by swansont were made six hours after Strange’s insincere apology, not anywhere near my post containing my theoretical excerpts.

swansont, while questioning my sincerity in engaging in discussion, 1) said I should use ‘report post’ to report personal attack, and 2) threatened to close the discussion thread. Should I report the posts of mods so that every personal attack they made will be dealt with by themselves, rather than be open for all to see? But anyway, our dear mods clearly know how to delete individual posts without closing the whole thread. So why would swansont said to close the thread instead of just deleting the posts he thought I was soapboxing? Because our mods are on the losing ground in the discussion here in this thread, and they want to find a pretext to close it.

If only instead of taking the time to rant and whine how badly youre treated by the mods you took that same time to learn more about psychology, psychiatry, biology/chemistry, how the brain and mind works - you could actulally come up with something useful. 

Edited May 20, 2019 by koti

[Bufofrog]

You are seriously misrepresenting the replies to your thread "mental momentum".  There was one post which could be considered a personal attack and you received an apology for that comment.  What actually happened is several members took the time to read your posts and supplied you with valid critiques that you did not like.   Instead of addressing those critiques you made the following statement after you were asked to stop blogging:  "It appears my material has become too good to be criticized." 

It seems to me you have been treated very well.  Most of the members, me included, do not agree with you 'theory'.  If you cannot take constructive criticism then maybe you should not be presenting your ideas to the public.  I think you should get over it and quit trying to be a martyr. 

Edited May 20, 2019 by Bufofrog

[Mental Dynamist]

It seems I have made a mistake in the way of presenting my theory here in our forum. This probably leads to the misunderstandings between me and our mods. My apologies. In my further posts (in the thread Mental Momentum), I'll keep them theoretical without talking about anything personal about me. I'll also try to minimize the examples to make my posts compact.

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, Mental Dynamist said:

But as I'm new to any science forum online, I think I have tried my best to answer all the questions you have. 

Science DISCUSSION forum. We sit at an imaginary table and talk about science. We don't jump on top of the table and start shouting everyone down. We don't attack people, we attack ideas to make them stronger or show they're rotten. That's how the methodology works in science. 

The only real problem here is that you're trying to present your "opinions regarding the mind" (paraphrasing) to people who have studied what mainstream science has observed, and they've found several points where your opinions don't reconcile with what's known. They've pointed those out, but you continue to post your pre-prepared book excerpts without taking any criticism to heart. It seems like you're trying to advertise and ignore critiques, both of which are against our rules, so that may account for the differences in your expectations.

[swansont]

To put something Phi said in another way: the whole point of the speculations forum, for anyone other than the presenter of the idea, is to critique that idea. Critical analysis of it is a feature, not a bug.

 

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

To put something Phi said in another way: the whole point of the speculations forum, for anyone other than the presenter of the idea, is to critique that idea. Critical analysis of it is a feature, not a bug.

If an idea is like a plant, it grows strong by being subjected to the wind, which tries to blow it over, but instead makes the stalk stronger as the plant compensates. Critique is like the wind (and hopefully not just hot air), making the idea stronger as it's tested from multiple directions. 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

If an idea is like a plant, it grows strong by being subjected to the wind, which tries to blow it over, but instead makes the stalk stronger as the plant compensates. Critique is like the wind (and hopefully not just hot air), making the idea stronger as it's tested from multiple directions. 

One wants to be a willow that bends with the conditions and not a mighty oak that breaks in storm. Moral: Better to be flexible than stubborn.:D

[studiot]

Because of all the fuss I looked through your thread and I must say I found it boring as hell, with nothing to reply to at all - so I didn't.
This often happens. Uninteresting threads wither away through lack of support.
Others thrive for opposite reasons.

On the other hand, the fact that so many members have been able to put their views here in this thread shows what a fair minded forum this is.
I don't know of another (scientific) forum that would have allowed such a lengthy free debate as this.
So consider yourself lucky you are a member and follow the rules here and the guidance from those who have been here (much) longer than yourself.

Edited May 20, 2019 by studiot

[Strange]

39 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

One wants to be a willow that bends with the conditions and not a mighty oak that breaks in storm. Moral: Better to be flexible than stubborn.:D

Have you been rewatching old episodes of Kung Fu?  

[Phi for All]

43 minutes ago, Strange said:

Have you been rewatching old episodes of Kung Fu?  

"I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions." - Caine

[Bufofrog]

31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

"I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions." - Caine

"It is better to stand in the light of the sun than to step on a garden rack".  - Co

[Eddie B]

To members here, I am a self confessed "country bumpkin", and folks like myself are reputed to know very little about how the brain works. This is me making a joke about myself before others get the opportunity, as quoted in your thread... but did I learn anything from your quote ?. Well no I didn't,  because as a child I had a disability in regards my sir name i.e. the weather present in my regional TV news bulletins is called Sarah "Blizzard". My sir name does not relate to an element of the weather, but it did unfortunately scupper any childhood dreams I had of becoming a tyre salesman... I'll leave that to the imagination of the mind  . However as a consequence of other children's actions towards me, I poked fun at myself and this left them confused as to how to respond. My thought process was to either take the beatings or take away their ammunition... their thought process was in disarray, so they backed off. So perhaps this is an example of how the mind "does not" work !.

I am actually responding here because I do not understand why this "grievance" thread was opened ?. As stated in a "very"early" stage of your thread, the option to run the gauntlet  was in your court. This meant "taking the beatings" along the way, which I have recently discovered myself means having your belief, idea or hypothesis tested to the limit. And if you make it to the other side, it means you "may" have something credible and worthy of further investigation. I read your topic, and although I did have to double my usual caffeine intake to keep up, I did try to make an effort to understand what you were saying. I found it interesting in the sense that it portrayed how your mind works (meant as a compliment), but as suggested, you took too long in getting to the point. Which is not criticism by the way, because I have fallen down the same hole as you in this respect. However, what I do not understand is the fact that your thread remains open, you have at least two comments of encouragement from fellow members i.e. "but if you try again, I'm sure you'll be accepted"... yet you decided to take this course !. I also think that you are not doing yourself any favours by naming names,  because the description you posted above reads like a police report !.

You should consider the advice given because as a newby myself, I seen no aspects of the replies you received directed to your character status, only a sense of frustration at repeated requests for answers. The option to recover from this situation is still open to you, so you still have time to work the problem and "take the beatings" like you would joke about yourself... rather than accept hostility is working against you !.

Good luck

E B  (certified bumpkin)