kristalris Posted July 11, 2014 Author Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) Great you are all reaching the essence of the problem. My definition of "Just" isn't just the rigid system. I.e. Just Proof entails the possibility of an unjust law. So it thus needs a stated single goal: as stated the logic on the goal of having a long fulfilled life with the least possible infringement on others (or any other better defined single goal.) It is a Yin and Yang discussion that if you discuss it to the brink will not reach a resolve hence any legal / democratic system will have an as small as possible taboo. Only to be reached when the system stabilizes itself. The reason of this is the inherent "incompatibilte des humeurs" that follows our DNA of the instruments between the ears. It is like trying to join matter and anti matter. Some personalities simply will never understand other personalities. Yet must work together for an optimum = not ideal result. The 50% + 1 logic of democracy must be balanced by the non democratic logic of science. That is for the courts of law as last stand before actual physical conflict to resolve. Yet that is based on inherent guesswork. In law we are desperately trying to (if done correctly) to keep a Just order. I.e. establish the facts correctly and on bases of that decide what in fact happened. Then the rule of law states what should ensue. This of course in a democracy poses a problem of an unjust law. Say a law prosecuting homosexuality. Let's take a concrete problem and see how Just Proof deals with it: at a point in time some blokes fly a Boeing 777 into the twin Towers. Just Proof: casus beli and time to do some serious work for annalists. When Taliban and Al-Qaeda then go in with an exit strategy like the Romans showed us. Create a Nato foreign legion of all the tribes of Afghanistan and only don't let the specific tribesmen of the created Band of Brothers fight in their own region. This worked 2000 years ago and still works. Provide a pension and health care for the family of loyal soldiers (= peanuts in cost). Only creating the loya jirga (= good idea) is not enough. You need a stable non corrupt police / military force led by a few Nato "Roman Centurions" that can call in air power. => game over for Taliban. Make a deal with Taliban (= also tribe) from a Just Proof strength. Don't go for a quick idea of a gay parade in Kabul. Yet a Just Proof police/military force can exert powerful influence that the hanging of homosexuals is not part of the game. => a homo scene out of the picture will ensue and ultimately lead in maybe fifty or more years to a gay parade in Kabul. What we (Nato) have done now is a replay of Vietnam: like Eisenhower warned: beware of the industrial military complex: send drones and shoot expensive (=> profit for some) missiles all over the place and keep a large Nato ground force in place that draws in Jihad fighters like a magnet and leads to unacceptable degree of filled body-bags. Just Proof: you must keep the order for history without exception shows that in disorder truth and thus justice is the first victim. Just proof: stabilize in a Just way => you / we reach the stated goal. Oh and BTW Bignose you grasp the problem yet not my stated solution. Restudy the thread please. Just proof is about consensus. Ergo no one single group of super judges. Quite the contrary. Edited July 11, 2014 by kristalris
Strange Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 So it thus needs a stated single goal: as stated the logic on the goal of having a long fulfilled life with the least possible infringement on others "Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism Some personalities simply will never understand other personalities. Yet must work together for an optimum = not ideal result. Which is never going to work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract (laughably flawed; it is hard to believe that anyone took this seriously) This of course in a democracy poses a problem of an unjust law. Say a law prosecuting homosexuality. You claim that is unjust. Others would say it is just. Why do you get to impose your opinion on them? Let's take a concrete problem and see how Just Proof deals with it: You make it sound so simple. I'm not sure if you are hopelessly naive or you just have no idea about people. Just proof is about consensus. And that is why it is hopeless idealism and will never work.
kristalris Posted July 12, 2014 Author Posted July 12, 2014 "Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism Which is never going to work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract (laughably flawed; it is hard to believe that anyone took this seriously) You claim that is unjust. Others would say it is just. Why do you get to impose your opinion on them? You make it sound so simple. I'm not sure if you are hopelessly naive or you just have no idea about people. And that is why it is hopeless idealism and will never work. Oh dear oh dear you might think it strange but you start off with a strawman in effect stating that I adhere to Rousseau. I'm a bit rusty on Rousseau but can you explain Rousseau's position on psychology traits and different types of DNA and R&D, production and sales? Of course you can't => blatant strawman thus. And even that you don't properly deal with even if it was my argument. Because the only thing you state in that effect is that Rousseau is laughably incorrect even though most democratic and legal systems stem from his way of thinking. Must I conclude that you oppose all democratic and legal systems then? Please explain how you can ditch Rousseau and not ditch democracy and all western legal systems? Yes I get to impose on others that discriminating any other for their sexual preference is unjust. And might I add it is not just I who state that. Must I then take it that you state that it is acceptable for others to discriminate homosexuals? Further more you simply still don't get it: the consensus that I'm on about is the formally required consensus between the open minded judge giving advice and the other judge or jury taking the decision. A very often used requirement in courts of law BTW. What you think I said I guess is that it is about consensus of everybody on everything, where I explicitly even have stated the absolute opposite. Certain people qua personality will never understand each other. Now you then think oh then they can't work together. Well no mate. It is very well understood how to organize that in a way that they do in practice work together. In effect that is just what I've done: create a separate organisation and give that a degree of authority. People have been sufficiently working together on all sorts of goals. Tried and tested it works. What clearly doesn't work is going on like we are now. Take the USA: Democrats and tea party nearly paralyzing the central government. A mounting debt. A bank crises. Nearly 0.7 of the population in jail at this very moment. !% of the populace having what is it more than 90% of the wealth, a third of the population below the poverty line. The USA is morally bankrupt. You got to this because your legal system is on the blink. It pays off to cheat and costs to much to be honest. => system goes haywire.
Strange Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 Oh dear oh dear you might think it strange but you start off with a strawman in effect stating that I adhere to Rousseau. I'm a bit rusty on Rousseau but can you explain Rousseau's position on psychology traits and different types of DNA and R&D, production and sales? I assumed you were just using DNA as a metaphor. I can't see how it is relevant in any other way. Rousseau, like you, seemed oblivious to psychology and naively believed you could build a system around everyone doing the "right thing" Must I conclude that you oppose all democratic and legal systems then? Please explain how you can ditch Rousseau and not ditch democracy and all western legal systems? Because democracy is based on (typically) the rule of the majority. Rousseau's system is based on perfect consensus (which is why it is ludicrous). Yes I get to impose on others that discriminating any other for their sexual preference is unjust. And might I add it is not just I who state that. But there are others who disagree, and might fight vidorously to defned their views. That is why your idealistic everyone-gets-along system cannot work. Certain people qua personality will never understand each other. Now you then think oh then they can't work together. Well no mate. It is very well understood how to organize that in a way that they do in practice work together. In effect that is just what I've done: create a separate organisation and give that a degree of authority. How is your "separate organisation [with] a degree of authority" any different from, say, the police and justice system in a modern liberal democracy? What clearly doesn't work is going on like we are now. Why will people behave any better in your system than they do currently? Most people already do cooperate in the way you describe, accepting the political system and obeying laws. But there will always be revolutionaries, terrorists, dissidents and criminals. I don't see what you are doing that will change that.
kristalris Posted July 12, 2014 Author Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) I assumed you were just using DNA as a metaphor. I can't see how it is relevant in any other way. Rousseau, like you, seemed oblivious to psychology and naively believed you could build a system around everyone doing the "right thing" What i'm stating old boy is the current assessment psychology of which you are clearly totally oblivious. I.e. you clearly haven't the foggiest of what I'm stating about personality traits. And how in practice this is successfully applied. Yet not sufficiently in courts of law. You are also completely oblivious to the fact that whether it is nature (DNA) or nurture (current psychology) both come to exactly the same conclusion how to organize cooperation and how to flunk that. Further more you are - as history alas also shows - completely oblivious to the great and mounting problems in our western society and in the world as a whole. You only close the barn door after the horse has bolted. But that is DNA/ personality traits for you. That is what predictably in theory and practice happens if it isn't correctly organized. And you are clearly oblivious as to how legal systems work in practice and in theory. Further more you are oblivious to the fact as to the fundamental impact of a legal system on society as a whole. The mounting unnecessary bureaucracy comes out of the legal system. Unless of course you are not bothered by or haven't noticed this and are then oblivious to that as well. Indeed criminals: nearly ONE percent of an entire population in jail as criminals? You are clearly not bothered by that? Oblivious to the problem. If you don't understand basic psychology then you indeed will not see how it changes it. In effect it can indeed only change when the leaders see this. That will only be so when the leaders see people who in their eyes have authority indeed recommend this. That is what current psychology states on the issue. (BTW if you look at how apes behave and know that they are 90% to 97% the same DNA as us, I think you will have to acknowledge the fact that behavior especially personality traits are far more DNA in a DNA surrounding than is politically correct to state. You can breed aggressive or passive apes. As can you do with humans concerning all personality traits. And why not see the influence of the different DNA surroundings as nature as well? current psychology shows that you can easily stabilize a group of woman working together by adding one man to the group and the same goes for a group of men adding one woman. Edited July 12, 2014 by kristalris
Strange Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 You are also completely oblivious to ... If you say so.
Ophiolite Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 What i'm stating old boy is the current assessment psychology of which you are clearly totally oblivious. I.e. you clearly haven't the foggiest of what I'm stating about personality traits. And how in practice this is successfully applied. Perhaps, if you improved the clarity of your writing, Strange wouldn't be so totally oblivious...........old boy. You are also completely oblivious to the fact that whether it is nature (DNA) or nurture (current psychology) both come to exactly the same conclusion how to organize cooperation and how to flunk that. So, you are using DNA as a metaphor, or are unaware that the Nature side of the equation contains more than just DNA and the Nurture side has considerably more within it than just psychology. (When I said unaware in the previous sentence I meant, of course, oblivious to.) Further more you are - as history alas also shows - completely oblivious to the great and mounting problems in our western society and in the world as a whole I am quite interested in history. I have scores of books on history covering most major periods and regions. I don't recall Strange appearing oblivious in any of these. Might you be mistaken? Or is it that obfuscating writing style again? (Probably a combination of Nature and Nurture again, so I'm certainly not blaming you for it.)
kristalris Posted July 12, 2014 Author Posted July 12, 2014 Perhaps, if you improved the clarity of your writing, Strange wouldn't be so totally oblivious...........old boy. So, you are using DNA as a metaphor, or are unaware that the Nature side of the equation contains more than just DNA and the Nurture side has considerably more within it than just psychology. (When I said unaware in the previous sentence I meant, of course, oblivious to.) I am quite interested in history. I have scores of books on history covering most major periods and regions. I don't recall Strange appearing oblivious in any of these. Might you be mistaken? Or is it that obfuscating writing style again? (Probably a combination of Nature and Nurture again, so I'm certainly not blaming you for it.) Un-clarity in writing? Where then? If I use DNA in a Nature vs Nurture context as I did I refer to an ongoing discussion. You may thus assume I know about that unless you've seen me write anything that conflicts with that. I haven't, so it should of been clear to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture So again my position in this (BTW non-) debate is: current psychology stresses the nurture side of this debate. That isn't thus the same as what you think I stated that psychology totally envelopes that side of the discussion. Simple logic. I stated earlier on that both nature and nurture on the topic amount to the same thing as to how to organize the legal system. I also stated in effect that I'm convinced that you are not born tabula rasa and that your personality traits are genetic. That doesn't mean however that the education, or drugs can't alter the pre-settings. In this debate it is quite important to understand that whether nature or nurture human behavior is much more mechanical than is politically correct to state at the moment. This means that it is extremely important that you put the correct personalities in the chair of the R&D part of the justice system. If you put a production minded type in charge of that thinking he or she can learn to perform the required task you then are clearly seriously mistaken: it will go horribly wrong. Here part of psychology incorrectly claims to much when they think you can change someones personality via training after that personality is formed. Even that you can change it at a young age isn't true but that is off topic. You can of course seriously even permanently influence i.e. damage it. Me mistaken about Strange being oblivious to the stated problems? Could be, but then his line of reasoning is illogical. Anyway he hasn't even acknowledged the fact that there is a serious and pressing problem. So thus I'm under the impression he is oblivious of a problem. If he isn't then why does he obfuscating that? On my style of writing that you deem obfuscating or woolly I guess because you maybe prefer a more directive form of communication? Current psychology states to that effect that R&D minded people are perceived as woolly by production minded people who are conscientious in nature. The latter demand a directive style of writing. Indeed (extremely) probably always a combination of nature and nurture. I don't blame you either.
Ophiolite Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) On my style of writing that you deem obfuscating or woolly I guess because you maybe prefer a more directive form of communication? Current psychology states to that effect that R&D minded people are perceived as woolly by production minded people who are conscientious in nature. The latter demand a directive style of writing. Indeed (extremely) probably always a combination of nature and nurture. I don't blame you either. 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. Edited July 12, 2014 by Ophiolite
kristalris Posted July 12, 2014 Author Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) 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. Where did you get this from? Who told or taught you this? It is absolutely wrong. A directive communication style is what I'm treating you to now. See: no hand waving. You state to prefer this, so enjoy. and, you also state that you don't like it or woolly. Ergo you've just been proven wrong then.Quite an improvement then isn't it? A directive communication style wasn't conceived. It is descriptive. You don't like woolly or directive. Well then what do you prefer? https://www.diversityresources.com/media/FourStylesParticipantHndbk.pdf Edited July 12, 2014 by kristalris
Ophiolite Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 Where did you get this from? 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. Who told or taught you this? I work in industry, actively involved in training, knowledge management and organisational behaviour. One runs across things. It is absolutely wrong. Not according to Carmazzi, its originator. Are you claiming greater understanding of the process than its author? A directive communication style is what I'm treating you to now 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. You state to prefer this 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. Ergo you've just been proven wrong You need to revise that conclusion. Well then what do you prefer? https://www.diversit...cipantHndbk.pdf It is a science forum. I repeat: communications should be clear, concise and comprehensive. 1
physica Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 On my style of writing that you deem obfuscating or woolly I guess because you maybe prefer a more directive form of communication? Current psychology states to that effect that R&D minded people are perceived as woolly by production minded people who are conscientious in nature. The latter demand a directive style of writing. Indeed (extremely) probably always a combination of nature and nurture. I don't blame you either. It is widely accepted that skill in writing is putting a point across concisely and directly in all circles. This is why judges sometimes apologise for not having enough time to write a shorter judicial opinion. Shakespeare was renowned for conveying so much in such a short piece of writing. In fact I have never heard a review congratulate a writer because they were wooly. Your style implies that you're out of your depth and you remain wooly as a last defence. It reminds me of when I ask a student a question. You can tell that they don't have a clue about the answer because they will repeat the question in their answer, stall, use excessively long words and fail to commit anything concrete to their answer. In your posts on this thread you make a multitude of strong claims and you only give three links: one stating that a man is a man one to say that you know about nature and nurture and one link following your statement that your style is descriptive (even though the link doesn't cover, just more out of depth smoke and mirrors I suppose, nothing new there) If you want people to come round to your way of thinking you have to commit to a solid point and give it substance. I'm sorry to say that most of your posts are waffle.
Acme Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 Is there a world to save then? Many scientists as do I think there is. We humans are systematically over-stressing the system and inevitably going for a catastrophic failure. We are overpopulating, overproducing, over selling, over expecting and "over everything" in an extremely irresponsible and mounting way. We in the past already have had two bangs one in 1914 which has eerie similarity to the situation in Europe at the moment and the situation in Asia / China resembles that of Japan before WWII. Not to mention mounting environmental problems. And the mounting political instability where by tea party Republicans are on a war footing with Democrats and vice versa. Same in Europe with rising nationalism. Not to mention the mounting instability in the Muslim world. In effect the history is repeating itself. The solution is IMO very simple yet taboo and thus extremely complex to achieve: Just Proof: snip... open minded judges (= the ones with the most original humour) in any legal system in a new R&D court branch in order to give temporary integral advice in all cases to the judge / jury. Let these if they don't agree or have doubt send 1% to 5% of the cases back for new advice in order to reach consensus. And have appeal for when this consensus has not been reached. When things go wrong or maybe are going wrong and that is also when less than 1% or more than 5% or silly stuff gets sent back then you must have an "air crash investigation" even of the supreme courts. Why this works is simple. It is in effect already tried and tested and conforms to logic and what our theory of human behavior depicts. Put your team in order according to current psychology on the R&D, production and sales. All three are critical. In effect you then have a safe environment in which educated honest guess work is sold instead of near perfection in order to keep a Just order. In the latter more and more everybody will not only start to behave but also the same system will via natural necessity be copied: thus R&D, production and sales which leads to wisdom because the correct teaming has been effected. If we all start to work wisely on any stated reachable goal this goal will sooner or later be reached, because we humans - as a correctly teamed up collective - otherwise wouldn't of been here. We did this via testing creatively intelligent ideas and subsequently when proven correct producing and selling it. The wise judge doesn't know of loopholes in the law on important issues. The legal system should be seen as an emergency brake and not a normal brake. Wanting to throw this brake out because it is used to much is an error in reasoning. A Just Proof method immediately deregulates yet by leaving all rules formally intact. It only slowly divides all the rules in important, less important and not important. The latter for the trainees, the uninterested and the mentally challenged. The cost savings are enormous. Because in a Just state all conflicts are ultimately decided in courts of law if all else fails ultimately here do you get your winners and loosers, If the system is indeed just then above par the justified winners indeed win and the justified loosers indeed loose. What is justified? For that a sated goal is needed: let's say a long and happy (as in what ever makes you tick even if it is the opposite of what make others tick.) the least as possible infringing on that goal of others. => forced to give and take in order to cooperate as enforceable Just law. The legal system will thus be needed less and less yet must remain as the emergency handle providing maximum freedom to all. To make more or less acceptable mistakes (remember we humans are DNA mistakes on the ape-norm!) But how then to change the perverted way in which the legal and other systems are financed? Simple ask for advice on the R&D branches that will have sprung up all over the place of which you know that they will provide above average good testable guesses. In short why this will work. IMO this is much more DNA ant-heap of distinguishable different DNA working in on each other than is politically correct to state, but even if you take the current psychology nurture stance the analyses and cure is in effect the same. We must take into account our reptile brain, our small social mammal brain, our ape (> 90% the same) brain and our human brain and organize accordingly. This leads me to the belief that the parliamentary democracy is the least bad form of governance as Churchill also put it. Logic true is what 50% + 1 think. To balance this against the whim of the day most systems have a senate / house of lords type shock absorber built in. In the Trias Politica we also have the legal system to balance it all. The trait of having an open mind measurable via original goal orientated humour shows the creative nerd who is capable of making a fully adult goal orientated above par Yin and yang guess. That still leaves the possibility of being a nerd that is a emotionally intelligent six year old for taking everything literally. Showing feeling for irony as well shows the open mind on the relationship as well. The socially competent nerd. On You Tube I go into this further in my playlist on the Just Proof appeal that is still work in progress. To add to this and yet to be changed in the films: DSM 6 is identical to DSMV and only differs in that everybody is deemed mad and retarded and genius with less than 1% exceptions. Depicted in a humoristic way. DSM7 is the Boring Bayesian inversion of DSM 6 for use in the courts: everybody is normal with less than 1% exceptions. Bare in mind that say anorexia nervosa is thus to be seen as something to be tested as not a mental disorder but a normal reaction to a sick society. Change society and I predict that mental disorders as DSM V has many more will simply subside and vanish unless irreparable damage has been done with certain instruments between the ears. Also bare in mind that certain traits are simply normal such as ADHD (= Newton) and ADD etc (= Einstein). These are your thinkers and doers of the thinkers. The high Voltage Volt meters that can take high stress levels by guessing out of the box above average. Low Voltage Voltmeters deem this high voltage dangerously mad. Only when in a safe environment is created by the authority is the voltage turned down. Or when the high voltage thinker minority provide all the necessary book wiring conforming to current paradigm in order to show a necessary change is in a timely order if you don't want to close the barn door after the horse has bolted like a baboon clinging on to a paradigm banana. We humans act like baboons in this respect because as with the baboon it is a survival trait. Further more bare in mind that I have yet also to show that fighters are naturally politically right wing, freezers are religious at heart and flirters are left wing at heart. because we more or less combine all traits the way in which you have the mix depicts your natural tendency. A sociable nerd put under stress is still at heart a fighter yet can at a high if not to high stress-level still be sociable. ceteris paribus for speed of brain, knowledge and experience however never as good sociably as a born flirter. All types are further more both to be seen in the male as female variants. That's why via organizing this we save the world. Taboo because the authority - incorrectly! - believes that it is in their short term (sales) and medium term (= production) interests to keep the status quo being either left, right, or religious. You - always - thus will have an unstable system in the long run. Just proof will force all traits to work together on the common goal: ultimately in court of law. We all win. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLel4K7I4PMZkOl6qQZ4h3RqN9BLvS0dQj Everything in the spoilers is poop. Case dismissed. 1
kristalris Posted July 12, 2014 Author Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) 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. Oh dear, there are several models that can be made on human communication. In a broad sense most come to a division in four ways: reflective = R&D style = - perceived! as woolly =/= not woolly at all if you are sufficiently intelligent. emotive = sales style supportive = production subordinate style directive = production boss style I can react in all styles you prefer. hence my question to what your preference is. Albeit that the topic dictates a R&D question and thus reflective communication style. yet maybe not befitting your preferred way of communicating. Alas my clairvoyance is not sufficient to ascertain as to what your needs and deficiencies are in communication. Strange stated that I was naive and oblivious to what not. So he chose a directive way of communicating to me. Okay, Just Proof: quit pro quo: a directive response knocking his position for six. So stop moaning. All communication styles are scientifically equally valid as to be clear, concise and comprehensive. The topic is an inherent R&D question: so the norm for best form of thought and thus communication is reflective. Indeed not everybody has the DNA or brain to compute that. So if you want to play state your preferred communication style: yet be aware you immediately thus show where you belong: R&D or Sales or production in the lead or in support. You incorrectly think this excludes the group. Of course not! So, on this open forum of scientific R&D debate on a R&D topic what was it that you didn't understand? It should be all clear if you are capable of reflective = relative logic thought. Edited July 12, 2014 by kristalris -3
Strange Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) I am impressed by the way you quote Ophiolite and then totally ignore what he says. "Directive" != "Direct" All communication styles are scientifically equally valid as to be clear, concise and comprehensive. Except when they are not clear, concise and comprehensive. (I wonder if you mean comprehensible?) Edited July 12, 2014 by Strange
physica Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 (edited) Yeah Kristalris let's just ignore huge points like you not backing anything up and just making it up as you go along. reflective = R&D style = - perceived! as woolly =/= not woolly at all if you are sufficiently intelligent. The topic is an inherent R&D question: so the norm for best form of thought and thus communication is reflective. Indeed not everybody has the DNA or brain to compute that. So if you want to play state your preferred communication style: yet be aware you immediately thus show where you belong: R&D or Sales or production in the lead or in support. Very childish approach, when you're approach is inferior and multiple people are calling you out on it, it is very arrogant and childish to just say that they are not smart enough. Einstein is famous for saying: "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" But yeah you're too smart for Einstein aren't you. Why should you condescend to the low standards of Einstein??? best just say stuff like this: I can react in all styles you prefer. hence my question to what your preference is. Albeit that the topic dictates a R&D question and thus reflective communication style. yet maybe not befitting your preferred way of communicating. Alas my clairvoyance is not sufficient to ascertain as to what your needs and deficiencies are in communication. What your trash statement actually says: I can react in all styles which is why I asked. Though a R&D style must be obeyed and as a consequence reflective communication style. Yet maybe not appropriate to the occasion your preferred way of communicating. To my grief my clear meaning is not sufficient to find something out for certain as to what your needs and failings are in communication. Once the excessive words have been substituted for their actual meaning it is clear that the writing is utter trash. The sentence structure is awful. Some sentences don't even make sense. Somebody with a poor command of the english language may look at what you've written and think it's elegant but for anyone who understands english they will see it for what it is, trash. Substituting though for albeit doesn't change the word count or the tone of the statement. It's just pompous. Reminds me of a 12 year old kid who discovers a dictionary and swaps words around unnecessarily to make himself appear smarter whilst not putting much effort into the substance of what he's writing. This 30 second video sums up your post: I think your command of the english language is so poor that you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that you've produced a well written piece, in turn getting frustrated as nobody seems to get what you're saying. The truth is that we'd have to read your mind to get what you're saying because your sentences don't actually make sense most of the time. Here's another terrible statement that doesn't actually mean anything: Strange stated that I was naive and oblivious to what not. So he chose a directive way of communicating to me. Okay, Just Proof: quit pro quo: a directive response knocking his position for six. So stop moaning. Strange stated that I was naive and oblivious to what not. So he chose a directive way of communicating to me. Okay, Just Proof: something for something: a authoritative instruction or direction response knocking his position for six. So stop moaning. This statement makes zero points, it's complete trash. The first part of the statement doesn't even follow through to the next part. How does pointing out that you exchanged words address his claims that you're oblivious and naive???? Edited July 13, 2014 by physica
kristalris Posted July 13, 2014 Author Posted July 13, 2014 I am impressed by the way you quote Ophiolite and then totally ignore what he says. "Directive" != "Direct" Except when they are not clear, concise and comprehensive. (I wonder if you mean comprehensible?) Go to page 22 of the link I provided earlier on. Here it is again: https://www.diversityresources.com/media/FourStylesParticipantHndbk.pdf You will note that there are two crosses: in them you find the words "directive" and "direct". This is the way most psychologists and communication experts use it. The actual one I use is in Dutch and not on the net. The link I gave seems in order. It proves you two absolutely wrong. And that brings me to the other point Ophiolite and you mix up: form and substance. You are nitpicking in the importance of the difference between direct and directive. So the sticker you put on what psychology is sometimes saying in different words is not so much important as the substance that it is trying to convey. The same nitpicking as with being clear, concise and comprehensive witch I copy pasted out of Ophiolits post. But yes it should also be comprehensible. Now I've asked you what style of communication you wish I use. I guess then you wish that I use the humble supportive style whilst you lot may use the bossy directive style as you've done and to which I simply reacted in a likewise fashion, to which you lot subsequently object. Quit pro quo. I do to you what you do to me for if you want to uphold the pretense of a scientific debate it should be on equal grounds. The only rule science forces upon you is that we have equality of arms so to speak. So it must be fare enough for you to choose the communication style you want me to use. Yet then I may ask you to do the same? Okay? Yeah Kristalris let's just ignore huge points like you not backing anything up and just making it up as you go along. Very childish approach, when you're approach is inferior and multiple people are calling you out on it, it is very arrogant and childish to just say that they are not smart enough. Einstein is famous for saying: "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" But yeah you're too smart for Einstein aren't you. Why should you condescend to the low standards of Einstein??? best just say stuff like this: What your trash statement actually says: I can react in all styles which is why I asked. Though a R&D style must be obeyed and as a consequence reflective communication style. Yet maybe not appropriate to the occasion your preferred way of communicating. To my grief my clear meaning is not sufficient to find something out for certain as to what your needs and failings are in communication. Once the excessive words have been substituted for their actual meaning it is clear that the writing is utter trash. The sentence structure is awful. Some sentences don't even make sense. Somebody with a poor command of the english language may look at what you've written and think it's elegant but for anyone who understands english they will see it for what it is, trash. Substituting though for albeit doesn't change the word count or the tone of the statement. It's just pompous. Reminds me of a 12 year old kid who discovers a dictionary and swaps words around unnecessarily to make himself appear smarter whilst not putting much effort into the substance of what he's writing. This 30 second video sums up your post: I think your command of the english language is so poor that you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that you've produced a well written piece, in turn getting frustrated as nobody seems to get what you're saying. The truth is that we'd have to read your mind to get what you're saying because your sentences don't actually make sense most of the time. Here's another terrible statement that doesn't actually mean anything: Strange stated that I was naive and oblivious to what not. So he chose a directive way of communicating to me. Okay, Just Proof: something for something: a authoritative instruction or direction response knocking his position for six. So stop moaning. This statement makes zero points, it's complete trash. The first part of the statement doesn't even follow through to the next part. How does pointing out that you exchanged words address his claims that you're oblivious and naive???? Not backing anything up? I gave a link on the four styles of communication. In the previous post I did it again. Now I also provide you with the appropriate page 22. Now that childish way is the way current psychology sees it. I didn't make that up. Yet I do accept it as a correct rule of thumb as to distinguish between different personality traits and their respective communication styles. So no what I've said is backed up, and not made up as I go along for it is concerning the law in my field of expertise with many years of experience. The problem is of course how do you discus a taboo? You say childish. Indeed. These four traits (actually five but still) are fundamental. There is great consensus to that in the behavioral sciences. This is simple textbook stuff that you lot choose to ignore. It is indeed very simple. (even though there is much more to it than I've dealt with in this thread.) Current psychological research into creativity or the open-minded personality traits already acknowledged as the R&D trait goes like this. Not yet on the net: You can take a normal distribution (as a rule of thumb) on the two humble and boss production-minded trait (directive & conscientiousness google Big Five personality traits) that psychology measures via IQ tests. In effect IQ 50 is a mental six year old IQ 100. It is of course better not to take it from the mean but from the best. The problem with measuring this is however that below 80 and above 120 the test is unreliable. The principle remains the same. So a score of an adult between 80 and 120 gives a good account that you will function at the appropriate level in our current society. The same goes for EQ or sales. Psychology also takes a normal distribution and compares your EQ low as a six year old and had best take that not off the mean but off the top. I.e. compare it to what proven great communicators could do when they where six years old. What DSMV sees as autistic people who as adults can for instance score extremely high on certain traits have the emotional intelligence of a six year old. Yet are they thus deficient humans as DSMV depicts? Of course not. They have an essential part to play in us humans surviving. Mother Nature / God didn't "organize" it that way for fun. Einstein is deemed deficiently crank by DSMV. Yet that proves DSMV wrong and a mounting amount of exact scientists agree with this. On the other hand also the R&D trait can be seen as a normal distribution. ranging from a six year old Einstein level via the mean to an adult 24 year old Einstein. So, the only thing you have to do is make shore on R&D questions that the inherently required creative guess on strategic issues and in a crises when change is urgently required you get an above the mean guess. An adult guess, for then you improve on the prior odds whereas you otherwise you had best not guessed at all. Simple probabilistic reasoning. Based on current assessment psychology. Now as to my English, well indeed how is your Dutch? Strange stated that I was naive and oblivious to what not. That is a correct and meaningful English sentence. And a correct fact. He did use those derogatory words towards me. Yet I don't complain. Why do you? "So he chose a directive way of communicating to me." That again is a correct meaningful English sentence. And a fact. For use of derogatory words like these in the tone and context is a directive / direct or bossy way of communicating. "Okay, Just Proof: something for something: a authoritative instruction or direction response knocking his position for six. So stop moaning." Indeed this was shorthand and alas a typo error or incorrect auto-correction. Something for something means quit pro quo. An authoritative instruction (= what I gave with the link I provided) or directive (instead of direction typo) response knocking his position for six is also correct English. And also a matter of fact had you lot bothered to read the link i provided. Especially page 22. It totally disproves the position. And it didn't get zero points for I got negative rep points. So what have I proven: well exactly that what psychology already tells us concerning taboos. They are very difficult to communicate. Oh and BTW I haven't stated anything about anyone's abilities yet you have done that towards me. I've only stated the general rules that psychology gives.
Strange Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 It might help if you explained how, in your new system, you are going to encourage (force?) people to follow the rules. All I can tell from your long and vague dissertation, is that you will use "psychology". Well, gosh. I bet no one has ever thought about that before. So, how exactly do you make people, with different ideals of what is just and different goals, work together when they currently do not want to? [strange] did use those derogatory words towards me. Yet I don't complain. I assumed you didn't complain because they are not derogatory. <shrug> If you really think it is offensive to say that your "theory" is naive and ignores human nature, please feel free to report it to the moderators.
kristalris Posted July 13, 2014 Author Posted July 13, 2014 It might help if you explained how, in your new system, you are going to encourage (force?) people to follow the rules. All I can tell from your long and vague dissertation, is that you will use "psychology". Well, gosh. I bet no one has ever thought about that before. So, how exactly do you make people, with different ideals of what is just and different goals, work together when they currently do not want to? I assumed you didn't complain because they are not derogatory. <shrug> If you really think it is offensive to say that your "theory" is naive and ignores human nature, please feel free to report it to the moderators. In exactly the same way as the legal system - in a parliamentary democracy - has successfully done it in the past in the Netherlands. Then you will probably ask I guess: why did it go wrong then in your opinion? Answer: the situation in society changed whereby something that was not an issue in the past has become more and more of an issue. In the past we had a higher degree of open-minded judges that to higher degree did the temporary decisions and where in charge of investigation as well. This is in short how it was and still is formally organised. Because otherwise I'll have to explain the entire workings of the legal system in the Netherlands. I can of course, yet in essence most western legal systems one way or an other have dealt with the problem of investigation and evidence and proof in law. This you can see as the R&D part of the legal system from a viewpoint of this Just Proof model. So indeed it has been there all along. What changed then would I guess be your next question? Answer: Society has changed quicker than the legal system could cope with. Primarily the legal system couldn't do this because the indeed open-minded wise judges had been doing one unwise thing: they had been selling perfection even though they very well knew that they where at best producing above average good educated guesswork. Another problem was that unwise formal judges started to pin down the politicians too much, who before my time in court had also started to produce way to much new social laws. This in a far to complex way yet with a good goal. Alas a long and complex process ensued. In short then: the more conscientious judges have been making more and more a good carrier as opposed to open minded common sense judges. In a very short time frame the amount of laws, quickly changing laws, amount of court cases, amount of lawyers have risen and risen. As if it has been taken into production. In one way or another you see the same effects in the UK the USA and most western countries. The net effect is that the performance of having the people who misbehave lose court cases and the ones that behave win has more and more turned upside down. So I re-introduce something that was there and worked in such a way that it can remain functional with rapid change of society. The taboo is that you need to acknowledge the fact that you have different types of people with different talents. The strange thing is it is taboo even though it is current psychology as well. I hope my way of stating this is sufficiently clear? I'd be more than glad to elaborate on the psychology or the legal system and why a good working legal system lets people behave on a democratically stated goal (or any other goal for that matter.)
Ophiolite Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 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.
Strange Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 (edited) I hope my way of stating this is sufficiently clear? On the contrary, it is vague and utterly lacking in details or supporting evidence. Society has changed quicker than the legal system could cope with Changed in what way? How should the legal system be changed to cope with it? What specifically needs to be done to ensure that in future the legal system keeps pace with society? So I re-introduce something that was there and worked in such a way that it can remain functional with rapid change of society. What is this mysterious "something"? And why did it disappear? The taboo is that you need to acknowledge the fact that you have different types of people with different talents. The strange thing is it is taboo even though it is current psychology as well. I am not aware of any such taboo. In fact, I have been making exactly this point. What evidence do you have that this frequently-discussed subject is taboo anywhere? Edited July 13, 2014 by Strange
Ophiolite Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 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.
kristalris Posted July 13, 2014 Author Posted July 13, 2014 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. I never stated that directive is equivalent to direct. Strawman on your part towards me and thus in breach of the rules of the forum by you. I never stated that directive thinking is applicable to an internet discussion. Yet it is what you are doing in this post. So on both counts in breach of the forum rules by you then. Well I gave you page 22 of the link I provided you with. You might notice that directive and direct are placed next to each other. Do you seriously want me to explain to you what that means? I guess you do: It means and proves that you are nitpicking. So I've adhered to the forum rules of proving my point. Directive thinking people have a preference of direct communication. As you clearly do. Do you finally get it or do I have to explain this to you in further detail? It is a fact: you are still nitpicking. Even after repeatedly having been pointed out the error in your reasoning. I guess that because you have others that agree with you that you think on democratic scientific grounds that you are correct? Well your not. Now you stated that my English isn't up to scratch. Well your mastery of it isn't exactly Shakespearean level either, or do you claim otherwise? You tried to demonstrate that what I wrote was incorrect use of the English language, yet you failed apart from a type error on my part to show this. What is the case that I used and use a reflective style in writing. It is a well established fact in communication and psychology that people who use other styles have problems with that. As you clearly do. Yet it is the best style of thought and thus communication for those with a talent for R&D topics as this one is. So no, it is clearly not my writing that is the problem. Yet you deem yourself and others to be the norm of things. What style is applicable then? So you failed to show that my English is not up to scratch yet have not stated to object to a reflective style of writing. and, how could you? You can't, can you? Yet you do have evidently serious problems as do others in comprehending what is stated even though it is proper English, factually correct and logical. Now if I was a child as you claim, I'd be cross with you and frustrated. I'm clearly not. So you got that wrong as well. (The psychology of mirroring BTW) Now you on the other hand do seem a bit cross with me. Why would that be? It can't be my English. It can't be the facts. And, it can't be logic. Now I'm an expert in this field of law. You clearly aren't. And on the field of psychology your last remark shows that you clearly are out of your depth as to psychology as well. You stated: "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." First of all again a strawman on your part. And improper use of the English language BTW. Care to differ on the latter? All I state is that it is common sense to apply a system that I've personally - as have others - seen function well and implement that. That is in the field at which I'm an expert. And I also state as an indisputable fact that what I propose to do, concurs with current assessment psychology, being BTW the applicable branch of what the behavioral science has to offer on the topic. Further more I'm at a loss as how to logically understand what it is you have tried to put across in this sentence of yours? Is it that your mastery of the English language is wanting or do you as such have problems with reasoning in a logical way? It is foolish to use the way current science would treat the problem? Is that what you mean? Even that is in breach of the rules of the forum, for as I understand the rules you must use current science per rules of the forum. And I don't even claim that you should do it because current science says so. The latter being thus again a strawman you pulled on me. Pardon my French, but have you learnt something from this? I.e. are you as the expert still capable of learning anything, or do you know it all already?
Strange Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 There is nothing wrong with Ophiolite's English. He, almost invariably, writes carefully and with great precision (and using as few words as necessary). You would do well to learn from that. (The psychology of mirroring BTW) Now you on the other hand do seem a bit cross with me. But I'm glad you have mastered irony.
dimreepr Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 All I state is that it is common sense to apply a system that I've personally - as have others - seen function well and implement that. That is in the field at which I'm an expert. And I also state as an indisputable fact that what I propose to do, concurs with current assessment psychology, being BTW the applicable branch of what the behavioral science has to offer on the topic. Common sense: really? This, for me, shows that you’re approaching this from the wrong direction; your expertise is possibly the reason for your intransigence on the subject. As has been pointed out already, in this thread, you can’t force compliance; and control is just illusory.
Recommended Posts