Anyone Else Get This?

[5810Singer]

plus if you read what he actually wrote: "reading alternative meanings into an explicitly and clearly worded message requires either an insulting level of inattention, or a juvenile level of preconception."

"Read what he actually wrote......"

Which includes the part: "reading alternative meanings into an explicitly and clearly worded message....."

Like how people say "I don't believe in god," and then other people say "So you're anti-god!".....something like that.

The post I made which seems to have become the topic of this thread (sorry MRaverZ) was delivered within the context of the OP, it avoided categorical statements, and it is worded very clearly.
In that post I propose the idea that people with experience might not lend too much weight to the opinionss of those without experience.

I've just read the post again, and it's unequivocal.

The first post to criticise my comments started "I agree and disagree", and then proceeded to disagree with a point I never made, or even got close to making,....namely that only knowledge gained from first hand experience is worthwhile.
I never made that point, I never implied it, and if you read my OP it's difficult to see how it can be inferred in light of the fact that I said in that post that learned knowledge can be 100% accurate.

When I made the post I thought "will younger readers take that in the spirit that it's meant in?"
And then I thought "of course they will, this is the League of Reason,...they won't let their emotions overrule their ability to read English."




PM me if you like, this is my last post in this badly hijacked thread,......we're 7,000,000 light years off-topic, and accelerating.

 

[Case]

There's a very simple answer to this:

Everything you want to get good at (or understand, for that matter) requires practice.
Whether it's scienctific adventures or social interaction, philosophy or real life, everything relies on practice.
Whatever it is you do frequently, you'll probably get better at it.

Even after talent and advantageous environment are accounted for, there is ample evidence to support this idea,
and it can be very easily tested. If you don't mind, I'll supply you with a lengthy anecdote (more in an attempt to illustrate
than to provide evidence for my claim): when I was a little child, around 6 years old, I was home alone quite often.
My father played the guitar from time to time, but never made an attempt to teach me, I assume it's because he
thought he knew nothing about playing the guitar he could teach me anything about. At least that's what he told me
about ten years later, when I asked him to. Anyway, so there I sat, home alone, on the carpet in our living-room, five
years old, nothing to do and a classical guitar in the corner. I picked it up, sang (I think it was Country roads, but
it could've been any bonfire classic, really) and strummed it wildly. I'm not sure why, but somehow I must've managed
to make it sound somewhat harmonious as I do recall enjoying the vibrations and resonance.
About eleven years later I picked it up again and fingerpicked the first 16 notes of 'Sweet Dreams' as covered by Marilyn Manson.
Over and over again. With my right hand on the fretboard (I'm right-handed). I never bothered playing songs, or learning them
anywhere beyond where I could get with minimal effort fingerpicking. Several years later, I could play maybe 5 chords.
Last Christmas, my brother strummed some chords on his newly aquired acoustic guitar and sang a couple of classics, Donovan, some Folk songs... Not that he played perfectly, but made for a very nice atmosphere. I had made some attempts to play and sing at the same time, but never quite managed, and always gave up after some minutes of frustration. This time I bought my own guitar
and started to learn chords, started to sing while doing so... and got madly frustrated. However, I kept practicing and now, 2 months later, I have a reportoire of about 10 complete songs, I've written three of my own and I recently arranged a (fingerstyle) folk song I couldn't find any tabs for... and I'm pretty happy to see that the above claims held true. Whatever real life issue it is you're talking
about, chances are that practice is the key.

That said, I would like to put 5810Singer's post (the one that comes down to 'I've seen (most of) it all, boy') into perspective.
Whatever he's seen, he's seen it from his point of view. Sometimes you miss a detail, sometimes that detail is all you see. There are
experiences whose circumstances we all share, there are some that most of us share and others that are unique to us.
All these experiences interact with and and are in turn transformed by and transforming to our perception of the events and our
appraisal of these. Within this framework, we still are very likely to find parallels to others' experiences (or their perception thereof), but the claim of any one individual to be 'ahead' is a bit misleading, as not everyone is walking down the same path.

 

[Dockar03]

^I agree.
Im only 18, yet i think i have tought myself a great deal more than my peers because of how much i revere observing the life around us, and in doing so the mistakes and decisions others make; and more importantly WHY they make them.

Vicariously learning through other peoples experiences, as well as learning from your own are both equally as important. Its as simple as learning right from wrong. E.g.

Child A observes Child B break somthing, and in doing so is punished; Child A will then know NOT to make the same mistake Child B did, Child B will also draw the same conclusion and will most likely not make the same mistake again.

Although my example is very basic, i think it sums up alot of things many people have said; our natural ability to forsee the ramifications of specific scenarios is inextricably linked to our ability to recall memories of events (and outcomes) that we have observed and learnt from vicariously. Both recalling memories (of others) and experiencing them ourselves share a bilateral importance when drawing upon a decision.

I think we should all say thankyou to our frontal lobes.


So in summation, applying this to the OP's statement, alot of things will make sense theoretically, pertaining to OUR judgement; however when we express our idea's its likely that we will be criticized unless we can make it perfectly clear what we are trying to say.
I think turning theory into practice is the only way to surpass this, and in doing so i believe things will be much easier to explain unambigously to other people if we have the experience to back our ideas on "life's big questions".
To further justify my thesis ill throw in another example.
You would take advice from a 70 year-old, however you would almost blatantly ignore a 7 year-old trying to give you the exact same advice, merely because of the difference in experience and wisdom. Sometimes no matter how correct our view on the world may be, if we dont have the experience to back our conclusions it will most likely just be seen as conjecture by our audiences (ergo pushing the audience to consider supporting the contrary), especially in context of answering big questions.