This thread is about both evolution and politics, read description.

Status
Not open for further replies.
TBH, I glazed. Three times I've tried to pick my way through it, and I can only conclude that the Crackpot index needs some updating for the modern age.

And now Rand...
I do not understand what you're saying.

Are you saying that you can not watch/read my project?

About Rand: is it not possible to be right about one thing and wrong about another? And is it not possible that, through time, a person may change their position taking the right or the wrong one compared to their prior?
IDK what she said outside of (basically) those two videos AND another couple that I saw later on.


Please, let's try to keep a civil discussion without using childish attacks, like those manchildren do on twitter.
 

hackenslash

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that you can not watch/read my project?
Yes. It's rambling and incoherent. Too much extraneous waffle to see what, if any, worthwhile content there is.
Please, let's try to keep a civil discussion without using childish attacks, like those manchildren do on twitter.
You don't get to rock up in an existing space, attempt to police the tone while talking about fucking civility. How incredibly narcissistic and rude.
 
Yes. It's rambling and incoherent. Too much extraneous waffle to see what, if any, worthwhile content there is.

You don't get to rock up in an existing space, attempt to police the tone while talking about fucking civility. How incredibly narcissistic and rude.
The video is not rambling, maybe the problem is your attention span.

Me telling you that saying "[person]" followed by "[emotional reaction meme]" is not an argument, but childish behavior, is not [whatever you are trying to say], but a fact.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
The video is not rambling, maybe the problem is your attention span.

Not really the best way to approach feedback.

If someone tells you that they don't find your presentation useful because of X reason, the conclusion shouldn't be that there's something wrong with them. If you're looking to present an idea, then regardless of how good the idea is, if it's presented in a manner that doesn't aid the audience, then the presentation needs refining.

I'll be honest, I started to read and also found it full of unnecessary asides and sentences that had no bearing on whatever idea it was you hoped to present, the result being that it really wasn't clear what the overarching idea was meant to be, or what it was I am meant to take away from it.

You can dismiss this if you like as me having a low attention span, but given that I routinely read lengthy, technical scientific articles without having attention span problems, then I don't really think this would be accurate - nor would it be useful for you to dismiss criticism that you don't want to hear.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
Let me give you a concrete example...


This is the introduction of my project in which I will try to construct the most accurate model of reality regarding humanity and politics up to date.

An accurate model of reality?

Are you sure that's what the remainder of this presentation is about? Shouldn't you be presenting a controlling idea here rather than just a series of extremely wide topic areas? What is it you want to say about reality/humanity/politics in a nutshell that you can go on to substantiate with the rest of your text?


In this project I will takle many subjects, too many to list them here. Don't worry, I am part of neither the left or the right, the only thing that I care about is the truth, so I can say this with certanty: you won't like this project.

Why won't someone like the project? How is this relevant to your presentation?


No matter with whom I talked to in my life, the majority of people just oppose me with no good grounds. Yes, I have been wrong many times in my life because, obviously, I am not omniscient; but usually I was less wrong than the people that I were talking with. I don't care if you believe some of your ideas are sacred, be them attached to a wooden cross, or a rubber boot, or to an indian symbol that got misused or, to some funny pointy hats or to whatever it is, because the march towards the truth is as blind as justice.

What is all this backstory about? How is this relevant to your presentation? It's almost like you're confounding your own presentation here by suggesting that no one finds you credible but you consider yourself to be right regardless.


In this project I'll try as hard as possible to be as objective as possible, but since I'm human I may fail somewhere and since you're human you may find it impossible not to apply your current bias to what I'll be presenting you.

I'm honestly becoming rapidly disinterested by this point. Enough fluff: get to the point.


Listen to this, because it's important: when we are born we are in the default position of ignorance.

When we grow up we, obviously, learn things, and some of them, obviously, may turn out to be wrong.

To make an example let's say that when you don't know something important,like the specifics of a business, you shouldn't accept some info about it as gospel just because a person you trusth was the one that told you it, because it's not a trivial thing, it has the possibility to seriously ruin your life! the business could be a pyramid scheme and you may wouldn't come to know it until it's too late, meaning that your wallet became lighter than before.
In other words you must not relay on faith.

When important things are in the matter you should always find a good source for your knowledge. This sounds good and all but I have said it in such an informal and subjective way that it actually means nothing at all.

By "important things" I mean those things that, may, damage other things, things that affect the freedom of other people and the overall health of every living thing.
By "good source" I don't mean your friendly neighborhood youtuber, with its warped views of things expressed with an eloquent and/or emotionally charge way, but by a study in a scientific paper or something similar.

We as humans are more easily moved by people who say things that we want to hear instead of something true.

All of this is yet more fluff. None of this has anything to do with any presentation of your ideas. Your audience has now spent several minutes listening to you / reading your words and still haven't been offered anything concrete.


Now I'll make a synthesis of my current position and beliefs, and I will tell you what I plan to talk about

I am currently an ANCAP (Note: ANCAP means mainly ANarco CAPitalism, but can also mean ANarco CAPitalist if used to describe a person, while ANCAPs means the plural of ANarco CAPitalist.), both because it was my position before starting to make this project and because I don't know either if there's a position where I may currently fit and because I need to finish this project to complete my thoughts, thus don't know what to think.
I have my natural biases and all the other biases that everyone has because we are all humans, and as humans we evolved bias as a favorable trait, among others that I will discuss. In this work I'll try to fight my bias, as I have always done, to better understand the world as it truly is.

You state your political affiliation - not that it's clear quite what this has to do with the supposed topic - and then you go back to talking about biases and what amounts to something like a C.V.


Since I am only a single human I will never be able to take on everything in a limited time, be it an arbitrary amount or my entire natural life, since I will lack either the right experience, the data or just the ability to process such information.
My strenght is, my really good ability to connect different informations in the fields that I have familiarity in, because of the habilities and knowledge that I have, so I'll not even tap in fields that I know I could not easily navigate in, like marriage, sexuality, or that funny country that everyone is angry about, because I don't have enough data to work with.

Yet more words, yet more nothing. You keep talking about YOU - aren't we supposed to be reading your ideas?


Here I will talk about human evolution, the formation of groups and birth of societies, culture, economics in nature, individuality and individuals, and the way everyone actually interfaces with reality, and thus the world's structure overall.

Weren't you presenting an accurate model of reality? Has that already happened?

There's just no structure to this at all - it's like a stream of consciousness where you appear to want to talk more about you and your motivations than about whatever idea it is that you want to discuss.

Hundreds of words, and still no sense at all of what point you want to make. You need to respect your intended audience more, or you'll probably find you don't actually have an audience.


This is constructive feedback. As it stands, whatever idea it is you want to present is being completely obfuscated by these apparently entirely irrelevant asides. You could cut ALL of the above and I'd have just as much understanding of your idea as I do having read all the above. That's not a good communicative style.
 
1) If I'm describing reality I need to make a model about it.

2) I explain it in the next section.

3) I've both problems communicating (I may be autistic, I'm doing the tests "now" and the results will come around tomorrow) and usually I don't talk in echo chambers or with friends, plus I try to make conversations about politics & Co. with people way different from me, like conservatives, republicans, democrats, socialists, and so on, so I get pushed back a lot more.

3) I don't care.

4) Too bad, because I'm explaining what "a good source" is. My project is directed to anyone, even people that have never heard anything particular about politics or evolution.

5) I show my political position to explain, in broad terms, what "I am like" and because so that people may not waste time trying to figure out from what POV my points are coming from. Both me and whoever would watch my project have biases, different biases, so I exposed mine.

6) Yes, words, that's one way in which humans communicate. Plus Here I was explaining WHY some arguments would not be in the project.

7)
"""
There's just no structure to this at all - it's like a stream of consciousness where you appear to want to talk more about you and your motivations than about whatever idea it is that you want to discuss.

Hundreds of words, and still no sense at all of what point you want to make. You need to respect your intended audience more, or you'll probably find you don't actually have an audience.
"""


The project, mate, is more than two hours long. This is the opening to it.
The initial draft was way more different because, as I was developing the project, I needed to rework it.

I have just made a really condensed opening which explains who I am, what I'm going to explain and how I to know that something is correct. It is well structured and your "This is constructive feedback." amounts to "I have read just the introduction to this 300 pages book, this means that I have read the entire thing. In the introduction not much is explained, so it is not in the entire book neither".
I've already uploaded the script of the first half of the project in this chat // the second half is not scripted because I made it in a different and faster way, plus the visuals are absolutely needed for the context // , so pick any random part and try to see if you may understand more about what I am talking about compared to the almost nothing that you've got from my well structured intro.



----------------

This is what I've to say.

If you don't do such I'll learn from your "CoNsTrUcTiVe FeEdBaCk" and read just 5% of anything that you will ever write and then judge/respond just to that.
 
Not really the best way to approach feedback.

If someone tells you that they don't find your presentation useful because of X reason, the conclusion shouldn't be that there's something wrong with them. If you're looking to present an idea, then regardless of how good the idea is, if it's presented in a manner that doesn't aid the audience, then the presentation needs refining.

I'll be honest, I started to read and also found it full of unnecessary asides and sentences that had no bearing on whatever idea it was you hoped to present, the result being that it really wasn't clear what the overarching idea was meant to be, or what it was I am meant to take away from it.

You can dismiss this if you like as me having a low attention span, but given that I routinely read lengthy, technical scientific articles without having attention span problems, then I don't really think this would be accurate - nor would it be useful for you to dismiss criticism that you don't want to hear.
I COULD have made 50 mini videos with separated topics in them so that people may "not get confused" (however that could happen), but instead both for the sake of editing and because it's not rambling, just a lot of things said in a small amount of time, I did it all in one go.

Maybe I find it perfectly understandable both because I myself made it and because I basically listen to everything at 2x times speed (because a lot of people talk as slow as I made the Text To Speech talk, but I can understand perfectly if people talk faster), so from another's POV reading the script directly may be "easier to understand".
 

Greg the Grouper

Active Member
Not gonna lie, the only thing I'm curious about at this point is why you bothered to engage with us at all, if your response to two people giving you the same criticism of your opening is to assume that they're both just not capable of grasping your genius. Why waste your time on us at all?
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
I COULD have made 50 mini videos with separated topics in them so that people may "not get confused"

Oh dear.

You seem to think I am confused.

Where did I indicate any confusion?

I indicated that you blathered without content, that you wrote a lot of words but said little, that the noise to signal ratio was too high.


(however that could happen), but instead both for the sake of editing and because it's not rambling, just a lot of things said in a small amount of time, I did it all in one go.

It is rambling. You're rambling about a bunch of different ideas, none of which are related to your central contention.


Maybe I find it perfectly understandable both because I myself made it and because I basically listen to everything at 2x times speed (because a lot of people talk as slow as I made the Text To Speech talk, but I can understand perfectly if people talk faster), so from another's POV reading the script directly may be "easier to understand".

My comments were based on the script, as I said.

Can you try and process what I wrote now?
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
1) If I'm describing reality I need to make a model about it.

Where exactly do you get round to making a model of reality?

Certainly not within the first 1000 words.


2) I explain it in the next section.

Not much use if people get bored of all the waffle and give up reading it / listening to it before they hear your idea.


3) I've both problems communicating (I may be autistic, I'm doing the tests "now" and the results will come around tomorrow) and usually I don't talk in echo chambers or with friends, plus I try to make conversations about politics & Co. with people way different from me, like conservatives, republicans, democrats, socialists, and so on, so I get pushed back a lot more.

With respect, I am not interested in your C.V. - as you can see from my comments. Your response here indicates that you don't understand this point - why do people need your life history before they're presented the idea you claim to be outlining?


3) I don't care.

If you don't care: why should anyone else care?


4) Too bad, because I'm explaining what "a good source" is. My project is directed to anyone, even people that have never heard anything particular about politics or evolution.

And thus you lose your audience.


5) I show my political position to explain, in broad terms, what "I am like" and because so that people may not waste time trying to figure out from what POV my points are coming from. Both me and whoever would watch my project have biases, different biases, so I exposed mine.

Your curriculum vitae may be of interest to you and potential employers, but there's no logical reason why it's relevant or necessary to understand your purported model of reality.


6) Yes, words, that's one way in which humans communicate. Plus Here I was explaining WHY some arguments would not be in the project.

Communication comes in many forms. Dogs barking, for example, indicates their emotional states - but the informational content comparative to the noise is minimal. That's the same problem happening here: you've written a thousand words and said nothing relevant to the presentation of your idea.


The project, mate, is more than two hours long. This is the opening to it.

It's not the length which is problematic: it's the content, or lack thereof as you can clearly see was the entire point of my feedback.


I have just made a really condensed opening which explains who I am, what I'm going to explain and how I to know that something is correct.

You're telling me again what I already read and gave you feedback saying: there's no value at all in doing this. No one who might be interested in your idea needs your life history first. Just spit it out.


It is well structured...

One thing it certainly isn't is well-structured. If you handed this in as an essay, it would flunk.


and your "This is constructive feedback." amounts to "I have read just the introduction to this 300 pages book, this means that I have read the entire thing. In the introduction not much is explained, so it is not in the entire book neither".

Your ability to comprehend feedback is very poor.

I made no mention at all about what was later on in the tract, but rather pointed out to you that your potential audience is not likely ever to get to your point when you spend a thousand words saying nothing at all.


I've already uploaded the script of the first half of the project in this chat // the second half is not scripted because I made it in a different and faster way, plus the visuals are absolutely needed for the context // , so pick any random part and try to see if you may understand more about what I am talking about compared to the almost nothing that you've got from my well structured intro.

If you think your introduction is well structured, then I don't exactly hold out much hope that you're able to appraise your own ability.


----------------

This is what I've to say.

If you don't do such I'll learn from your "CoNsTrUcTiVe FeEdBaCk" and read just 5% of anything that you will ever write and then judge/respond just to that.

And this is what I've got to say:

If you don't want feedback, were you just looking for someone to blow smoke up your arse?
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
Going to the next step past your intro....


Big numbers mean nothing to a human mind, because we can't even imagine them. Try to think of a single dot and then add individual dots in your minds' image until you can't anymore, I bet they're not a lot.
If you want real numbers and accurate latin names I invite you to watch Aron Ra's "Systematic Classification of Life": a 50 long playlist of videos talking about the evolution of humanity and other species. He gets just some things wrong, like what actually is the "Hard problem of conciousness". Episode 49 is the one that I am talking about and is pretty relevant to this part of the project.
So: a long time ago there was a homo specie called the heidelbergènsis. Out of this specie evolved , respectively, homo neanderthal and homo sapièns. A small population of homo sapièns reproduced with homo neanderthal and another with an older lineage called homo denisovan. This hybridization let some sapièns acquire some genes that helped living in new environments, but with the passage of the generations just the "advantageous genes" and some "neutral genes" stuck around in our genome. Homo sapièns is just one specie, or race, doesn't matter what word you want to use to describe it because they're arbitrary anyways, like the word "tree". What is a tree? I'm going to tell you what it's not: a single family evolved from a single population.

I'm getting lost here. So, what I was trying to say is that we're all the same, there is nothing that fundamentally separates one population of homo sapièns from another (and for the sake of brevity and arbitration I'm going to refer just and only to homo sapièns as "humans" since every single homo person that I have met and refered to as such so far have been other members of homo sapiéns and because every single word has been arbitrarily created by, someone else)..

Big numbers
Lots of small dots
Latin names
Aron Ra
Hard Problem of Consciousness
H .heidelbergensis, neanderthalensis, sapiens, denisova
Weird claim about hybridization
Tree - not a tree

You're getting lost here?? Then what about your audience?


So here we have nearly 400 words just for you to say 'human groups are fundamentally the same'... frankly, it looks like you don't really have much worth saying, but just like the sound of your own voice. Take the criticism on the chin Isaac and use it to improve your presentation. Or just dismiss all constructive criticism irrationally.

And your just-so story about human evolution is, at best reading, misleading. Sapiens thrived not because they netted some genes from fucking other species, but because their cognitive faculties and consequent material culture allowed them to solve environmental problems inside a single generation, rather than having to wait dozens of generations for natural selection to adaptively endow them. Bone needles, fur coats, cooperative ranged hunting... this is what let H. sapiens spread to colder regions, not genetic hybridization.
 
Last edited:
Not gonna lie, the only thing I'm curious about at this point is why you bothered to engage with us at all, if your response to two people giving you the same criticism of your opening is to assume that they're both just not capable of grasping your genius. Why waste your time on us at all?
1) I posted it here for anyone. You're part of anyone. This means that I did not post this here just and only for you (two/three, whatever you mean with "us"), but for anyone. I don't know you and I don't really care to, I came here to discuss ideas.



2) Different people have different characteristics and abilities. It is normal that someone may not be able to understand something.

Just because a number of people say something it doesn't make it true, all that I read in the responses is:

"You say that everyone has biases and that's why you will try to avoid as much as possible to use them in your project.-"
[which is a very dense condensation of a lot of arguments interconnected among themselves to create a structure that accurately describes humanity, society, morality, politics and evolution
"- I don't understand why saying that is important.".


EVERYTHING that I've talked about in the opening of my project is important BECAUSE not everyone who may watch it is already capable of avoiding biases or to assert what a good source is.
Even people that are, sometimes, trip into this mistake,
like Aron Ra was mistaken about mass shootings, self defense and thus the second endorsement in "Supposed Lies in the Text Books Ep12"

( link to my comment/s which have links that counter his point
//
// there are many more sources literally a google search away that show you that your emotional bias is wrong and that in your attempt to "make people safer" you endanger them instead).


I'm not good at making arguments, I'm a bad debater and my ability to make something entertaining for other people are lacking, but regardless of this all I don't care. I wanted to make this project, which, as far as I can tell with my knowledge, is correct in every front. I just take the raw facts, put them in a line and describe them.
To a normal person it may be "boring" or whatever, but I don't care. I would read the most boring of books, watch the most narcoleptic documentary ever and go through the longest of the scientific papers if it means that, in the end, I will understand the world better.
There is no good place where to start with this project because you can't find one, so I began with a general intro and then, in the very beginning of the next part, I explained because we're all the same and thus racism is stupid, but "someone" gets stuck on "You said that you may make mistakes, what does that mean?", calls my project poorly made and then leaves with an air of superiority.

Just watch the damn thing, at least up to the half- point of the first half, THIS A QUARTER, and then criticism it. There is A LOT of thing that sounds strange to common sense, but as you should already know you should be wary of your common sense because, surprise surprise, you may have biases.
 
I indicated that you blathered without content, that you wrote a lot of words but said little, that the noise to signal ratio was too high.





My comments were based on the script, as I said.

Can you try and process what I wrote now?
1) Yes, that means that you are confused.


2) I know you read the script. You took my sentences from there. I just said that some prefer to listen and others to read. Regardless of that you got confused.
 

Sparhafoc

Well-Known Member
1) Yes, that means that you are confused.


2) I know you read the script. You took my sentences from there. I just said that some prefer to listen and others to read. Regardless of that you got confused.


And now you've lost the interest of the only person who'd bothered to give you any constructive feedback.

Enjoy your soapbox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top