|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: tata Date: Apr 5, 2007 15:47
Most of these "debates" ultimately fail because at least one person
(usually 2 or more) has dug an ideological trench, and their goal is
to conquer the other person with their reason and logic. They are
starting from a losing position already.
In order to learn anything, you have to start with the possibility
that your knowledge is incomplete; that the other parties might
present some perspective that will alter your viewpoint. Otherwise,
you spend a lifetime selectively picking and choosing the "facts" and
reasons that support your pre-existing beliefs, and you remain
oblivious to new ideas that may actually help you grow in some way.
You become stagnant. You become a dogmatist. You become George W.
Bush.
That's not to say that you treat all information equally, and you
certainly shouldn't treat all sources equally either.
That's why real intelligence is not about being the smartest person in
the room; it's about being able to recognize the smartest person in
the room.
|
| Show full article (1.77Kb) |
|
| | 13 Comments |
|
|
Author: tgtg Date: Apr 5, 2007 15:58
On Apr 5, 6:47 pm, "ta" nc.rr.com> wrote:> Most of these "debates" ultimately fail because at least one person
> (usually 2 or more) has dug an ideological trench, and their goal is
> to conquer the other person with their reason and logic. They are
> starting from a losing position already.
>
> In order to learn anything, you have to start with the possibility
> that your knowledge is incomplete; that the other parties might
> present some perspective that will alter your viewpoint. Otherwise,
> you spend a lifetime selectively picking and choosing the "facts" and
> reasons that support your pre-existing beliefs, and you remain
> oblivious to new ideas that may actually help you grow in some way.
> You become stagnant. You become a dogmatist. You become George W.
> Bush.
>
> That's not to say that you treat all information equally, and you
> certainly shouldn't treat all sources equally either.
>
> That's why real intelligence is not about being the smartest person in
> the room; it's about being able to recognize the smartest person in ...
|
| Show full article (1.91Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Apr 6, 2007 04:23
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:47:10 -0700, ta wrote:
> Most of these "debates" ultimately fail because at least one person
> (usually 2 or more) has dug an ideological trench, and their goal is to
> conquer the other person with their reason and logic. They are starting
> from a losing position already.
Debate and arguments are not necessarily the same thing.
In a debate, for instance, people who are presenting their viewpoints can
be dug in all they want, it isn't the point for one or the other to change
or be conquered. The point is for listeners and/or a judge, neither of
which presents a position, to determine which is the stronger position. A
trial is along these lines but the same discipline can be, and is, applied
to any topic. Debates, therefore, ultimately succeed.
Arguments, on the other hand, can include what you seem to be talking
about, namely two or more people talking at each other. TV gives a
pathetic illusion of debate with the TV audience assigned as observers but
TV literally can not afford real debate. It takes too long and it lacks
verbal kinetics (think: Jerry Springer) so real debate is not commercial
ready. Better to look at CSPAN for to see anything near the real thing.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Apr 6, 2007 05:04
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 20:11:25 -0400, "tooly" bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> I've found the more I know,
>the more I question myself; and the more I realize I don't know. That may
>be relative enlightenment, but it is also erradication of leadership
>ability.
My personal experience suggests otherwise. While I never actively
sought leadership positions, two situations come to mind where I
was thrust into them by circumstances. One was a time when I acted
as a supervisor/manager at work. Later, when I retired, I drove
schoolbus for a short time. On both occasions, I found myself playing
the role. Leadership is simply acting out a role. That's why
professional actors sometimes make successful political leaders :) I
don't think anyone loses this acting capability due to the realization
that the more you "know" the less you feel you really know anything at
all.
|
| Show full article (1.23Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
