An aside from ridicule is not good science

[mooeypoo]

I challenge the assumption being made above that Dirac was somehow unaware of what he was saying due to a mental condition wherein he exists somewhere on the autistic spectrum.

 

Exactly as Dr.Rocket suggested, my read of the situation is that he was fully aware of what he was saying and did it on purpose. Not only was he correct, he was clever. A person can still be funny when they have asperger's. Unfortunately, it appears that many people seem to completely lack a sense of humor.

 

The fact people don't find something specific funny does not mean they lack a sense of humor.

 

I seem to have missed this point, so let me answer it now:

Precisely, and why do you feel you have authority to dictate which tools I wield in my craft? Why must my goals be equal to yours? I'll give you a hint. They don't, and that seems to be one of the major issues here.

 

It's not about my goals, it's about the forum's goals.

 

I have no problem with you using whatever tool you want for your "craft", as I explicitly said multiple times in previous posts. There are other forums out there that wouldn't mind you using whatever tool you want against or for whatever person or poster you feel like. I don't argue for the destruction of those forums. They serve their purpose.

 

The problem is that the particular forum you choose to participate in at this very moment has different goals, and as a result it *requires* different tools to wield said "craft".

 

It has the authority to do that because you agreed to follow its rules when you signed up. You can use whatever tools you want if the place lets you use them. It seems that in a general poll of the membership, that's what the majority of the membership wants, too, and that's what the founders and staff of this forum agrees on. It's your choice whether or not to stick around, but you can't choose to stick around and actively go against the rules and then cry foul when people tell you to stop.

 

 

 

Quite very simple, really.

 

~mooey

[iNow]

Your words would have a lot more impact if the behavior you call out in me were not so frequently allowed to pass without comment when put forth by others.

[Phi for All]

Your words would have a lot more impact if the behavior you call out in me were not so frequently allowed to pass without comment when put forth by others.

&Now you should understand how difficult it is to enforce the forum's rules when one of its most prolific members ignores them repeatedly.

[iNow]

I disagree, and am seeking to call attention to the fact that you seem to enforce the rules selectively, and rather arbitrarily. I'm frankly tired of being singled out when I am simply one among many who post in this style. I have said it before, and will say it again. You consistently scapegoat me because I am somewhat more outspoken than many, despite the inherent sameness between my approach with the approach of countless others.

 

If you're going to make such a big deal out of tiny things like me calling someone a hypocrite, then you should really strive to be consistent and apply that same repressive heavy hand to all posters, else your own behaviors will themselves come across as hypocritical, and your credibility when enforcing the rules greatly diminished through your double standards.

[mooeypoo]

Look, we respond to reports because we can't see everything. You report, we respond. More often than not, though, things happen and people don't report them, but rather go on their vigilante persuit of justice, forcing us to intervene when it's too late -- and when the entire thread requires a much stronger response.

 

It's a LOT more difficult for us to respond against an "offending party" when the thread devolved in such a way where *many* are offending parties.

 

It's as if you have a guy harassing you in a bar, but instead of calling the bouncer's attention to solve the issue by tossing the guy out or giving him a warning, you start a brawl. That's when the police come and guess what? They arrest everyone.

 

You can't choose to be part of the problem and then get angry when we tell you to stop being part of the problem.

 

If you're going to make such a big deal out of tiny things like me calling someone a hypocrite, then you should really strive to be consistent and apply that same repressive heavy hand to all posters, else your own behaviors will themselves come across as hypocritical, and your credibility when enforcing the rules greatly diminished through your double standards.

 

For the tenth time, the issue wasn't you calling someone a hypocrite, and it wasn't about a single occurence. There are quite a number of members in this forum that are occasionally obnoxious. They don't get this type of moderation, though, and it has nothing to do with 'personally' picking on you. Some of us actually used to see your side and, perhaps, support it. You are making it EXTREMELY difficult to do that by nitpicking our claims to fit your own.

 

You just strawmanned at least three people who made a point about the 'hypocrite' comment. Great job. The irony here, iNow, is that you don't even notice how you seem to be using the same tactics of the people you are so eagerly arguing against -- and insisting that should be ridiculed.

 

 

~mooey

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

iNow, you give other SFN posters too much credit. I don't believe any others have mastered your brand of sarcasm, mockery, and insult. Certainly no other members have achieved the impact you have in terms of reported posts, warnings, and staff member departures.

 

However, I am intrigued by this comment:

 

Precisely, and why do you feel you have authority to dictate which tools I wield in my craft? Why must my goals be equal to yours? I'll give you a hint. They don't, and that seems to be one of the major issues here.

 

What are your goals here?

[hypervalent_iodine]

Since this thread is about ridicule and when/where it serves as a useful tool, I'm going to use this opportunity to provide an in-context example.

 

This is getting beyond ridiculous.

 

I have read this thread and kept up with it since it's inception and have seen the fall-back of certain member's actions within the board. This thread, while certainly not new (there are multiple others on the same topic) has shed some very interesting and enlightening conversation from both sides of the fence. Continuing to speak to brick walls, as it were, is detracting quite heavily from the work that members have put into replying to it. Asides from the obvious derailment from the OP, I don't think it is fair to those who participated in this debate in good faith to have it continue as it is.

 

It is painfully obvious to me and to others that iNow has no intention of changing the way he choses to interact with members here. If staff members are in disagreement with this and in consideration of his track-record, then do something about it. In my own opinion, this is not the way to handle it.

Edited November 19, 2011 by hypervalent_iodine

[Mystery111]

Oh dear oh dear...atleast an hour of me should be spent from here on in.

[iNow]

What are your goals here?

To read, write, and discuss stuff.

[StringJunky]

iNow, you give other SFN posters too much credit. I don't believe any others have mastered your brand of sarcasm, mockery, and insult. Certainly no other members have achieved the impact you have in terms of reported posts, warnings, and staff member departures.

 

I don't believe these qualities are appropriate or desirable in a pedagogical environment, especially one in which many are inexperienced in the "craft" of obnoxious adversarial dialogue.

 

I concur with Hypervalent Iodine's thoughts:

 

It is painfully obvious to me and to others that iNow has no intention of changing the way he choses to interact with members here. If staff members are in disagreement with this and in consideration of his track-record, then do something about it. In my own opinion, this is not the way to handle it.

[Appolinaria]

i honestly thought cap'n was being sarcastic. sure hope so

Edited November 19, 2011 by Appolinaria

[iNow]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Science-of-Sarcasm-Yeah-Right.html?utm_source=smithsoniansciandnat&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=201111-science

 

Studies have shown that exposure to sarcasm enhances creative problem solving, for instance. Children understand and use sarcasm by the time they get to kindergarten. An inability to understand sarcasm may be an early warning sign of brain disease.

 

Sarcasm detection is an essential skill if one is going to function in a modern society dripping with irony. “Our culture in particular is permeated with sarcasm,” says Katherine Rankin, a neuropsychologist at the University of California at San Francisco. “People who don’t understand sarcasm are immediately noticed. They’re not getting it. They’re not socially adept.”

 

<snip>

 

“It’s practically the primary language” in modern society, says John Haiman, a linguist at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, and the author of Talk is Cheap: Sarcasm, Alienation and the Evolution of Language.

 

Sarcasm seems to exercise the brain more than sincere statements do. Scientists who have monitored the electrical activity of the brains of test subjects exposed to sarcastic statements have found that brains have to work harder to understand sarcasm.

 

That extra work may make our brains sharper, according to another study.

 

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Science-of-Sarcasm-Yeah-Right.html#ixzz1e7woegwg

 

<snip>

 

We’re more likely to use sarcasm with our friends than our enemies, Pexman says. “There does seem to be truth to the old adage that you tend to tease the ones you love,” she says. <snip> There appear to be regional variations in sarcasm. A study that compared college students from upstate New York with students from near Memphis, Tennessee, found that the Northerners were more likely to suggest sarcastic jibes when asked to fill in the dialogue in a hypothetical conversation.

 

Northerners also were more likely to think sarcasm was funny: 56 percent of Northerners found sarcasm humorous while only 35 percent of Southerners did. The New Yorkers and male students from either location were more likely to describe themselves as sarcastic.

 

 

Maybe we're just from different regions?

 

.

 

 

I don't believe these qualities are appropriate or desirable in a pedagogical environment, especially one in which many are inexperienced in the "craft" of obnoxious adversarial dialogue.

How is this not supposed to be perceived as an insult?

 

I'm quite comfortable that you hold that opinion, but I have to call attention yet again to the fact there is hypocrisy in your point. You have just yourself engaged in the behavior for which you're recommending I be banned.

 

I'm fine with you calling me or my behavior obnoxious. That's not the point. The point is that had I done this it would have resulted in 3 staff members coming in to tell me how out of line I am.

[StringJunky]

INow

 

It's how I feel about and interpret your posts and is the somewhat reluctant conclusion I draw after two years of reading your contributions...I'm not mocking, insulting or ridiculing you. I've criticised your style and it's not tenable in this environment where people come to learn.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

This has been split off from:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61373-ridicule-is-not-good-science/

It doesn't appear to be headed anywhere other than name calling and is thus closed. iNow, and everyone in fact, if you see a post that you feel infringes the rules then use the report post button.

Everyone, name calling is against the rules and therefore don't do it.