Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Debate, interviews and conversation

Debate, interviews and conversation
January 03, 2012, 05:13:16 AM
Several experiences lately:

(1) Debate on this board. Somewhat acrimonious, but people are polite, however in classic INTJ/Alpha/aspie fashion they present their arguments strongly. I imagine this must be holocaustic on the brain of newcomers to this board, but it also saves us 4+ pages of introductory bullshit and waffling on most topics. That makes these topics less useful for newcomers and the stupid, but more useful for those who have seen them before and are familiar with the groundwork and pitfalls.

(2) Coffee, hot cocoa, cigarettes and conversation for 3+ hours at some trendy franchise. The topic was originally how we should celebrate the New Year, and drifted into a discussion of hardcore politics in which the leftists all got Soviet and the rightists all got pioneerish. People are scared diamond-shitting about 2012 and its political implications (much less the purported Mayapocalypse).

(3) Being interviewed, both as a professional candidate ("why would you be a good fit in this company?" "i like dicks. you are dicks. we're a natural fit.") and in relation to underground activities in politics.

Each one accomplishes something that, i'm loathe to admit, I wish I could do on my own -- they force me to consolidate my many thoughts into a single linear stream, much as the ego does that to the foaming (oooo... FOAMing) subconscious.

When you have a good debate partner, they will hammer at you until they get a thesis statement. A thesis statement is not in-depth; it's a highest abstraction layer (HAL) view of the situation. E.g. "the problem with multiculturalism is not crime, but loss of identity and thus loss of shared instinct for what is right." This narrows the debate and cuts out whole sections of discussion that are not relevant, for example the endless bantering over whether the crime, IQ, etc. stats are relevant, nice or true.

In an interview, the same is true. You need to distill pages and pages of information in your head into a one-paragraph answer, sometimes one that must be conveyed verbally. The result is a thesis-ization of complex ideas, like forming an outline in which every thesis is composed of several underlying theses.

All of these contribute to a view of a topic that is more like a topographic map, "knowing" how to navigate the turns and passages of a maze. I always think of that shitty 16 bit game "Castle Wolfenstein" from Id software. The best players knew the levels and could zip in and zip out without duplication.

The result, oddly, is that external influences consolidate thought. Regardless of whether this is good or bad, it happens. We are cells in a brain, or networked machines sharing processing time with each other, or even yeast, which swarm a problem with parallel and not organized attacks. It's a self-organizing system in the making.

Re: Debate, interviews and conversation
January 03, 2012, 07:12:25 AM
Viewed debates and interviews to me always seem like games to see if you can quickly and correctly state the view that you are already known for having, and if you slip in anyway, it puts doubt in your opinion, and takes away its validity.  For all of Jim Morrrison pretentions, I always liked how he would take incredibly long ammounts of time to answer questions to make sure what he was about to say was what his opinion actually was.  It may have been image-crafting, but at least he didn't play along with the gameshow framing.

Re: Debate, interviews and conversation
January 04, 2012, 04:44:24 AM
Debate on this board. Somewhat acrimonious...
Sometimes I think it's at least partly a result of the medium. You can't tell the tone of ones voice through text so it's easy to misinterpret, especially with a language as idiosyncratic as English.

however in classic INTJ/Alpha/aspie fashion they present their arguments strongly
I'm no psychologist, so maybe I'm confused here, but I thought Ass pies were supposed to be (or at least seem) meek and not particularly well known for strong conversation of any sort.

Re: Debate, interviews and conversation
January 04, 2012, 07:46:44 AM
One of the many reason why I do not post as much here is even though I am a killer speaker ( I can see myself a dictator and leader of people), I can not write out my thoughts as such, in any language! So it makes sense that I would rather speak in person and have an in depth conversation. In my time here, I have only met one person from this board many years ago. I am curious to seek out other Hessians, and I always keep my eye open for such individuals. In one way I did want to play music with someone, maybe someone who is better then me so I can keep my skills increasing. I really fucked myself by not keep my skills steadily. But I realize for now my own musical projects are better by myself, because my ideals are rigid, and finding someone who can work with you in this path is difficult.

Re: Debate, interviews and conversation
January 04, 2012, 10:02:37 AM
One of the many reason why I do not post as much here is even though I am a killer speaker ( I can see myself a dictator and leader of people), I can not write out my thoughts as such, in any language!
You always seemed like a charismatic warm-blooded dude to me, struggling to use the cold and distant medium of text on a computer screen to convey his thoughts.

I can tell because I'm pretty much in the same boat. In a casual setting I use a lot of facial expressions, hand gestures and tonal changes when I'm face to face with somebody. Another thing is that I use a lot of slang that does not really work well as text. I do not speak anywhere near as properly as I type.

Also adding into it is the fact that you can think indefinitely about what you are posting, while face to face you are generally expected to respond within a few moments.

Re: Debate, interviews and conversation
January 04, 2012, 10:55:48 AM
Dinaric Leather is a cool guy. He gave some good opinions on my ADD topic.

Re: Debate, interviews and conversation
January 04, 2012, 12:55:42 PM
I've sort of known this, that conversation tends to burn away false ideas and makes solid ideas that much more solid. I've recently had a bit of a revelation about this, though, while (re-)reading Plato's dialogues, and a novel Ishmael (by Daniel Quinn, which I would recommend to any DLA-forums-goer), which also is in the form of a dialogue. Plato himself thought Philosophy was best done in dialogues, and I have to agree with him.

Re: Debate, interviews and conversation
January 04, 2012, 01:49:38 PM
Agreed. They say sunlight is the best astringent.

God knows how many smart people become closed to influence, lose their consistency and relevance and thereby cement their minds towards failure.

Re: Debate, interviews and conversation
January 04, 2012, 01:59:46 PM
Agreed. They say sunlight is the best astringent.

God knows how many smart people become closed to influence, lose their consistency and relevance and thereby cement their minds towards failure.
Exactly. Stagnation = death, so you have to keep (good) ideas flowing. Avoid shitheads and find a few interesting people that you can discuss serious ideas with.

Re: Debate, interviews and conversation
January 05, 2012, 02:48:28 PM
You know what my biggest fear is?  Not that I'll be wrong.  But that I'll be wrong and no one will correct me.