I didn't know where else to put this, but after a while I felt it was certainly not TechOps anymore, not even aviation entirely. This was a response toKlaus
in one of my own threads currently in the TechOps. I think this post speaks for itself but if you choose to see the whole story behind it, here you go:
ABSTRACT: All I am analysing is the behavior interactions of people in argument or presentation, showing how lacking knowledge and lacking interests affects responses and tips or suggestions of how to better it the conversaion.
"Thank you; I´m aware, however, that preachyness is yet another thing that gets annoying very often.
I believed that unless one did not understand something, they should asked a question, otherwise they should shut the hell up; however, here comes me and my supposid preachyness...
I'd stop if everyone understood my point -- but that is just it -- they can't get my point through just words. Having been here 3 yrs, I've done the stats: 1 in one-hundred can truly get a specific point, one in ten get any point and one in ten freely respond to threads. I do not want to assume Modus Nollens but my experience has seen it, especially when I am forced to explain my points over and over again just so people get it and not get the wrong idea, I come off as arrogant or zealous or preachy, etc...
Of course I know in my heart in terms of the stuff I talk about here in the TechOps recently, if I showed a picture or an animation of what I mean, rather than the impression or implications that are picked up from my paragraphs, I'd triple those who understand me. I'm not some dude that has ideas and want to show them off, I've never been that. I really can't show them off to just anyone, hence nobody can truly understand what I'm talking about. Those that believe I believe wish me well and I apreciate it, but when I repeat myself to those that don't, I turn off my audience; it's a real bummer.
I concure, however, if I saw a post about something that gave me the "impression of
leaving reality behind", then I'd respond similar to
. But would have been a serious misimpression on my part if I get a different idea than what was meant and assumed that was the point. This usually occurs with along generalizations, as with the square-wheels thing. Basicaly they were thinking of someone/thing else that reminded them of what they were reading or seeing and unconciously responded to THAT person/situation rather than the question or presenter at hand. The latter invokes the theory of shifting blame, i.e. Modus Nollens, a latin phrase meaning "conclusion by affirmation", if one then the other, etc -- basically, guilt by association. But the association itself is false, generalized and stereotypical. It is far from specific and sadly, widely accepted.
What's then? Unless one takes advantage of as many human senses as there are in presenting a topic, that person or audience may never get it unless both you and them started from the same place. Otherwise the presenter must translate techicalities into common sense, which takes away from the point. An anology would be a piece of gaming software that has to work with all OS
platforms rather than one to get the full effect, i.e. point of the program.
Above all else, the audience must be interested; that would be both their's and your problem. I've seen it a bunch of times in the non-aviation forums where someone would post something and they would get a response along the lines of "why did you post this" or "I don't get it" or something nearly useless. The first thing that comes to my mind is, 'you did not have to click it', and their obvious response would be, 'he did not have to post it in the first place' -- this implies we should have the freedom to click whatever we want and everything will satisfy OUR conditions. That's not how the world works.
A simply analogy would be the issue about sex/violence on TV
and kids. Some folks blame the industry others blame the parents. The one who feels the post in question may have been unecessarily posted is logically eqivalent to those who favor in regulating TV
, as they should be able to freely change channels and it would fiot their impression of how the world should be. The other majority aspect would be like the parents, stating that it is your responsibility to accept that a thread on this discussions forum is for everyone, not just you. In other words, we can post whatever we want, per restrictions. No one is supervising your post habits, if you run into something you don't like it is up to you to decide what to do next. Even that is subjective, in fact, everything is subjective. We can't even say the sky is blue. (If you don't understand that, provide a counter-example and prove me wrong by contradiction)
The point of the last two paragraphs: if the audience (anyone reading this) is not interested, do not participate. Specific to this thread: If you don't get it, ask a question otherwise don't respond. Responding with "I don't get it" or this thread is frivolous" or the more popular "shaft" is utterly illogical. It neither helps the thread poster or any remaining posters to further the point of the thread. Just because you might not get the point does't mean is isn't one, ask a question or hit back. Seriously, there will be someone who will do this and thinks its funny.
For the person who tests this: There is a reason not ever movie is a comedy, same thing applies to any subject not a movie, accept it, respect it. If you choose to post, I will ask you to tell me the point of it, i.e legitimate.
As for the presenter, they have to be aware of their target audience. Like you don't go up to a bunch of vegans and sell beef nor do you sell a new grade of efficient superfuel to tree huggers, you can still do it, but one must expect certain results. In the real world we do not purposely target the opposite audience, we target everyone adn hope we net enough people to stay afloat, afterwards we market to them. There will always be tree-huggers and vegans in your marketplace, and they wil have opinions; logically, accept it and/or respect it.
I guess in terms of posting on the non-aviation forum, there are jokers who will act as if every post is funny to them and therfore complain about "people not taking a joke". That depends on the post thread itself. Some folks choose to get the wrong idea and treat every post as a pesonal attack on a self or a thing of value. But I should expect something too, that maybe a potential audience member exists, rather than be paranoid about the jokers/whiners.
Although, what is a joker and a whiner? Again, that is subjective, i changes from person to person. Most of all, most people treat their ideas as universal rather that opinions, which is what they are. This is where the flamefests come into play. Get a joker and a whiner together and you have fireworks, whomever withdraws the earliest is the smarter one. THe goal is not to show or prove to the other your thoughts, ideas or belief are better or more believeable, the point of any argument should be to get your point accross -- that's it -- not to change their mind, that is ther job, not yours.
By getting ones point accorss does not mean or imply changing another's mind. It is assumed that if one shows interest in something and is willing to participate, then there should be a mild acceptance to other ideas -- this is never the case with regular people. Most of us would never challenge ourselves by getting into subjects with opposing beliefs as ours, believe it or not it helps. Helps what? For one, tolerance, accepting of others -- it's not what you think, being this way helps everyone deal with you. How is it their problem? Well, the more people you talk to the more you affect. If you do not care, it may help to not talk to people.
For example, I hate mathematical proofs. They are boring and i just hate them, I never got them. Sadly, I never asked a question, I felt that I did not understand what was going on and more or less choose not to deal with it. (some kids are like that I beieve with regards to bothering to go to school or college). Anyway, I had a test today and it was filled with proofs. I did well, how? I forced myself cuz there was a reward, a good grade. Basically I found out why I hated proofs, I did not know anything about them, hence I feared it through ignorance. Fear does not mean being scared, ignoring something just cuz you think it makes no sense to deal with it, i.e. if it was with regards to a person, it would be discrimination.
Forcing yourself to learn helps you as a person.
Ever hear the phrase 'know your enemy' or the quote, 'hold your friends close and your enemies closer'? Same thing. Like if you are Pro-life, go to an anit-abortion rally, shut-up and listen to everyone. When the rally is over, find someone and talk to them, not about abortion, about them. I guess another analogy would be like getting out of bed differently eveyday to keep your mind exercised.
Again, if you don't get the point, ask a question or don't participate, it doesn't make sense if you post a complaint that does not help anyone.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.