--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, foufou_fl <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jyouells2000" <jyouells@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Johnny, I suspect from your comments that at times your reading or
> > > > understanding of some posts is weak or superficial And you react
> > > > strongly to your weak understanding, not the post itself -- as
> > written.
> > > >
> > >
> > > -----------------
> > > -----------------
> > >
> > > What more can I say,
> > > I rest my case, and my weak understanding.
> > >
> > > JohnY
> >
> > Perhaps you have difficulty distinguishing between a critique of an
> > idea and a personal attack.
>
> Perhaps that's because my understanding is weak, or I'm overly
> attached, but of course your discourse is directed at the ideas....
> ("focus on ideas not the person")
The above is a concept, a framework for understanding cognitive
processes. You may disagree that people do this. But that you appear
to take it as a personal attack, makes the point.
> > Some feel so attached and in ownership of
> > their thoughts and ideas, that a criticism of the latter is equivalent
> > to a personal attack. Having mixed that up, often their response, is
> > not on the ideas being discussed, but to attack the poster. Again,
>> one is seen to be the same as the other: ideas and the thinker.
> >
>
> Inflame, attack, retreat into symatics and subtle parsing of
language. That has been the flow of your threads.
While I have a different view, I will reflect on your comments. But
what are the ideas and concepts that you are trying to discuss here?
Or is it all about your perception of my style? The idea that I am
presenting is that ideas are the "thing". When posts focus on the
perceived short comings of the individual, what is the point?
As I said, "On the other hand, sometimes, some ideas expressed are so
weak and baseless that its hard not to laugh out loud and rib the
poster directly a bit. That is often not a personal attack, but an
attempt to get the poster to "wake-up' to what they have posted,
re-examine it,and hopefully laugh at it too." It can be humorous way
to say "hey, your idea is flawed-- logically or factually. Think about
it."
> Oh, it's subtle use of the intellect to enlighten, sure it is....
More cognitive traps are blocking your "reading". Where did I suggest
"it's subtle use of the intellect to enlighten". But it ties directly
to the idea we are discussing.
Its an interesting point that cognitive errors occur so often here on
FFL. Combining cognitive errors within a personality who cannot
distinguish between thoughts and thinker, between critiques of ideas
and personal attacks, is a formula for poor and ineffectual
communication. Thats my hypothesis, what is your opinion of that?
>
> > Nothing could be further from the truth in my book. The quality of
> > thoughts, I suggest, follows a normal distribution (aka bell
>>curve). A few brilliant ideas, a few imbecillic ones, and a lot
>>somewhere in between. Just because one has an imbecillic thought
>>does not make the person an imbecile. Same with having a "genius
>>thought". If we don't catch our own imbecillic thoughts, feedback
>>from others on the quality of the idea is helpful.
> >
>
> And I should be thankful too. Gee, I guess I'm lucky to have your
> critique and counsel then.
I presented a concept.And your response ignores the concept and
focusses on some ego war in your mind. Which I guess is your reponse
to my point that ideas should be the focus. You apparently disagree.
That apparently is your point.
> > On the other hand, sometimes, some ideas expressed are so weak and
> > baseless that its hard not to laugh out loud and rib the poster
> > directly a bit. That is often not a personal attack, but an attempt to
> > get the poster to "wake-up' to what they have posted, re-examine
> > it,and hopefully laugh at it too.
> >
>
>
> If a laugh makes you feel better, feel free.
You take a geneal point and inernalized it as a personal attack.
Youprovide no comment on the idea and concept itself. Which apparently
is your indirect way of saying you disagree. Point made above. Point
taken.
>I quess it's all worth it
> then. Quality entertainment for sure.
Zero content on discussion of the ideas presented. Again my hypothesis
is that some people see critiques of their ideas as personal attacks,
in that their ideas are "who they are". They respond, ignoring the
discussion of ideas, and attack the person presenting ideas or a
critique of their own. What do you think of this hypothesis. See any
examples of it here or other posts?
> JohnY
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
