Posted: Jun 19, 2019 5:19 pm
***continued from above***
Wow, what a bizarre argument. So you're questioning the credibility of what I've written on the grounds of what I've written?
And the credible writing isn't the detailed technical morphological characteristics of afarensis which I wrote to you and you ignored... but the whimsical dozen words I wrote on my profile on a website?
Also, you've just demolished your argument that I am appealing to authority, or else I would write something serious about myself there as I've seen other members do.
But of course, even were we to ignore the obviously weird quantity of the argument you're now forwarding, even taken at face value it's so contrived as to be nearly meaningless.
Lecturer is first.
Why do you think I put it first, JJ?
Want to make some guesses?
Is it alphabetical? Nope, then it would be actor.
Is it by which one I do most? No, because the last in the list would then be second.
Ooh, I know (funny that when it was what I wrote!) how about if it's a list of things I do as an occupation based on the order of interest or importance to me?
Wow what an amazing deduction? How do you do it Holmes? Elementary, said he! I had an expert insight into the workings of the mind of the writer!
Again, look JJ this is just bloody dense of you. You don't ask me questions about which you know fuck all - clearly fuck all in this case - you contrive scenarios which paint nefarious pictures of long-term agendas. Basically, you just ran a synopsis of this entire thread in just one paragraph!
Of course, as usual, you're wrong. In reality, I've never claimed any degree whatsoever of authority in writing or acting. Quite the contrary, I am always looking for writers because I find it a chore, and while there are many types of assignment I can write well and easily, feature length screenplays are just damn hard slogs which end up throwing my fragile circadian rhythm right out of whack and cause me months of grief. I'm not a stage actor, I'm a character voice-actor for animated TV and films, and while I don't claim any great professional acumen in this area, I do have a lot of experience collected over many years of working on dozens of projects. Between writing and acting, I probably spend approximately a month per year on them. Given the option, I'd spend a lot more time doing voice-over work because it's so much fun it's almost absurd to get paid for it.
When it comes to lecturing and producer, these are my primary occupations, as in, these pay for me and my family to live - quite comfortably, I might add!
Again though, I wouldn't claim authority as a tv producer. I knows what I knows, and sufficient people trust me in that regard for them to have the confidence to invest in my projects, or to employ me to develop animated tv series and films. This is my primary job in the sense that it pays the most, but it's not full-time. I've only needed to go into the studio once a week for the last few weeks, although earlier this year I practically lived there for 2 months, and when a project gets greenlit, I have to invest time and energy into it.
As for lecturer, that's what's on my visa, my legal, official position in the country which is granted only on proof of academic and vocational expertise and accredited proficiency. So yeah, I'd claim a bit of authority here as it's basically necessary to be reasonably authoritative when it comes to education at university level. However, Thailand's academic culture is a bit different than many other nations you might potentially be more familiar with; I'll never be a tenured professor at a university, my official status translates best into English as Associate Professor, basically, I'm a lecturer, curriculum developer, and I grade some papers.
So what does this entail vocationally? Well, I have my own office, desk, computer, small library, tiny budget, and courses at one of the top 3 universities in this country. Over one academic year, I typically teach 6 courses, although it can sometimes be 5, and occasionally be as many as 8 or 9. These run for either 6 weeks or 18 weeks. Of the 6 main courses, 3 of them are wholly my creation, as in, I have free reign to teach whatever the hell I like: I've developed the entire curriculum and no one interferes at any point. It's the beauty of teaching undergraduate courses, to be honest!
However, as you're making such a big hullabaloo over authority, I'll share a little something with you. I get to teach the introductory class to Palaeoanthropology (not the title in Thai, but then that's because Thai is weird in this respect) and the second lesson in that course I spend tricking my students into lazy confident assessments then turning everything upside down as a warning against certainty. I impress upon those students (and it always goes down well) how vital it is that they don't run in automatic mode slurping down the produce of experts, but rather that they grasp tightly the tools they can use to garner that knowledge for themselves and always be ready to drop a proposition whenever it turns out to be dead-weight.
I think you would benefit greatly from that lesson JJ, but I can't help thinking you'd imagine it doesn't apply to you, only to everyone else.
So anyway, you didn't ask, because you never do, but I told you my little story about me and my work anyway.
None of it really matters because I never once said to you: I am right because I am an expert. Rather, I have produced technical and detailed assessments which apparently were outside your ability to respond to, and I've contradicted your authoritative claims to having special insight that I was simply unaware of. As such, this is much like when I spot you saying something untrue and call it a lie, then you act as if you're the victim.
Yeah, you've deduced this from the words in my profile?
My misrepresentation of what, JJ? Why are we in the abstract here? What is it I've misrepresented? Did I misrepresent the morphological characteristics of afarensis? You didn't seem to have the first idea how to respond or to engage on that level, but for me it's perfectly normal conversation I have with my colleagues. We can enter that mode if you like, but honestly, I don't think you'd have anything to input and I'd just end up having to revert to using non-technical language so you could participate.
As I've said before JJ: I am playing you... but it's not about this. I am playing you in a number of ways, testing your knowledge, exposing how little you know while making such confident declarations.
For example, I have repeatedly asked you to clarify what the Wikipedia entry you cited means in your own words. You haven't done so. You asserted that it contradicted my point about the differences between floriensis and the australopithecines, but you can't seem to engage in any substantive function as to what exactly it is that I am supposed to be wrong about and why that wikipedia entry shows that.
Remember when you said I'd made a load of embarrassing arguments, then failed to establish why they were meant to be embarrassing? That's the same thing that's happening here, isn't it? It's a chuck shit and hope something sticks long enough for you to make a get-away onto the next babushka.
Ahh stuff it back up yer arse you pompous oaf.
When you stop engaging in self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry, and show you're open to learning rather than lecturing bollocks nonsensically at people who know you're talking shit, then and only then may the quality of conversation improve.
Your asserted narrowness that exists only in your mind but you can't actually show exists outside of your mind, you mean?
Self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry.
Indeed, and it's fantastic. But there should be a warning there too. Just because there are resources available to you, that doesn't make you a de facto expert.
For example, an actual expert wouldn't have made so many silly errors as you have.
So even though you've got access to pictures, you still need to know what the pictures are before engaging a grand sweeping argument on the basis of that picture alone.
I should certainly hope so, but they still need to think long and hard about what it is they actually know, to what depth and breadth, because a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Awww, the martyr narrative is complete.
Bravo JJ, BRAVO!
And you started this post with the words 'not so dramatic'!
See? This is how your cognitive dissonance protects you from ever acknowledging your errors. This is why you're still battering away at a nonsensical assertion years and years later. It's personal for you. You're desperate to be acclaimed by the people you're so bigoted against. You want approval of your ideas from people who you routinely dismiss and contrive such nonsensical delusions about.
It's batshit JJ. You officially have no shame!
Jayjay4547 wrote:In this topic you have said that you have spent your adult life teaching evolution to undergraduates but in your profile you say of your occupation: ”Bit of this, bit less of that, and the occasional bit of the other. i.e. lecturer, actor, writer, t.v. producer” . All of those are full time careers for those who become authoritative.
Wow, what a bizarre argument. So you're questioning the credibility of what I've written on the grounds of what I've written?
And the credible writing isn't the detailed technical morphological characteristics of afarensis which I wrote to you and you ignored... but the whimsical dozen words I wrote on my profile on a website?
Also, you've just demolished your argument that I am appealing to authority, or else I would write something serious about myself there as I've seen other members do.
But of course, even were we to ignore the obviously weird quantity of the argument you're now forwarding, even taken at face value it's so contrived as to be nearly meaningless.
Lecturer is first.
Why do you think I put it first, JJ?
Want to make some guesses?
Is it alphabetical? Nope, then it would be actor.
Is it by which one I do most? No, because the last in the list would then be second.
Ooh, I know (funny that when it was what I wrote!) how about if it's a list of things I do as an occupation based on the order of interest or importance to me?
Wow what an amazing deduction? How do you do it Holmes? Elementary, said he! I had an expert insight into the workings of the mind of the writer!
Again, look JJ this is just bloody dense of you. You don't ask me questions about which you know fuck all - clearly fuck all in this case - you contrive scenarios which paint nefarious pictures of long-term agendas. Basically, you just ran a synopsis of this entire thread in just one paragraph!
Of course, as usual, you're wrong. In reality, I've never claimed any degree whatsoever of authority in writing or acting. Quite the contrary, I am always looking for writers because I find it a chore, and while there are many types of assignment I can write well and easily, feature length screenplays are just damn hard slogs which end up throwing my fragile circadian rhythm right out of whack and cause me months of grief. I'm not a stage actor, I'm a character voice-actor for animated TV and films, and while I don't claim any great professional acumen in this area, I do have a lot of experience collected over many years of working on dozens of projects. Between writing and acting, I probably spend approximately a month per year on them. Given the option, I'd spend a lot more time doing voice-over work because it's so much fun it's almost absurd to get paid for it.
When it comes to lecturing and producer, these are my primary occupations, as in, these pay for me and my family to live - quite comfortably, I might add!
Again though, I wouldn't claim authority as a tv producer. I knows what I knows, and sufficient people trust me in that regard for them to have the confidence to invest in my projects, or to employ me to develop animated tv series and films. This is my primary job in the sense that it pays the most, but it's not full-time. I've only needed to go into the studio once a week for the last few weeks, although earlier this year I practically lived there for 2 months, and when a project gets greenlit, I have to invest time and energy into it.
As for lecturer, that's what's on my visa, my legal, official position in the country which is granted only on proof of academic and vocational expertise and accredited proficiency. So yeah, I'd claim a bit of authority here as it's basically necessary to be reasonably authoritative when it comes to education at university level. However, Thailand's academic culture is a bit different than many other nations you might potentially be more familiar with; I'll never be a tenured professor at a university, my official status translates best into English as Associate Professor, basically, I'm a lecturer, curriculum developer, and I grade some papers.
So what does this entail vocationally? Well, I have my own office, desk, computer, small library, tiny budget, and courses at one of the top 3 universities in this country. Over one academic year, I typically teach 6 courses, although it can sometimes be 5, and occasionally be as many as 8 or 9. These run for either 6 weeks or 18 weeks. Of the 6 main courses, 3 of them are wholly my creation, as in, I have free reign to teach whatever the hell I like: I've developed the entire curriculum and no one interferes at any point. It's the beauty of teaching undergraduate courses, to be honest!
However, as you're making such a big hullabaloo over authority, I'll share a little something with you. I get to teach the introductory class to Palaeoanthropology (not the title in Thai, but then that's because Thai is weird in this respect) and the second lesson in that course I spend tricking my students into lazy confident assessments then turning everything upside down as a warning against certainty. I impress upon those students (and it always goes down well) how vital it is that they don't run in automatic mode slurping down the produce of experts, but rather that they grasp tightly the tools they can use to garner that knowledge for themselves and always be ready to drop a proposition whenever it turns out to be dead-weight.
I think you would benefit greatly from that lesson JJ, but I can't help thinking you'd imagine it doesn't apply to you, only to everyone else.
So anyway, you didn't ask, because you never do, but I told you my little story about me and my work anyway.
None of it really matters because I never once said to you: I am right because I am an expert. Rather, I have produced technical and detailed assessments which apparently were outside your ability to respond to, and I've contradicted your authoritative claims to having special insight that I was simply unaware of. As such, this is much like when I spot you saying something untrue and call it a lie, then you act as if you're the victim.
Jayjay4547 wrote: So you are laying it on a bit thick on this forum...
Yeah, you've deduced this from the words in my profile?
Jayjay4547 wrote:... and the extent of your possible misrepresentation is what is worrying me,...
My misrepresentation of what, JJ? Why are we in the abstract here? What is it I've misrepresented? Did I misrepresent the morphological characteristics of afarensis? You didn't seem to have the first idea how to respond or to engage on that level, but for me it's perfectly normal conversation I have with my colleagues. We can enter that mode if you like, but honestly, I don't think you'd have anything to input and I'd just end up having to revert to using non-technical language so you could participate.
Jayjay4547 wrote: because nothing could make me look sillier than having what I think is a serious conversation, with a joking pretense.
As I've said before JJ: I am playing you... but it's not about this. I am playing you in a number of ways, testing your knowledge, exposing how little you know while making such confident declarations.
For example, I have repeatedly asked you to clarify what the Wikipedia entry you cited means in your own words. You haven't done so. You asserted that it contradicted my point about the differences between floriensis and the australopithecines, but you can't seem to engage in any substantive function as to what exactly it is that I am supposed to be wrong about and why that wikipedia entry shows that.
Remember when you said I'd made a load of embarrassing arguments, then failed to establish why they were meant to be embarrassing? That's the same thing that's happening here, isn't it? It's a chuck shit and hope something sticks long enough for you to make a get-away onto the next babushka.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Secondly, I think its high time people who assume a monopoly by science for telling the human origin story, hit a bit of an incline. If you spoke in the name of science with more tolerance that would certainly help the prestige of the teller but scientific consensus on the human origin story seems to me too narrow; far narrower say than the consensus of historians about the documented past.
Ahh stuff it back up yer arse you pompous oaf.
When you stop engaging in self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry, and show you're open to learning rather than lecturing bollocks nonsensically at people who know you're talking shit, then and only then may the quality of conversation improve.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Beyond that narrowness of outlook,...
Your asserted narrowness that exists only in your mind but you can't actually show exists outside of your mind, you mean?
Self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry.
Jayjay4547 wrote:...the internet resources have in the last decade so broadened what is available to all,...
Indeed, and it's fantastic. But there should be a warning there too. Just because there are resources available to you, that doesn't make you a de facto expert.
For example, an actual expert wouldn't have made so many silly errors as you have.
So even though you've got access to pictures, you still need to know what the pictures are before engaging a grand sweeping argument on the basis of that picture alone.
Jayjay4547 wrote:that lay persons can figure some things out for themselves...
I should certainly hope so, but they still need to think long and hard about what it is they actually know, to what depth and breadth, because a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Jayjay4547 wrote:...and if putative authorities try to bully them into kowtowing to their authority, we can put up a bit of an argument.
Awww, the martyr narrative is complete.
Bravo JJ, BRAVO!
And you started this post with the words 'not so dramatic'!
See? This is how your cognitive dissonance protects you from ever acknowledging your errors. This is why you're still battering away at a nonsensical assertion years and years later. It's personal for you. You're desperate to be acclaimed by the people you're so bigoted against. You want approval of your ideas from people who you routinely dismiss and contrive such nonsensical delusions about.
It's batshit JJ. You officially have no shame!