Posted: Apr 25, 2017 3:30 pm
PensivePenny wrote:Sendraks wrote:PensivePenny wrote:
I think there is a nuance you're missing. I'm merely trying to assess what I am reading and understand it. And yes, I call upon MY own experiences because I don't have the benefit of YOURS. The aforementioned "assessment" is NOT a conclusion. It has a high probability of error. As people interact, more data is exchanged, "get to know one another", like science, the probability of an assessments accuracy generally increases. I would put forth that "projection" is the certitude of that projection. I have repeatedly said, meh, I could be wrong... no harm done, no conclusions are drawn. Even my understanding of "projection" could be wrong. Is it worth fighting about?
The point I've made about this being an unhealthy behaviour still stands, because drawing on your own experiences simply leads to you responding to caricatures of your own experiences rather than what people are actually saying or who those people actually are.
Maybe YOUR experience leads YOU to creating caricatures of others IF you were to "project."
What?
PensivePenny wrote: There isn't a scientist in the world who hasn't first imagined something based on their OWN experience/perceptions/observations.
Except they don't operate on the basis of projecting their conclusion on their research.
PensivePenny wrote: The thing is, they just refrain from calling THAT science (certitude).
Because it isn't science. (Nor is science a synonym of certitude) Because it isn't rational to do so.
PensivePenny wrote: The real work begins when they devise ways of removing their own experience from equation, collect data , then and ONLY then, once the data is there to support a claim, do they call it science.
And the way you do this with research into people's behaviour is to ask questions. Not to assume it and their motivations and then proceed based on those assumptions.
PensivePenny wrote: And still, it is subject to revision. That's all I've done.
False, you've repeatedly made direct accusations about your interlocutors behaviour and/or motivations.
Even after they've corrected your misinterpetations.
PensivePenny wrote: I have no conclusive assessment of anyone here.
Your posts in this thread demonstrate otherwise when it comes to people's behaviour, positions and motivations.
PensivePenny wrote: I probably never will.
You already have, repeatedly.
PensivePenny wrote: I give it the weight it deserves (which isn't much) and meh, whatever.
Why not try the rational approach and stick to what people actually post and if necessary, ask for clarification.
Rather than making stuff up and then tilting at straw-men.
PensivePenny wrote:
For the purposes of understanding what people are saying, you do not need to project behaviours or emotions onto people to do that. The only purpose of doing that is to reinforce your own conclusions about what motivates people to say what they have said, which is not the same as understanding what they have said.
Okay... I understand that is your perception and opinion.
It's neither Penny. It's a demonstrable fact.
I get that you might want to dismiss it as an opinion, but it really isn't.
PensivePenny wrote:It isn't likely we'll agree on this point. Are you okay with that?
I can't speak for Sendranks, but from what I know about him, he won't.
This isn't a question of agreeing to disagree.
In this case, it's you not listening to your interlocutors to stick to your misconceived notion.