Choosing the Focus of Our Attention (WAS: Correct Interpretation of Evoluti

[Guest guest]

> Why not rely upon what is already well-tested and known to work at least

> reasonably well? Why not just start there?

>

> That's my approach, I rarely refer to our origins in explaining what

I teach

> or how I live. The conversations just go off into utterly nonsensical

> directions, because so few people have even a shred of real

background. One

> would have to keep up, for example, with the ongoing field of genetic

> research and its latest love-fest, epigenetics, to realize where the

> mainstream of science is going, and then one would have to

internalize all

> this, adapt and respond accordingly, etc. One would have to keep up with

> various other developments in physics, etc., as well.

>

> Anyone here (other than me) currently doing this?

 

 

Actually I find this the best part - arguing within someone else's

mental framework. You can't fault people for not knowing what you

expect them to. If you fit their mind inside of yours, you can figure

out what words and what logical connections the person needs in order

for an idea to make sense to them. It is much better than simply

berating them with " raw fruit is good for you " . The way to do this is

usually as follows: you enter a debate with them, and if you're

paying attention, you will eventually see the debate start all over

again - the other person will say the exact same thing that started

the debate! It will be like you've gotten nowhere. Now most people

simply follow suit and start all over again or simply restate their

argument in a different way, and the tone simply gets more frustrated

and annoyed for both parties. Simply re-framing your argument with

different words isn't enough. But it is at this point where, if you

have a higher level of awareness of the dynamic of the argument, you

can get a much deeper understanding of the other person's emotions and

thought processes and simply think of a completely different strategy,

one which KINDLY confronts them with such a different angle of attack

but which they are capable of understanding and appreciating. If done

properly it will end the conversation instantly with their having a

completely stunned look on their face, as they try to figure out how

to counter-argue. Usually they can't, and at that point you know

they're going home and thinking about something new!

Certainly, a lot of people are to narrow and closed minded, or on

simply such a low level of thought and critical thinking, that it

doesn't even matter to even TRY to argue with them. It takes a lot of

skill to do it properly. Sometimes it doesn't work.

 

Yes, I do keep up with most developments in science. I am an

astrophysicist (astronomer) by training, but my hobbies include

cosmology, biology and evolution, archeology, chemistry and genetics,

philosophy, quantum and statistical mechanics, classical mechanics,

comparative religion, spiritualism (not really a " hobby " that one),

and others.

 

 

Cheers

 

Joe

[Guest guest]

rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan wrote:

 

[...]

 

> That's my approach, I rarely refer to our origins in explaining what

I teach

> or how I live. The conversations just go off into utterly nonsensical

> directions, because so few people have even a shred of real

background. One

> would have to keep up, for example, with the ongoing field of genetic

> research and its latest love-fest, epigenetics, to realize where the

> mainstream of science is going, and then one would have to

internalize all

> this, adapt and respond accordingly, etc. One would have to keep up with

> various other developments in physics, etc., as well.

>

> Anyone here (other than me) currently doing this?

 

You know I do! <raises hand>

 

-Erin

http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog

[Guest guest]

Joe,

 

I believe Elchanan is saying that archaeological evidence is

fragmented to the extent that we are left with a continual guessing

game. For instance, that there is evidence humans were using fire and

cooking doesn't tell us how much of the diet was cooked and how much

was meat. We also don't know much about dis-eases experienced by cave

men, women, and children. Perhaps only men ate meat, or only men and

women, but not children. It's so hard to know. And, because a cluster

of humans living in inhospitable lands are surviving by eating and

cooking meat (and wearing skins in the cold), says little to me about

what is optimal health. From what I understand, the bones of

prehistoric humans could all fit into the back of a pick-up truck.

Though it is fascinating to learn about prehistoric humans, it can

only take us so far in our quest to learn what is natural by design.

 

Also, may I suggest you take another look at your post? This type of

communication would have some people unnecessarily steaming in the

corner. I suspect you've missed out on what people have to offer in

the midst of winning an argument. And, likewise, people will miss

your message if they feel threatened.

 

You wrote:

" If done properly it will end the conversation instantly with their

having a completely stunned look on their face, as they try to figure

out how to counter-argue. "

 

For instance, how does one " KINDLY confront them with such a different

angle of attack " ? There is an element of violence in this quote by

you. I don't think you intended it that way, but the words do have

the quality of a physical challenge (confront, attack). My point is

that participating in a debate/argument is very stress producing, but

participating in a discussion is thought provoking.

 

Janet

 

rawfood , " Joe Postma " <joepostma wrote:

 

Why not rely upon what is already well-tested and known to work at

least reasonably well? Why not just start there?

 

That's my approach, I rarely refer to our origins in explaining what I

teach or how I live. The conversations just go off into utterly

nonsensical directions, because so few people have even a shred of

real background. One would have to keep up, for example, with the

ongoing field of genetic research and its latest love-fest,

epigenetics, to realize where the mainstream of science is going, and

then one would have to internalize all this, adapt and respond

accordingly, etc. One would have to keep up with various other

developments in physics, etc., as well.

 

Anyone here (other than me) currently doing this?

 

 

Actually I find this the best part - arguing within someone else's

mental framework. You can't fault people for not knowing what you

expect them to. If you fit their mind inside of yours, you can figure

out what words and what logical connections the person needs in order

for an idea to make sense to them. It is much better than simply

berating them with " raw fruit is good for you " . The way to do this is

usually as follows: you enter a debate with them, and if you're

paying attention, you will eventually see the debate start all over

again - the other person will say the exact same thing that started

the debate! It will be like you've gotten nowhere. Now most people

simply follow suit and start all over again or simply restate their

argument in a different way, and the tone simply gets more frustrated

and annoyed for both parties. Simply re-framing your argument with

different words isn't enough. But it is at this point where, if you

have a higher level of awareness of the dynamic of the argument, you

can get a much deeper understanding of the other person's emotions and

thought processes and simply think of a completely different strategy,

one which KINDLY confronts them with such a different angle of attack

but which they are capable of understanding and appreciating. If done

properly it will end the conversation instantly with their having a

completely stunned look on their face, as they try to figure out how

to counter-argue. Usually they can't, and at that point you know

they're going home and thinking about something new!

Certainly, a lot of people are to narrow and closed minded, or on

simply such a low level of thought and critical thinking, that it

doesn't even matter to even TRY to argue with them. It takes a lot of

skill to do it properly. Sometimes it doesn't work.

 

Yes, I do keep up with most developments in science. I am an

astrophysicist (astronomer) by training, but my hobbies include

cosmology, biology and evolution, archeology, chemistry and genetics,

philosophy, quantum and statistical mechanics, classical mechanics,

comparative religion, spiritualism (not really a " hobby " that one),

and others.