If there's one thing I've noticed about the debates here in Vehicular Cycling, it's that posts are not always completely objective. It's usually more apparent when reading opposing views. ;)
As a result, while good points are often made on opposing sides, each side can also turn a blind eye to the validity of the opposing side's arguments. It's one thing to hold your ground, but to argue with every position presented in an opposing argument is unrealisitic. Even the most untenable position is not completely wrong, and even the strongest argument is not without it's weaknesses. Nobody is always wrong, nor is anyone always right.
How is it then that we argue with people simply because they are on the opposing side, regardless of the validity of what they say? Or that we support the arguments of people who we think are "on our side," yet ignore the things they say that are not supportable?
And we nit-pick.
Isn't it time we lost our fear of admitting that the other side (whatever that might be) is sometimes right? And that "our side" is sometimes wrong?
Can we find objective truth in these debates? I don't want to bring up "science," for what we are doing is not science, it's debate. But in science, for example, researchers don't seek to prove what they already believe, they seek to believe what they can prove.
Can we open our minds to learn from each other and arrive at some common beliefs we can all support? What's the harm in admitting agreement in whatever area we do agree on?
Eh? ;)
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
LBM, good luck! I've tried centrist position and am still centrist, and the usual result is both sides unite in telling me I'm wrong!
BLIZZ
Can we open our minds to learn from each other and arrive at some common beliefs we can all support?
Eh? ;)
And where would be the fun in that?:D
It wouldn't be near as interesting of a read.
BLIZZ
LBM, good luck! I've tried centrist position and am still centrist, and the usual result is both sides unite in telling me I'm wrong!
Like a police man breaking up a fight between a husband and wife.
He gets it from both of them, while all the neighbors criticize police brutallity.
Hobartlemagne
Like a police man breaking up a fight between a husband and wife.
He gets it from both of them, while all the neighbors criticize police brutallity.
But its really funny if the man is covered in flour
LittleBigMan
But its really funny if the man is covered in flour
:roflmao:
<ahem>
:)
donnamb
LBM, good luck! I've tried centrist position and am still centrist, and the usual result is both sides unite in telling me I'm wrong!
Amen, brother. :rolleyes:
sbhikes
You are right LBM.
There. See how boring that is?
slagjumper
I think that in acknowledging the strengths of the other side you make your critique at least seem more objective.
A problem arises when someone tries to use reason to persuade another to their perspective. This often is very difficult, and prone to all kinds of attacks, and definition confusion. Resorting to name calling is unfortunately common but it also shows how weak that person's point is. Anecdotes are usually somewhat compelling, but not necessarily rational.
Can anyone give 5 strengths and 5 weaknesses of a polarizing bike issue without down playing the other side at least a little bit?
Can you tell what side I'm on?
Helmets
Save lives, good example for kids, less insurance money paid out, looks sexy, safety factor outweighs inconvenience.
Unnecessary the vast majority of time, helmet less look is more sexy, cooler to go without on a warm day, rather be dead for real than just brain dead, free to choose in America.
sbhikes
You blew your cover when you said helmets look sexy.
invisiblehand
You blew your cover when you said helmets look sexy.
:lol:
Let's not forget that head associated with said helmet matters. (waiting for Chipcom to have picture with helmet ...)
Just to make a point, a G-string might be sexy, but me in a G-string is not sexy.
-G
BLIZZ
You are right LBM.
There. See how boring that is?
Yep....that's boring all right.
And LBM is right also.:)
closetbiker
I think that in acknowledging the strengths of the other side you make your critique at least seem more objective...5 strengths and 5 weaknesses of a polarizing bike issue without down playing the other side at least a little bit?
Can you tell what side I'm on?
Helmets
Save lives, good example for kids, less insurance money paid out, looks sexy, safety factor outweighs inconvenience.
Unnecessary the vast majority of time, helmet less look is more sexy, cooler to go without on a warm day, rather be dead for real than just brain dead, free to choose in America.
I think I can tell what side you're on and how objective this is.
Try this,
- mitigates injuries, suitable for children, hardly know you're wearing it
- does not prevent brain injury, unsuitable for high speed riding, rarely needed
sbhikes
I think I can tell what side you're on and how objective this is.
Try this,
- mitigates injuries, suitable for children, hardly know you're wearing it
- does not prevent brain injury, unsuitable for high speed riding, rarely needed
Are we talking about something you put on your head or something you put on some other part of your body?
closetbiker
maybe a problem is objectivity is a relative term (or at least, what's objective to some, is not to others)?
rando
:eek:
Helmet Head
Anyone who thinks "objectivity" is a relative term or equates to centrism in any manner does not understand the meaning of objectivity.
Much to the surprise of most everyone, I'm sure, I consider myself to be quite objective. Being objective is how I formed my views. The fact that they tend to be controversial does not mean I did not reach them by objective means.
In fact, views that are consistent with what is popular are likely to not have been reached objectively.
If your political and religious views match your parents, you probably did not form them objectively.
If your cycling views are pretty much what they always were, you probably did not form them objectively.
As far as comparing and respecting views, I try to share the objective logic and reasons underlying my views, and inquire as to the objective logic and reasons underlying those of others. To me, that is being as objective as one can be.
I think my opinion alone is worth about as much as anyone else's: nothing. What matters are the objective logic and reasons that caused one to hold the opinion he holds. This should be the material of our discussions, not sharing subjective "opinions".
closetbiker
I think my opinion alone is worth about as much as anyone else's: nothing. What matters are the objective logic and reasons that caused one to hold the opinion he holds. This should be the material of our discussions, not sharing subjective "opinions".
I couldn't agree more.
Bekologist
I couldn't agree less.
people are allowed differences of opinion without analyzation, in the context of an internet forum. you should stop analyzing others points of view, mr. head, and accept others will have different views from your own.
Helmet Head
I couldn't agree less.
people are allowed differences of opinion without analyzation, in the context of an internet forum. you should stop analyzing others points of view, mr. head, and accept others will have different views from your own. Of course others have different views. But what is the point of sharing those views and learning about them if not to understand why those views are held, and how those reasons compare to the reasons others hold different views?
What is the value of sharing mere "opinions" if the objective reasons for holding those opinions are not also shared?
I mean, do you just like hearing that other people hold the same opinion as you? Does that have value for you?
Do you value objectivity, Bek? What does it mean to you?
Helmet Head
I think that in acknowledging the strengths of the other side you make your critique at least seem more objective.
A problem arises when someone tries to use reason to persuade another to their perspective. This often is very difficult, and prone to all kinds of attacks, and definition confusion. Resorting to name calling is unfortunately common but it also shows how weak that person's point is. Anecdotes are usually somewhat compelling, but not necessarily rational.
Can anyone give 5 strengths and 5 weaknesses of a polarizing bike issue without down playing the other side at least a little bit?
Can you tell what side I'm on?
Helmets
Save lives, good example for kids, less insurance money paid out, looks sexy, safety factor outweighs inconvenience.
Unnecessary the vast majority of time, helmet less look is more sexy, cooler to go without on a warm day, rather be dead for real than just brain dead, free to choose in America. This is a good point. But I think this type of neutral point of view objectivity is more appropriate for newspaper reporters and Wikipedia article writers, who are supposed to just report the facts and withhold their opinion altogether, not an internet discussion forum.
There should be a happy medium between the sterility of "just the objective facts" and pointless sharing of opinions/views without explanation: one should be able to express his or her view and opinion, as well as the objective logic and reasons that cause him or her to hold that opinion.
closetbiker
I couldn't agree less.
people are allowed differences of opinion without analyzation, in the context of an internet forum. you should stop analyzing others points of view, mr. head, and accept others will have different views from your own.
of course everyone is allowed their opinions, but if there is no analyzation or objectivity, an opinion is not worth much and time is wasted considering them
Helmet Head
I couldn't agree less.
people are allowed differences of opinion without analyzation, in the context of an internet forum. you should stop analyzing others points of view, mr. head, and accept others will have different views from your own.
I disagree. You clearly do not understand the meaning and implication of your own words.
Please accept that I have a different view from yours and do not analyze mine on the issue of you being the village idiot on this forum, and everybody else thinking that too.
P.S.
Are posts like this helpful? I think not, yet this is what you're defending Bek. Think about it.
closetbiker
Are posts like this helpful? I think not, yet this is what you're defending Bek. Think about it.
and this is why it's helpful to see the icon under the username, so you can ignore the post, or not, based on the users previous postings
closetbiker
in a previous thread, I posted a bit from the book, Freakonomics, by economist Steven Levitt
An expert doesn’t so much argue the various sides of an issue as plants his flag firmly on one side. That’s because an expert whose argument reeks of restraint or nuance often doesn’t get much attention. An expert must be bold if he hopes to alchemize his homespun theory into conventional wisdom. His best chance of doing so is to engage the publics emotions, for emotion is the enemy of rational argument. And as emotions go, one of them - fear - is more potent than the rest...The first trick of asking questions is to determine if your question is a good one. .. It would be silly to argue that conventional wisdom is never true. But noticing where the conventional wisdom may be false - noticing, perhaps, the contrails of sloppy or self-interested thinking - is a nice place to start asking questions.
Helmet Head
and this is why it's helpful to see the icon under the username, so you can ignore the post, or not, based on the users previous postings
The problem with that is that even Bek has something of substance to contribute, every once in a while. If nothing else, his perspective can provide insight into the raw gut reaction of cyclists who don't think about these issues very deeply, for what it's worth.
Helmet Head
in a previous thread, I posted a bit from the book, Freakonomics, by economist Steven Levitt
An expert doesn’t so much argue the various sides of an issue as plants his flag firmly on one side. That’s because an expert whose argument reeks of restraint or nuance often doesn’t get much attention. An expert must be bold if he hopes to alchemize his homespun theory into conventional wisdom. His best chance of doing so is to engage the publics emotions, for emotion is the enemy of rational argument. And as emotions go, one of them - fear - is more potent than the rest...The first trick of asking questions is to determine if your question is a good one. .. It would be silly to argue that conventional wisdom is never true. But noticing where the conventional wisdom may be false - noticing, perhaps, the contrails of sloppy or self-interested thinking - is a nice place to start asking questions.
Wow, what a great quote. Thanks. I'm bumping up the priority of Freakonomics on my Amazon wish list.
noisebeam
and this is why it's helpful to see the icon under the username, so you can ignore the post, or not, based on the users previous postings
the avatar? what does that tell?
al
closetbiker
The problem with that is that even Bek has something of substance to contribute, every once in a while. If nothing else, his perspective can provide insight into the raw gut reaction of cyclists who don't think about these issues very deeply, for what it's worth.
exactly, that's the problem. he shoots himself in the foot because people will be predisposed to discount what he says, even if it a legitimate point of view because of the way he has posted. Just like the boy who called wolf, people will ignore him based on the way he called wolf, when there was no wolf, even if there is a wolf.
the avatar? what does that tell?
just a recognition thing. pics are quick to recognize
closetbiker
...this type of neutral point of view objectivity is more appropriate for newspaper reporters and Wikipedia article writers, who are supposed to just report the facts and withhold their opinion altogether...
this is how I wish more reporters would do their job (objectively, leaving opinions to columnists) and how I have found wikipedia to be.
I thought wikipedia would be corrupted by interest groups, but in my (limited) experience with it, I've found it to be pretty neutral and objective. Judging by your post, would it be fair to say this is your opinion as well?
Helmet Head
this is how I wish more reporters would do their job (objectively, leaving opinions to columnists) and how I have found wikipedia to be.
I thought wikipedia would be corrupted by interest groups, but in my (limited) experience with it, I've found it to be pretty neutral and objective. Judging by your post, would it be fair to say this is your opinion as well?
Absolutely, and I know all to well why Wikipedia is that way. The highest value, by far, is presenting information and perspective from the NPOV (neutral point of view). The vast majority of the contributors support this value above all others. They have it down to an art, if not a science. If there is an controversy regarding the topic of any article, you will find reams of debate on the associated discussion page of that article, often with multiple archives going back years. Those debates make the stuff that goes on here seem pretty tame, but the debates are also much more substantive. Ad hominem attacks are not tolerated, for example, as they are here. The most amazing thing is how it is self-regulated and almost all matters are decided by consensus decision-making. It's quite remarkable, that Wikipedia.
Brian
I disagree. You clearly do not understand the meaning and implication of your own words.
Please accept that I have a different view from yours and do not analyze mine on the issue of you being the village idiot on this forum, and everybody else thinking that too.
We've decided that you should both put each other on ignore. Neither of you should ask for what you are both unwilling to give.
Helmet Head
I disagree. You clearly do not understand the meaning and implication of your own words.
Please accept that I have a different view from yours and do not analyze mine on the issue of you being the village idiot on this forum, and everybody else thinking that too.
P.S.
Are posts like this helpful? I think not, yet this is what you're defending Bek. Think about it.
We've decided that you should both put each other on ignore. Neither of you should ask for what you are both unwilling to give. Brian,
By taking out the P.S. when you quoted my words above, which I added back in in bold, you changed the context from "tongue in cheek" to appear like I was making a serious post. I was trying to make a point, by giving an example of the type of post Bek was defending. My entire point was no one should be making posts like that.
closetbiker
Absolutely, and I know all to well why Wikipedia is that way. The highest value, by far, is presenting information and perspective from the NPOV (neutral point of view). The vast majority of the contributors support this value above all others. They have it down to an art, if not a science. If there is an controversy regarding the topic of any article, you will find reams of debate on the associated discussion page of that article, often with multiple archives going back years. Those debates make the stuff that goes on here seem pretty tame, but the debates are also much more substantive. Ad hominem attacks are not tolerated, for example, as they are here. The most amazing thing is how it is self-regulated and almost all matters are decided by consensus decision-making. It's quite remarkable, that Wikipedia.
I agree and I was pleasantly suprised when, looking for some objectivity, I looked up bike helmets on wikipedia. Pretty much most of what I've posted was there, so I must be objective on the topic.