Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

shadowfyr · 10-30-2004, 02:42 PM

Yep. Exactly the problem. You can't simply agree or disagree with many of them. At least not unless you are someone that does have an absolute view and doesn't want to see the bigger picture. There are people like that sadly, you find them among any group advocating some cause and are the ones that quite happily pick a few lines out of a book to emphasize their point, probably because they didn't understand the rest of the book and the fact that it contradicts their basic premise simply goes over their heads. At least one hopes so, since the alternative is that they are so deluded by their own fantasies that they will intentionally lie and misrepresent other peoples views for the cause. Of course, some are just dumb and repeat the nonsense babbled by these types. In any case, in any crowd you get:

1. People whose opinions are formed from everyone else's opinion, since they don't bother to form one directly themselves.

2. People that form opinions about the world, then bend twist and distort reality to fit that image.

3. People whose opinions change every five minutes, the moment something more impressive gets presented to them.

4. People who try their best to learn the fact and track down the sources behind their own sources, so they can form an opinion based on reality, instead of just endlessly repeating everyone else's views.

Of the four, the last is the most difficult, so guess what groups a lot of people end up in... Of course everyone likely falls to some extent into all those categories, just some more than others. As someone commenting on a handful of members of the scientific community once said, more or less, "It doesn't matter how smart or educated you are, if you decide to believe in nonsense, then all the careful and considered rules nad standards you apply to the rest of your life are automatically ignored when judging the validity of the basic idea behind the nonsense you have chosen to believe." In other words, human nature only demands proof of things we are uncertain of. This is why you get otherwise briliant people, who work on say quantum physics, who never the less ignore all contrary evidence or experiments that fail to prove it, but insist on believing the Loch Ness Monster actually exists. When we are convinced we are right, we can't even see the smaller picture clearly, let alone the big one. This is why people that actually can aswer yes or no to some of these questions without some moment of uncertainty tend to scare me a little.

Oh.. And I tend to think leaving companies alone to do what they want is a good idea, *but* when they where allowed to do so they often ignored safety, stoled from each other, produced stuff that was even poorer quality than they do already, became involved with anti-competitive practices, etc. The music and movie industries have, with the minor exception of ratings, been more or less allowed to do anything they like. Now they are in the position of trying to pass laws like the DMCA and Induce that let them tell other companies what product they should be allowed to make, based on their own complete self interest. They claim that they would never use this sort of legislation to prevent other companies from making things like iPods, etc., but Lexmark has already tried to use the DMCA to prevent another company from making ink catridges that work in Lexmrk printers. Some interference is 100% needed, even if we would prefer that it wasn't. Basic psychology - People in a group can convince each other to do things that are irrational, dangerous and immoral, even if they would be horrified by the idea by themselves or condemn it if done by another group. Guess what corporations are? Yep, a group of people convinced that what it best for them financially is automatically a good idea and who when discussing the business are about 0.0000001% likely to be thinking about other companies or individuals. When more than one person becomes involved it isn't about the greater good anymore, it becomes one of territory held by the group. Most companies don't encourage anyone to think outside the cave, if you get my meaning.

So, even if the question had been stated as, "Do you believe the government should interfere with business or they should be allowed to do what they want?", the right answer can only be one of the following: "neither", "both" or "it depends", none of which is a satisfactory answer, since it can't tell you why the person chose the answer or where their actual limits are.

10-30-2004, 02:42 PM	#22
shadowfyr Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 310	Yep. Exactly the problem. You can't simply agree or disagree with many of them. At least not unless you are someone that does have an absolute view and doesn't want to see the bigger picture. There are people like that sadly, you find them among any group advocating some cause and are the ones that quite happily pick a few lines out of a book to emphasize their point, probably because they didn't understand the rest of the book and the fact that it contradicts their basic premise simply goes over their heads. At least one hopes so, since the alternative is that they are so deluded by their own fantasies that they will intentionally lie and misrepresent other peoples views for the cause. Of course, some are just dumb and repeat the nonsense babbled by these types. In any case, in any crowd you get: 1. People whose opinions are formed from everyone else's opinion, since they don't bother to form one directly themselves. 2. People that form opinions about the world, then bend twist and distort reality to fit that image. 3. People whose opinions change every five minutes, the moment something more impressive gets presented to them. 4. People who try their best to learn the fact and track down the sources behind their own sources, so they can form an opinion based on reality, instead of just endlessly repeating everyone else's views. Of the four, the last is the most difficult, so guess what groups a lot of people end up in... Of course everyone likely falls to some extent into all those categories, just some more than others. As someone commenting on a handful of members of the scientific community once said, more or less, "It doesn't matter how smart or educated you are, if you decide to believe in nonsense, then all the careful and considered rules nad standards you apply to the rest of your life are automatically ignored when judging the validity of the basic idea behind the nonsense you have chosen to believe." In other words, human nature only demands proof of things we are uncertain of. This is why you get otherwise briliant people, who work on say quantum physics, who never the less ignore all contrary evidence or experiments that fail to prove it, but insist on believing the Loch Ness Monster actually exists. When we are convinced we are right, we can't even see the smaller picture clearly, let alone the big one. This is why people that actually can aswer yes or no to some of these questions without some moment of uncertainty tend to scare me a little. Oh.. And I tend to think leaving companies alone to do what they want is a good idea, but when they where allowed to do so they often ignored safety, stoled from each other, produced stuff that was even poorer quality than they do already, became involved with anti-competitive practices, etc. The music and movie industries have, with the minor exception of ratings, been more or less allowed to do anything they like. Now they are in the position of trying to pass laws like the DMCA and Induce that let them tell other companies what product they should be allowed to make, based on their own complete self interest. They claim that they would never use this sort of legislation to prevent other companies from making things like iPods, etc., but Lexmark has already tried to use the DMCA to prevent another company from making ink catridges that work in Lexmrk printers. Some interference is 100% needed, even if we would prefer that it wasn't. Basic psychology - People in a group can convince each other to do things that are irrational, dangerous and immoral, even if they would be horrified by the idea by themselves or condemn it if done by another group. Guess what corporations are? Yep, a group of people convinced that what it best for them financially is automatically a good idea and who when discussing the business are about 0.0000001% likely to be thinking about other companies or individuals. When more than one person becomes involved it isn't about the greater good anymore, it becomes one of territory held by the group. Most companies don't encourage anyone to think outside the cave, if you get my meaning. So, even if the question had been stated as, "Do you believe the government should interfere with business or they should be allowed to do what they want?", the right answer can only be one of the following: "neither", "both" or "it depends", none of which is a satisfactory answer, since it can't tell you why the person chose the answer or where their actual limits are.