Children learn all sorts of things through lots of different ways, whether it’s school, whether it’s at home, whether from the local tutor or in the church.

But you know, one of my favorite learning methods is the fight.

Now I know it sounds bad and I certainly don’t mean UFC grappling and punching hijinks, but I will admit that I can be combative at times, and I’m not particularly afraid of fighting with words, which often kind of makes things worse, but then c’est la vie, it is my personality and the way that I personally get to truth one argument and one debate at a time, hopefully listening a little more than I speak but then making sure to clarify whatever I feel that we cannot say we know.

I recently had a fight with someone in Mensa International, and I chose to block that person.

I mean, fair dice – Mensa International, which is the main Facebook group of Mensa as an organization determined by the Mensa International Board of Directors (IBD) is the single largest gathering of Mensans, who – while I love many of them – can also be some of the most irritating people in the world.

Anyway, we had a dispute about of all things, Kamala Harris, in relation to this exciting headline:

…Which has attracted some rather interesting comments:

This was a pretty interesting topic (which I will write about) because of how it showcases a shift in the Overton Window while at the same time showcasing media bias in a range of different ways.

Anyway, this individual had commented.

I’d had a conflict with her before on account of her attempting to use her background to win an argument once (a clear pet peeve of mine which I might talk about a little more later on) but thought that okay, I can’t be going around blocking people because that’s weird, and maybe this person for the first time actually has something beneficial to say.

Generally pleasant discussion about media bias, but then she insisted that she knew what the “right” version of a headline about Ms. Harris was, and I immediately began questioning her, after which she basically yaps about how she’s got “X years of experience in PR”, and how “you shouldn’t teach your grandmother how to suck eggs”, after which she proceeded to try to gaslight me about how I was “presenting myself as an expert” or “talking down to people”, oddly enough after doing the exact same thing and oddly enough failing to mention what part(s) of her experience were relevant to the discussion – AGAIN.

Anyway, I basically couldn’t take it anymore and just went ahead and blocked her – but not before she did say something useful, though – that she uh, “likes my enthusiasm but not my verbosity.”

Not that her preferences are really a key consideration of mine, but I thought a bit about the situation and how I had taken part in a war of words with her which, frankly, took way too much time and energy and involved going into far too many semantics or frivolous discussions that I wondered if it would have been better to spend my time getting my wisdom teeth pulled for leisure – and I realized:

Even I don’t like my own verbosity.

Here’s a definition of the word.

In case you’ve already noticed, the definition of “verbosity” can mean that a person may be verbose if they use too many words on the sentence level.

However, why it’s relevant to me isn’t just that I write long paragraphs or long sentences (which I do, by the way, if you’ve ever seen essays or pieces that I’ve written before – I have the bad habit of writing very long, complex, and grammatically correct sentences that easily lose people).

After all, another possibility is that a person is verbose precisely because they end up in situations where they use too many words, or use words to resolve situations in the hope that the words will be effective, work, or correlate with accomplishing what a person wants.

None of these strategies are guaranteed to work, and they in fact might be quite false; sometimes, using words can actually harm you and push you away from the outcome!

And so it is with internet arguments.

If I’m going to take part in an internet argument, it needs to be for a reason – either it’s political, it’s for the purpose of learning something, or it’s for the purpose of pursuing truth that is actually meaningful.

Often, rather than arguments, other interactions are more preferable – and that is true even when you are trying to accomplish a goal.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Kamala Harris and the Overton Window 

When I saw the headline, my eyes widened.  “How Kamala Harris burned through 1.5 billion dollars in 15 weeks.”  I stared at my phone once, and I stared at it twice, as my disbelief grew.  Was this not NYT? Did they not just endorse Kamala with the force of an angry democratic tiger no less than two months ago? Was this real? As I thought through the implications, I saw my disbelief echoed in the comments that came along with it, the shock that filled my mind – the discomfiting revelation. Our world had transformed.  The New York Times is a paper that is unique amongst many others. First among equals in the world of newspaper journalism, its eminence has proven itself through the years and across eras as it shapes the way that the world thinks on a range of different issues, alongside its counterparts such as The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and The Washington Post in the U.S., and on an international front, the BBC and Reuters in the United Kingdom, and Al Jazeera in the Middle East. There is an interesting adage that goes as follows: “When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold”. To that I say, whatever the New York Times publishes, the world garnishes as the realm of acceptable discourse unfolds, an entire communicating planet paying homage to the one of the dominant media voices in the United States of America. …Which leads to my question.  What does it mean when NYT tells us about “How Kamala Harris Burnt Through $15 billion in 15 weeks”? The article I would like to write is not an article about campaign spending, and neither is it a piece to point out flaws or discrepancies in Kamala’s campaign: The first would be far too boring, and the second would land me into polemics in […]

Becoming Less Verbose

Children learn all sorts of things through lots of different ways, whether it’s school, whether it’s at home, whether from the local tutor or in the church. But you know, one of my favorite learning methods is the fight. Now I know it sounds bad and I certainly don’t mean UFC grappling and punching hijinks, but I will admit that I can be combative at times, and I’m not particularly afraid of fighting with words, which often kind of makes things worse, but then c’est la vie, it is my personality and the way that I personally get to truth one argument and one debate at a time, hopefully listening a little more than I speak but then making sure to clarify whatever I feel that we cannot say we know. I recently had a fight with someone in Mensa International, and I chose to block that person. I mean, fair dice – Mensa International, which is the main Facebook group of Mensa as an organization determined by the Mensa International Board of Directors (IBD) is the single largest gathering of Mensans, who – while I love many of them – can also be some of the most irritating people in the world. Anyway, we had a dispute about of all things, Kamala Harris, in relation to this exciting headline: …Which has attracted some rather interesting comments: This was a pretty interesting topic (which I will write about) because of how it showcases a shift in the Overton Window while at the same time showcasing media bias in a range of different ways. Anyway, this individual had commented. I’d had a conflict with her before on account of her attempting to use her background to win an argument once (a clear pet peeve of mine which I might talk about a little more later on) but thought that okay, I can’t […]

The Body is the Hardware, The Mind is the Software

The analogy was interesting when I heard it first, and it remains interesting now because it resonates with me on at least a couple of different levels. Our bodies, the physical parts of us, are basically analogous to the hardware of a computer, running along with different parts here and there – upgradable, we can improve them by increasing the quality of the resources that go into them; improvable through good maintenance, we can exercise, sleep well, and do all sorts of other things to improve the hygiene on that front. Our minds, on the other hand, are the software – the programming that decides how we interact, think, solve problems in specific situations; the algorithms and little decisions that decide how we react to different scenarios and confronting different situations, whether it comes to talking to girls, investing, selling, marketing, or doing business with others. It is nice to think that the mind is upgradeable, and that somehow you can improve yourself through an act of willpower by learning certain things. Through sitting down and unlocking the secrets of the universe one after another, through a mixture of magic and also destiny. But who’s to say exactly how that should happen? Sorry, that’s a silly question. The answer is that it’s you.

A Small Change of Perception

I began this morning with the headline “How Kamala Harris Burned Through $1.5 Billion in 15 Weeks”, on NYT. It was an interesting head to a week of what was for me listening to, understanding, and better reckoning the world after Donald Trump was elected 47th President of the United States, and the first of many headlines I’d seen about this on New York Times. Some might view this as evidence that the media is cleaving towards the Trump administration as the chickens fall in line and loyalty becomes a Sine Qua Non in the era of an evil empire – but I think a little differently, because I feel like it’s teaching me something about reality. Look in the comments, and you will see how people have responded – people saying that the presidency is “deeply unserious”, highlighting any number of things that they disagree with even as they say that NYT’s “focus” is wrong, that Kamala “tried to save democracy”, and everything in between. If I really think about it, all of these seem about as valid as saying that Trump is secretly a genetically modified orange with a toupee made of cheese.  The entire idea of NYT is that it’s one of the most respected voices in journalism, that alongside publications like the Washington Post, it defines the Overton Window – the space of ideas that are acceptable to the public at any given point of time.  To the extent therefore that NYT’s function is valid for this purpose, I’m more likely to say that these critics are the ones who don’t make sense – That the calls against that validity are the true measure of what doesn’t make sense. I’ve often heard this idea that in fact a Trump presidency might be a situation where the inmates are running the asylum, but upon further inspection, I’m no […]

Perfectionism to eliminate

…And another has come. We are progressively moving towards the end of the year with each new beginning. This is I believe the 46th week of the year out of 52, and it’s leading towards the end of the year; Donald Trump is now president, filling up his cabinet with appointee after appointee as people contemplate things; you might believe that we’re at the start of something HUGE, as Donald might call it, world-shaking, incredible. But I think while that’s good, it’s good to look at something that I’ve wanted to get rid of for quite a while: Perfectionism. I am a victim of it, and I can’t deny that it follows me everywhere, making me question myself and whether what I’m putting out into the internet is either good or worth it – I second guess myself frequently, taking down blog posts that I think aren’t great or that aren’t well worded, thinking that perhaps I should rewrite or otherwise. I think that this is a very negative behavior, because frankly I don’t really care too much about what people think and secondly, it doesn’t really matter what they think – at least in relation to how I think about myself. So I would like to eliminate, therefore, the perfectionism that makes me rewrite things, redraft things, take wayyy too much time to release things. This is the next thing to change, and it’s a good thing to shift it in this year of 2024 – even if it is the only lesson that I will have learned by the end of this year, I think that it will have been a worthwhile one. Here’s to the next!

Creation

On an empty page, the pencil traces the dotted line, the circle, the shape.  From the movement of the pencil, a million universes appear, timelines splitting into their multiple component parts in a universe of endless possibility as millions more appear, each one a multiverse of possibilities as the pencil moves, tracing by movement, through which, across billions of possible environments, worlds, universes, colors, shapes, and relations. Look up from the page and perhaps you may see the created universe – Breathe in and you may appreciate its harmonies, the unity of physical constraints, of physical laws interweaving to make existence possible.  But is that universe truly greater?  Look down at the once empty page, no longer so empty. I claim that if you look further, there you will see it: Here lies the immortal beginning of every endeavor, the step not taken – a journey not yet made of a thousand miles as yet untraveled that you can begin, where you are, with a single stroke of your pen. Here, then, is the possibility of a universe even greater and even more intricate than you may have ever known — Whether you can reach that universe or not? That is a separate question — and none but experience can teach you its answer.