Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   C++ (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f39-c.html)
-   -   2 much noise recently (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t745314-2-much-noise-recently.html)

Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet 03-17-2011 11:10 PM

2 much noise recently
 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

"
Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of
resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is
incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's
worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.

Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as
every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder,
full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, that requires just
as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a
fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the
Mandelbrot set in finite time.

If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the
Internet - in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums - your best bet is to
say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.
"


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf


PS: The URL I gave is not the original. Google listed sort of everything but the
source.

--
blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>

Joshua Maurice 03-18-2011 12:38 AM

Re: 2 much noise recently
 
On Mar 17, 4:10*pm, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach
+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness
>
> "
> Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of
> resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is
> incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's
> worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.
>
> Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as
> every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder,
> full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, that requires just
> as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a
> fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the
> Mandelbrot set in finite time.
>
> If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the
> Internet - in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums - your best bet is to
> say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.
> "
>
> Cheers & hth.,
>
> - Alf
>
> PS: The URL I gave is not the original. Google listed sort of everything but the
> source.


Indeed. I'm not sure why James is even bothering replying to that
person anymore.

SG 03-18-2011 06:37 AM

Re: 2 much noise recently
 
On 18 Mrz., 00:10, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness
> [...]


Also an interesting read:

"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing
One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"

( Social Psychology, http://www.wepapers.com/Papers/70939/ )

SG

itaj sherman 03-18-2011 01:22 PM

Re: 2 much noise recently
 
On Mar 18, 8:37 am, SG <s.gesem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 Mrz., 00:10, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>
> >http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness
> > [...]

>
> Also an interesting read:
>
> "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing
> One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
>
> ( Social Psychology,http://www.wepapers.com/Papers/70939/)
>


That would actually give a good reason why good people try again and
again to teach him anything. If they just put a bit of sense in him he
might realise his fault.

However, I think this case is a troll (someone who does this
conscientiously and delibarately to force people into prolong
conversations). I tried before to grant him the benefit of the doubt,
but at some point I got convinced. Whenever the conversaion does reach
a logical deadend for him, he either ignores that post or turns to
verbal violence (which I think might be the ultimate goal for trolls)
- but clearly he is able to distiguish these cases.

itaj

Juha Nieminen 03-18-2011 08:56 PM

Re: 2 much noise recently
 
itaj sherman <itajsherman@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, I think this case is a troll (someone who does this
> conscientiously and delibarately to force people into prolong
> conversations). I tried before to grant him the benefit of the doubt,
> but at some point I got convinced. Whenever the conversaion does reach
> a logical deadend for him, he either ignores that post or turns to
> verbal violence (which I think might be the ultimate goal for trolls)
> - but clearly he is able to distiguish these cases.


It is actually possible that someone acts a lot like a troll, but does
not do it just for the fun of it nor out of malice, but instead they are
being honest, but can't help it nor control their impulses. There are
people who (only semi-intentionally) seek attention and acceptance
without realizing that their behavior is actually detrimental and that
the only thing they are achieving is getting completely negative attention.
Sometimes they do realize this but, as said, can't help it nor control
their impulses: The urge to keep arguing and to repeat old tired arguments,
to defend one's position (no matter how hopeless or nonsensical), can be
too strong.

This is by no means necessarily a sign of a mental defect, just a strong
personality trait (even if a rather detrimental one in many situations).
Often one can learn from experience and "grow out" of it and stop doing it,
but it can require time.

The anonymity of the internet can severely aggravate this personality
problem. The person might be completely different in real life because
not being faceless and anonymous imposes great restrictions on one's
behavior, and the person can very easily restrict their impulses in real
life situations. On the internet the threshold to let oneself loose is much
smaller and easier to cross.

Paul 03-18-2011 09:32 PM

Re: 2 much noise recently
 

"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message
news:4d83c710$0$2838$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi...
> itaj sherman <itajsherman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, I think this case is a troll (someone who does this
>> conscientiously and delibarately to force people into prolong
>> conversations). I tried before to grant him the benefit of the doubt,
>> but at some point I got convinced. Whenever the conversaion does reach
>> a logical deadend for him, he either ignores that post or turns to
>> verbal violence (which I think might be the ultimate goal for trolls)
>> - but clearly he is able to distiguish these cases.

>


A started a new thread where I invited yourself and James to have a proper
debate about member functions being the same as ordinary fucntions. Which
you did not parcipate.
That was after all your argument and the only discussion I've had with you.

I think you were the one who reached a logical dead-end. And you started
making posts such as , "be a man and answer my post".
But then you did not answer my posts. :-) Which wasn't very manly of you I
must say.

<snip>


Paul 03-18-2011 09:34 PM

Re: 2 much noise recently
 
Sorry my last post for intended for itaj. Although I replied to Juha.

James Kanze 03-18-2011 11:26 PM

Re: 2 much noise recently
 
On Mar 18, 12:38 am, Joshua Maurice <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 4:10 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach
> +use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness


> Indeed. I'm not sure why James is even bothering replying to that
> person anymore.


I reply to posts that seem sain, but wrong, on the grounds that
others reading them may be taken in by them.

And it's not "that person", but "those people". There are at
least two candidates. (Also, both can be right on some
particular minor point. Which doesn't change the global
picture.)

--
James Kanze

Joshua Maurice 03-19-2011 12:28 AM

Re: 2 much noise recently
 
On Mar 18, 4:26*pm, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 12:38 am, Joshua Maurice <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Indeed. I'm not sure why James is even bothering replying to that
> > person anymore.

>
> I reply to posts that seem sain, but wrong, on the grounds that
> others reading them may be taken in by them.


A necessary annoyance, I suppose. Kudos.

Peter Remmers 03-19-2011 03:55 AM

Re: 2 much noise recently
 
Am 19.03.2011 00:43, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
> On 18/03/2011 23:26, James Kanze wrote:
>> And it's not "that person", but "those people". There are at
>> least two candidates. (Also, both can be right on some
>> particular minor point. Which doesn't change the global
>> picture.)
>>

>
> You are probably referring to me as I have been very active in this
> newsgroup recently trying to correct Paul The Troll and I have also
> disagreed with you causing you to label me a troll; assuming that is the
> case you can just **** off. *You* are the troll; a well read troll but
> a troll nevertheless.


You are no better than Paul when it comes to having a technical
conversation. You are aggressively trying to get your point through and
start calling names as soon as your arguments cease to have an effect.
You act childish in repeating the same mantra over and over again.

The only difference to Paul is that technically you are right most of
the time. I actually was on your side until you started acting the same
way as Paul. Especially that signed/unsigned issue is your personal red rag.

> Troll off.


See what I mean...


Peter


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.