Audiophile Style State of the Union

8 minutes ago, Cazzesman said:

It's not rocket surgery.

Then again, maybe it's brain science.....

3 hours ago, bluesman said:

I applaud your use of Goleman's Emotional Intelligence as a framework for your post and thoughts, Foggie.  It's a wonderful book that's relevant today (and will be tomorrow) even though it's 25 years old - I strongly suggest that everyone read it before throwing more fuel on this fire.  I see his concept of an emotional IQ as a kind of social equivalent to a handicap in golf.  No matter how great the disparities among people's knowledge, beliefs, and personalities, they can all interact enjoyably and productively if their EIQs are sufficiently high.

 

His basic premise that we do best in life when we learn to temper the rational with the emotional (and vice versa) is a perpetual key to success on many levels.  If everybody took Goleman's approach to heart and developed the sensitivities embodied in EI, the world (which includes AS and every other internet forum) would be a much more pleasant and productive place.  Perhaps the best reason to adopt it is that it helps people who differ greatly on issues get along better and more productively.  I'm paraphrasing Goleman to illustrate your bullet points in what I hope may be a more obvious and inspirational way:

• Self-awareness: understanding personal moods, emotions & drives, and their effect on others.
  •  manifests as appropriate self-confidence, realistic self-assessment, sense of humor about yourself, knowing & controlling your own emotions.
• Self-regulation: managing disruptive impulses and moods, suspending judgment, thinking before acting.
  •  manifests as trustworthiness, integrity, comfort with ambiguity and being open to change.
• Internal motivation: being driven by passions that go beyond money and status, by the joy of learning and doing.
  •  manifests as drive to achieve, true optimism, and ability to commit to ideas and efforts.
• Social awareness: sensing and understanding the emotions of others, and interacting appropriately to achieve the best outcome
  • manifests as empathy and awareness of / respect for the hierarchy of relationships in groups & organizations
• Social skills: managing relationships, finding common ground, building rapport.
  •  manifests as ability to lead change by persuasion and intelligent discourse rather than brute force.

This great discussion around EI in the Harvard Business Review that says it very well "Don’t shortchange your development as a leader by assuming that EI is all about being sweet and chipper, or that your EI is perfect if you are — or, even worse, assume that EI can’t help you excel..."  (not that sweet and chipper wouldn't go a long way toward smoothing some of our most contentious posts and threads 👁️ )   A high emotional IQ can help students learn and teachers teach. Those here with sound knowledge of a subject can be mentors, coaches and inspiring leaders for us all by adopting Goleman's approach to relationship management rather than berating those who don't agree with them.

 

There may be a key to a kinder gentler AS in this simple approach: present your opinion, support it with what you think is the best available evidence, welcome dissent, and be sensitive to emotional cues that suggest the need to back off and/or take a different approach.   Whether you think the best available evidence is objective or subjective doesn't matter - there's room in the world for us all, and there is no winning or losing.  Believe what you wish, support it as best you can, and live with it.  If your emotional IQ is high enough, you'll always be open to change if presented with new evidence you accept - and you'll be better able to convince others of the wisdom of your own opinions.

I think this is a great comment - as is the comment from @Foggie that spurred it.

Given the aspect of this situation that my comments have focused on in the past day or so, I would like to clarify that I wholeheartedly support greater civility, and I echo Bluesman's point that civility does not mean narrow or fake or relentless politeness, but rather good faith, generosity of spirit, and an attempt to make others feel seen and heard and even when - especially when - we disagree. I hope the aggregate collection of my comments here shows that I try to practice that. (And no one banged the drum harder or more often to get someone like Brinkman, for example, out of here on civility grounds, even though I usually agreed with the gist of his arguments.)

And I will concede that some of my fellow objectivists here have rather consistently rejected the idea that calls for civility could be anything other than a method of policing their discourse. There is a point of view that values the rough-and-tumble aspect of arguing as something that guarantees and maintains the health of free speech and sharpness of ides. This point of view also tends to value the use of humor - sarcasm, snark, and mild trolling - as a time-honored rhetorical technique to illustrate hypocrisy, weak arguments, self-righteousness, etc among those one disagrees with. I mostly do not share that view, but it is a valid view, and it tends to be especially prevalent on the internet. I've noticed that it's also more prevalent and accepted in some cultures than others, which is significant since we are an international community here. Finally, it has to be said that this sort of approach to argument and interaction traditionally is a male-dominated thing, too.

At any rate, I think that some folks feel that this kind of agonistic interaction should be part of any healthy discussion community, and I respect that view - and I would urge the handful of self-identified subjectivists who've been gloating at the departure of mansr and others to take a seat on that issue and not descend into hypocrisy in your behavior here.

I also feel compelled to point out that the question of civility is not the same as the question of how the forum is organized and what impact that organization might have on whether or not people with differing views feel they have an equal opportunity to participate in all the threads and subforums moving forward. As I noted in a previous comment, I think it is a mistake to assume that both objectivists and subjectivists here want the same thing. Objectivists do not, on the whole, desire to be "free of" those who disagree with them or to be "left alone" the way many subjectivists here apparently do. (This is not a slam on subjectivists; it is meant as an observation only.)

Now, it is true that some objectivist members here seem to have confused or conflated (1) the opportunity or lack thereof for participating freely in all discussions and (2) the need for baseline civility. So when they are called on their incivility, they react as if they are being restricted in the arguments they can make or when and where they can make them.

But I see too many folks responding to this conflation with a mirror-image error: When objectivists now complain about how they feel their ability to participate here is being restricted, the reaction is that they just need to be more civil. This is why @pkane2001 has gone 12 rounds with Chris about the "grey area" issue: if the answer to "why is objectivism restricted to a single subforum" is, "because we all need to be civil and emotionally intelligent," then naturally pkane and many others are going to ask the logical next question: "So how can I know if a comment I want to make or an argument I want to put forward is civil enough to remain in a thread, or if it will get removed and put into the Objective-fi subforum?" 

I can understand why Chris cannot provide a black-and-white answer to this question. But I'm sure (or at least I hope) folks can understand why pkane and others find that worrisome.

25 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

"So how can I know if a comment I want to make or an argument I want to put forward is civil enough to remain in a thread, or if it will get removed and put into the Objective-fi subforum?" 

tmtomh,

I suspect if each person does their best to be civil, by almost anyone's definition, in almost every case, they will be.

Joel

How on earth does a post that begins with "My experience is..." belong in the objective sub-forum?  My experience is -- by definition -- subjective, right?

Good luck with the site, Chris.  I can see I'm not welcome here, although I genuinely think I'm not the one being a jerk in this case.

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Are you interested in discussing the topic objectively? If so, I highly encourage you to post in the Objective-Fi sub-forum. 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I asked a question. 
 

If you want to be a jerk about it, there are other forums more welcoming to jerks. 

Have to say, Chris, I think you are going overboard here, and it's not the first time I've thought that n the past couple of days. Maybe you need to step away from the whole thing for a day and stop suggesting that every person who writes something you don't like find another forum to post to. I know that's not literally what you are doing, but it's starting to seem that way. 

Nugget wasn't nasty. The guy did post a subjective opinion, disagreeing with a previous subjective post, that projected it's author's individual experience to the general audiophile population. He posted a link to Wikipedia dealing with false attribution of ones own opinion to the majority.

It's no different than someone responding to a post saying it's an ad hominem attack or an appeal to authority which doesn't really back up a position. Are those ideas also now only able to be posted in the "objective" thread?

How does that statement make it an "objectivist only" post?  

Even in a "subjective" thread, an intelligent discussion would include arguing logically and not using false props to back up what you are saying. One's personal experience with audio doesn't logically apply across the board, or even to anyone else. That's one of the problems objectivists have with the subjectivist point of view, but it's also a problem anyone who wants to engage in intelligent discussion has.

Each audiophile can subjectively report what he has experienced or perceived. Projecting one's own experiences/perceptions to the general population, without any proof that it's so, isn't a legitimate argument.  Are you now saying that intelligent debate of all kinds is only in the realm of" objecif-fi"? How can a topic be discussed if each individual report of each poster is assumed to apply to everyone else and can't itself be put into context:  I report that USB cable X made Y change in my system. Another poster says, no, in my system that isn't so.
Somehow that discussion is now unacceptable? That makes no sense.

If that's your new definition of "discussion" this place is going to be nothing more than a set of navel contemplating self perceptions by each audiophile of his/her own system. 

20 minutes ago, RickyV said:

 

???? Say what 😳😳????

 

 

Chris is the one insisting on civility and being helpful. In my subjective opinion, his post was not very helpful telling @nugget he’s a jerk without listing the best jerk sites.

Come on people have a bit of empathy.

These are stressful times for some more then others. So give Chris some breathing room and don't discuss/ attack every little thing. 

Things have changed there are new rules and they need to be upheld. So give it a f  rest.

12 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

There is a point of view that values the rough-and-tumble aspect of arguing as something that guarantees and maintains the health of free speech and sharpness of ides. This point of view also tends to value the use of humor - sarcasm, snark, and mild trolling - as a time-honored rhetorical technique to illustrate hypocrisy, weak arguments, self-righteousness, etc among those one disagrees with.

This aspect of the input of some objectivists is what disturbs people ... all that is being asked for is that some self-discipline be applied at the time of making the post, ensuring that the tone is not unnecessarily aggressive.