Wow - so I'm not the only one!
No, I think there're quite a lot of us on this list (one way or another; some aren't on chat). Probably because lacemaking and a reasoned argument have a lot in common -- in both cases you have to follow a logical line, from a to z, without skipping any steps in between. And, in both cases, there's the temptation to 'fudge a little" if you're not sure of the steps, and if you think you can get away with it <g>. It's just that not everyone is *inclined* to argue their points; too much time, effort, energy, not worth it...
I too love well-reasoned argument, and get very frustrated by the sloppy way many things are discussed these days
I *used to* get frustrated (after I got over the shock of discovering that not everyone seemed to be able to "connect the dots"), but found it unproductive (and self-destructive). Now, I get amused; I've found that my sense of the absurd is as well developed as my love of logic.
I'm always getting into trouble for it - do you?
I've often been chided for being argumentative, picky or pedantic. So I've
begun to learn to shut up. Since I'm also naturally somewhat tactless (for
example, I said something here a few weeks ago that I realised later I
shouldn't have said), perhaps I should say nothing at all!
Well, no; I've never got into trouble because of it; at least not *serious* trouble, anyway. Not in "real life" (outside Arachne e-mail), and that includes the first 23 yrs of my life, which I spent in Communist Poland, where arguments could be corkscrewed into total absurdity and still uttered with a straight face. Yes, I too can be "picky and pedantic" (thinking process, language usage), but then I'm messy in other ways (house), so I'm not threatening enough to engender strong retalliation. I'm not everyone's "cup o'T" (in the old days of Arachne, quite a few private messages started with "you bitch" <g>), but I can live with that.
I've never learnt to shut up; certainly not before I'd said what I thought needed to be said (in case someone could be persuaded), but I did learn not to try and *ram* my point of view down everyone's throat. I've learnt that, in an argument, "doesn't follow" is easier to swallow than "non sequitur" and "could you please explain it to me; I do not understand your point" works best of all :) The last one is particularly effective if uttered with an air of bewilderment, maybe even with a slight stutter (just like Porky in Heather's playlet, not that it did him much good, poor blighter); it used to work much better when I was young and relatively pretty, but one uses what one has... :)
In general, people don't like to be corrected, but don't mind so much being asked to clarify/expound. Which gives them an opportunity to re-think while they're re-phrasing, and, possibly, correct themselves... In the process, you don't come through as "pedantic" (and, possibly, "patronising"), but as one in search of enlightment; in effect, you're asking their favour... That's the hope, at any raate :)
Since I'm also naturally somewhat tactless
Yes, well, with the current PC-rules, it's hard to open your mouth to yawn (never mind say something) without offending someone; the old "excuse me for breathing" phrase comes to mind as frequently as it did during my first 23 yrs :) I'm always willing to hear the arguments for why someone feels offended. Offer counter arguments (if I disagree), or concede their point (if I think it reasonable). And drop the issue if it's obvious that neither one of us can be convinced.
When I did jury service many years ago, [...]
Yes, that *is* quite a different thing... I've never been in a situation where I thought my opinion would *really matter*, so it's always been easy for me to "live and let live" and not get overly "exercised". I don't know what I'd have done in your situation... Push the point, (like the guy in "12 Angry Men")? Maybe. But maybe not... Though I dare say it would have taken me longer than usual to "disengage" from the argument than when all that's at stake is the colour-codeing diagrams (and that's taken long enough <g>)
I was shocked at how poor many of my fellow jurors' reasoning skills were. Some people didn't seem able to analyse and sift the evidence, to work out what was important
The first time a child writes a paragraph or an essay and gets a decent/good grade "for the effort", irrespective of whether it makes sense or not, that child is sent on the down slope in respect of logical thinking. It's better not to grade it at all, but to explain why it doesn't make sense, and how things ought to be re-arranged for better effect (and require such rearrangement, and then check that). My primary school teacher (3rd grade) was able and willing to do that, even though she had 38 of us in class and no teaching assistant. So, arranging thoughts in a coherent way was something I was taught early on (and passed it on to my son, the best I could). My step children, OTOH, weren't required to do it until they reached University level. And not everyone goes to University...
As for learning to sift the grain from the chaff, I learnt that also in primary school (6th grade), though strictly by accident. That year, something went wrong with the system, and we were short of biology textbooks; there were 5 copies in the library, to serve about 150 of us... :) So, the teacher said she'd lecture, and we were to take notes; "you'll find it useful in future life" she said ( I did too, at the U). That particular crop of "Cinderellas" grew *very* skillfull at writing down only what mattered (that included figuring out what the *teacher* might think mattered, too, so as to be able to spew it back at tests)... :)
----- Tamara P Duvall Lexington, Virginia, USA Formerly of Warsaw, Poland http://lorien.emufarm.org/~tpd/
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
