Jon Letendre Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 Have you noticed you are talking to people who cannot be bothered to understand you before responding to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 D wrote: That has nothing to do with what I said. I asked how influence and social power differ in terms of one being voluntary and the other being involuntary. Both of those two names you give above for the same thing require a voluntary response IF there is no physical coercion involved. I know there are terms like “arm twisting” and “power” that imply coercion but you can always just say no. However if someone is trying to run you down in their car . . . . then you are forced to jump out of the way to avoid physical harm. Then there is the nuanced example of someone having influence when you go before the board of zoning or county council and ask to build an addition on your house and the “one with influence” convinces the others to vote no. D wrote: Trust/faith is one way to gain power, fear is the other. Either way power can be used for good or evil. You can threaten a kid to get off the road or you'll smack him (similar to one of Michael's examples). end quote We may be on the same page, but I would prefer less nuanced descriptions that differentiate between legal or physical power and persuasive power. “D? Come in and wash your hands for dinner,” says his Mum, is an example of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said: Have you noticed you are talking to people who cannot be bothered to understand you before responding to you? Jon, Have you noticed that he does the same in spades? What's so difficult to understand about defining things based on hierarchical concepts instead of stream on consciousness mixed with bluster? I don't engage him much because every time I ask for premises or try to understand what they are for him, I get more stream of consciousness and bluster, and often a new topic or contradiction of what he said before. He's better in this thread than before, but he's still all over the fucking place. So... do you want to fight over this? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted July 16, 2020 Author Share Posted July 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said: Have you noticed you are talking to people who cannot be bothered to understand you before responding to you? Not to an abnormal level, no. I accept that people develop processes for understanding and explaining the world, and as long as I am not talking at diametrically opposed purposes with someone it is probably worth the effort. Do you have anything to correct or add? Because I appreciate anyone helping speed things up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted July 16, 2020 Author Share Posted July 16, 2020 2 hours ago, Peter said: However if someone is trying to run you down in their car . . . . then you are forced to jump out of the way to avoid physical harm. Physical power here is the ability to hit someone with your car. That's assuming they can't possibly jump out of the way in time. Social power is the ability to change the person's expectation to "If I don't jump now, I'll get hit by a car." You forced that idea into their head, but you did not force the action. Quote We may be on the same page, but I would prefer less nuanced descriptions that differentiate between legal or physical power and persuasive power. “D? Come in and wash your hands for dinner,” says his Mum, is an example of what? Legal power and persuasive power are both social power. Official power and unofficial power don't need to be differentiated between, because the "officialness" of official power is just another aspect of social power (faith/fear). You focusing on influence has been helpful, because thinking of power structures instead as influence structures is elucidating. The most powerful people in the world talk their way into power... and yet we focus so much on the "at gunpoint" angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 25 minutes ago, Dglgmut said: Not to an abnormal level, no. I accept that people develop processes for understanding and explaining the world, and as long as I am not talking at diametrically opposed purposes with someone it is probably worth the effort. Do you have anything to correct or add? Because I appreciate anyone helping speed things up. D, Excellent. I had a feeling you did not want or need to be coddled. That's the way working through ideas works. It's messy. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: D, Excellent. I had a feeling you did not want or need to be coddled. That's the way working through ideas works. It's messy. Michael Why do feel you have to turn what I said into "coddling"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted July 16, 2020 Author Share Posted July 16, 2020 52 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: Why do feel you have to turn what I said into "coddling"? Framing. I think you should drop it Seriously though, I have talked to a lot of leftists and this place is not bad at all. Some people do not put in effort to understand, but it's completely normal. There are two things to learn from discussions/arguments: 1. The validity of your ideas/theories in as much as you can identify legitimate feedback. Here we can also include completely new ideas that you are introduced to. 2. Your communicative efficacy with consideration to the difference in original view points between you and the person you're talking to measured by identifiable misunderstandings. There's a 3rd, but it's not really learning, it's just building a muscle: Putting in your own effort to understand their ideas. Even if the person you're talking to is a complete fool, or an intelligent person who is completely intellectually closed off, there is value in discussion. Sometimes it's not value you're interested in at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 4 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: Why do feel you have to turn what I said into "coddling"? Jon, I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about him. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jon, I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about him. Michael I know. You turned what I said into me suggesting he be coddled. I suggested no such thing yet you twisted it into that. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 22 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: I know. You turned what I said into me suggesting he be coddled. I suggested no such thing yet you twisted it into that. Why? Jon, Well, we were talking about ideas. Suddenly you barge in to denigrate those of us who are talking. So why yourself? Why did you do that? Since I like you, I didn't like the image of you barging in to be a jerk because where you are at, you ran out of things to be a jerk about, so you come over to a discussion you are not participating in to be a jerk, I thought it better to think you were protecting the guy against us stupid people as if he doesn't have the ability to hold his own. Coddle him, so to speak. (Incidentally, he is improving at consistency, slightly, but still it's going in the right direction. I'm glad to see he doesn't accept the coddling.) After all, you have the reputation of being the most hostile and nastily aggressive person around here, right? When you show up and especially when you gratuitously bash people out of nowhere, they are supposed to get out of your way, right? That's a form of coddling. But, like I said, I was not talking about you. You are going to do what you do. I never expect you to change. I was talking about him, trying to give him a compliment for insisting on using his own mind when he faces disagreement. You want this about you and fuck the ideas? I can do that, too. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 All that simply for noticing that you and some others are not asking any questions or seeking any clarification before responding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 44 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: All that simply for noticing that you and some others are not asking any questions or seeking any clarification before responding. Jon, No. All that for talking shit about us when you were not even in the conversation, then putting a chip on your shoulder about it. Let D learn. He's got a good brain. A hell of a long ways to go, but a good brain. Let him use it. Hell, prompt him to, yourself. He seems to like it (which I admire) and you're good at that. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 I talked no shit about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 12 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: ... you are talking to people who cannot be bothered to understand you... 7 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: I talked no shit about you. Jon, Yeah, right... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 I didn't know that was too harsh a way to say that you were responding before understanding. I didn't mean to traumatize. I will try to be more gentle from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 47 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: I didn't know that was too harsh a way to say that you were responding before understanding. I didn't mean to traumatize. I will try to be more gentle from now on. Jon, Thank you. I have sensitive feelings. They get hurt easily and then I get fretful. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 On 7/16/2020 at 12:18 AM, william.scherk said: Musings ... I have power, in the sense of work, volition, force of being, constructive power. I can will myself to do things, build things, make things, seek things, gather things, choose things, join things, go places. I have power over myself, most of the time, if not absolute power. My size and stature gives me a certain built-in physical power. I can augment my (personal) power when I combine forces with another person, or with many other persons. My powers are individuated yet implicated. I can commit to 'seeing things through' and I can abort plans and projects. I'd like to think I command my own powers. I've met people who seem to have great personal powers, of intellect, of observation, of diligence, of analysis. I've met people who have advanced powers of persuasion, masters of the craft. I've met power in numbers. I've felt powerful attachments and attractions. I have experienced powerful language, powerful arguments, powerful myths, powerful explanations. I've been -- at various times in my life -- subject to personal 'power dynamics' and have navigated hierarchies of institutional and business power. The power to command works 'offshore' the island of the individual and is perhaps vested in differentials. How might two perfectly-matched persons establish command power? Do you have power in your household? Do you share it? Do you have a power in the neighbourhood and community? Do you count yourself as part of a "powerful group" however measured? My sole mention of Foucault will be: why does an almost-citation of Foucault fill me with Janet/Seymour apprehensions? Power of arms, power of obedience, power of law. Law-givers, law-makers, law-enforcers. Thank you for the reminder there are good forms of power, overt or implicit. Power for and by whom, and for what purpose? Nice musings William. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 On 7/16/2020 at 9:50 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jon, you gratuitously bash people out of nowhere Michael Has never happened. If you think there was such a case let me know and I will explain what they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said: Has never happened. If you think there was such a case let me know and I will explain what they did. Jon, Do you want me to loan you my comfort blanket? Seems like hurt feelings are keeping you up at night. The comfort blanket helps... I have a teddy bear too if you want... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 No, thanks, I don't need that, my feelings are not hurt when false accusations are made. Hurt feelings is not it at all. But it sounds like the pussies complaining to you about me could use your comfort blankets and teddy bears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said: ... when false accusations are made... Jon, This is pure bullshit. On this very thread you said I (and others) couldn't be bothered to understand D. And I was one of the few dealing with what he said from fundamentals. (That's just one example. There are many.) From the looks of it, you are the one who couldn't be bothered to understand what D said. You haven't talked about his ideas on this thread--even now. It looks like you're not interested. You're just interested in picking fights over nothing. All you've talked about so far is me (falsely) and you talked a lot about you. Like who gives a fuck? 1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said: ... the pussies complaining to you... More bullshit coming from you. Nobody is complaining to me. That stopped about two years ago (maybe longer) when I told them to learn to deal with you on their own. I have two eyes. I observe. And that must sting like hell when I call out your bullshit. But nooooooooooooooo... It's all about Jon... Poor Jon... Poor misunderstood Jon... No matter what the topic is, it always goes back to poor Jon... Life is so unfair. It's them meanies. They did it. Bah... Just let it go. You keep trying to win contests that don't exist and pissing off good people (like me) over nothing. Remove that bug that's up your ass because it has nothing to do with me. This is me talking. Not your presuppositions. There. We've talked some more about Jon instead of the nature of power and the other ideas covered in this thread. Happy? Of course you are not. We need to talk more about Jon, right? Who cares about ideas when there is plenty of Jon left to talk about. Right? I will feel sorry for you if that will help. And my offer of the comfort blanket still stands because I'm a sharing person. I'm removing the teddy bear, though. I need my teddy bear because I am traumatized. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted July 19, 2020 Author Share Posted July 19, 2020 Look at the power a cult leader has. But if you break it down, they are not the source of the power. They have as much power as anyone else. It's the followers that have the power, because they have the numbers. You may be convinced not by the leader, but by the faith of the followers, that this guy is for real. This is part of why the idea of power is misleading. It's like steering a sailing ship. You aren't moving the ship, you are just a piece of the equation that is placed in a crucial position. People are not wind, a sail, rudders or a wheel. So the idea of power structures are based on a floating abstraction, though that abstraction may be floating only a mm off the ground. Influence structures, while making the concept less abstract, also make the concept less rigid, and more inclusive of variables. In reality we have influence structures, and they start with trust. The first level of social power is attained through trust, that trust can be leveraged into creating fear. What about influence from writing? That means you can influence someone after you're dead. That means at the head of an influence structure could potentially be an idea. I guess this relates to Protestantism... The first societal step into individualism (for the West, at least?). People couldn't handle it; as soon as they were encouraged to be lead by an idea and their own mind they created new centers of power. Since people are born as followers in a collective, is the idea of individualism unrealistic? Is there another step in society's development that must be stably attained first? What is required of people before they are prepared to be guided by their own mind, and not so ready and willing to be influenced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 48 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jon, Nobody is complaining to me. I have two eyes. I observe. And that must sting like hell when I call out your bullshit. I does not sting at all. It only clarifies that you think you know everything that goes on between two people on your site just because you have two eyes, no need to ask Jon or his presupposed victim. Again, name the incident and I will explain what happened or please gracefully withdraw the unfair, unsupported, false accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 40 minutes ago, Dglgmut said: This is part of why the idea of power is misleading. It's like steering a sailing ship. D, Maybe by analogy I can get you see the problem of your approach. You keep circling around it, but you haven't landed on it, yet. The problem isn't the concept of power, it's the idea that one word can have many different definitions. Open any dictionary and you will see all the proof you need. Now for the analogy. When I talk to you about power, let me replace power with "run" and riff off of it, using your complaints. People, we need to redefine run. I mean, moving by placing one foot in front of the other quickly isn't "run" when we talk about running a company. Or how about plantlife? What do running shoes have to do with the way ivy runs up a tree or wall? The concept of run is totally wrong for humanity. And this is why we have all the trouble in the world. But I will be the one to fix it. And you can run to mommy if you don't like it even if there is a run in her stockings. After all, time is running out. Need I go on? This is what your arguments come down to when I ask you to discuss the foundations of the concept power (which, for me, starts with human nature if the context is going to be social organization--a social organization that ignores human nature will eventually result in piles of bodies of innocents, or fall, or both--this has been true throughout history). Hell, a Finnish comedian showed we can't even settle on "ass" if we do it the way you are doing. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now