Progress is dead

[Mounds]

I have time now to answer these questions

Originally Posted by Angela

You've already distinguished your solution, and yet you continue to recreate the same information, packaged in a number of different ways. Why don't you do your own very good start and recognize or create an end to this subject?

I do recognize an end to this subject. Unfortunately, I'm far from getting there. I will have reached that end once I can seperate the good from the bad. I've already got a few ideas of how to pull it off.

Perhaps it's because you believe that this subject (the one you're interested in talking more about) is more worthy of continuing to perpetuate on the internet than what others are interested in perpetuating on the internet?

I wouldn't say my cause is more worthy than everyone else's. I do think it's worth looking at and some subjects could be left alone.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

Do you not agree that if you're in a position of authority, that comes with responsibility?

I agree that if I am in a position of authority, and even if I'm not, using a perspective of being 100% responsible works really well. I don't agree that responsibility is something that someone has, or should have.

Your considering that people have some sort of responsibility doesn't mean that they have that sort of responsibility; your thoughts that people are wrong to write something without taking responsibility doesn't mean anything about them, and in my opinion (LL says those are like buttholes ), thinking someone is ethically wrong tends to limit your influence on them.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Mounds

I wouldn't say my cause is more worthy than everyone else's. I do think it's worth looking at and some subjects could be left alone.

But it looks like maybe you think other people's writing on the internet is clutter, and yours is not? Or do you think yours is clutter, too?

[Mounds]

Warren, I quite enjoyed your article. That's pretty bang on to what I'm thinking about PD material at the moment. Too many chiefs, not enough indians.

Here's what I'm thinking so far...

You've got two types of information, objective and subjective. The objective variety would be things like biology, math, history... stuff that just is. I love it because it is or it isn't. It's tough to BS these things, which any high school student can attest to. Still, it happens. I've read numerous things about insects that simply blow me away. People who act with authority calling a cockroach a species of beetle for example. Gets my goat.
Anyhow, objective information is easy. Like I said, it is or it isn't. Subjective information... that's one big old hornet's nest. This is where progress has come to die. This holds pretty much anything that the human mind can create. Your finances, personal development, stuff like that. You get a lot of conflicting information and information paralysis likes to set in. Ever read a whole PD book, marvelled at the great ideas and then you didn't do anything? That's information paralysis. You get so much information that you end up doing absolutely nothing. Or like Warren said, you get conflicting information that results in doing nothing.
I'm on the edge of a thought that I will try to describe. My idea is that the realm of PD can be broken down into simple concepts. Don't focus on every tiny detail and opinion. If you focus on concepts, you can become good at them. When you've mastered the concepts, you've mastered personal development. Or finances. Or decluttering. I believe that can happen.
I believe I pulled this off with finances and now I'm doing it with goals. There's only so much to it and once you have it, you're set. In my experience, achieving those things had very little to do with all the information I read. I honestly believe the information held me back because everything I read sent me in a new direction without actually taking any action. It's got a lot more to do with common sense and streamlining than elaborate schemes or a hot new idea.
Anyhoot, more to come.

-Tim

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by Angela

But it looks like maybe you think other people's writing on the internet is clutter, and yours is not? Or do you think yours is clutter, too?

I think bad information or mental masturbation (debating minutae) is clutter.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Mounds

I think bad information or mental masturbation (debating minutae) is clutter.

That doesn't answer my question, though -- do you think the information you write here is not bad information or mental masturbation (debating minutae), that it's not clutter?

For instance, you haven't written much of any objective information about, say, finances, here, that I've noticed. You've described your subjective experience, and what you think might work. Can you and are you willing to prove that what you've discovered is objectively true? Can you demonstrate that it's Good information -- that it will objectively work for others, or even that it has worked for you?

[James81]

Here's something I noticed recently. People (myself included cause I am a "people") have a tendency to gravitate towards that which supports their own worldviews. How many times have you seen somebody say "that's a great article, I agree entirely!" Or "that article sucks, I disagree!"

Here's my question...if you are struggling with an issue or are looking for growth in a particular area of your life, then do you really think that an article that supports your current worldview is going to allow you much growth or change? Think about it.

I submit that its the stuff that you dismiss or resist that will cause the most growth and change in your life. Why? Because those things aren't a part of your current worldview and your current worldview isn't getting you the results you desire or else you wouldn't be seeking advice.


Something to think about.

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Angela

I agree that if I am in a position of authority, and even if I'm not, using a perspective of being 100% responsible works really well. I don't agree that responsibility is something that someone has, or should have.

You don't agree that responsibility is something that someone should have? Am I missing something? Because that seems like an indefensible statement. Should a police officer not be responsible with his authority? Should a gun owner not be responsible with that possession? Should someone giving advice on how people live their lives not do all they can to make sure they give good advice?

Your considering that people have some sort of responsibility doesn't mean that they have that sort of responsibility

Do you not agree that a certain percentage of people who land on personal development sites will take the information at face value based on the way it is presented? If so, do you not agree that this position carries responsibility to these people? If not, why not?

and in my opinion (LL says those are like buttholes ), thinking someone is ethically wrong tends to limit your influence on them.

I'm not on a crusade to influence all personal development bloggers. But I'll speak my mind when the topic comes up.

In any case there's a bit of a contradiction here, because if I didn't think someone was ethically wrong, I probably wouldn't want their behaviour to be different!

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by James81

I submit that its the stuff that you dismiss or resist that will cause the most growth and change in your life. Why? Because those things aren't a part of your current worldview and your current worldview isn't getting you the results you desire or else you wouldn't be seeking advice.


Something to think about.

I think that's too simplistic. What if staying with a particular world view for a particular length of time is more beneficial than switching immediately? You're also assuming that any alternative world view will give better results than the present one, when it might make things worse. Also, you probably dismiss and resist old world views that used to be disempowering for you, but that's for good reason!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

You don't agree that responsibility is something that someone should have? Am I missing something? Because that seems like an indefensible statement. Should a police officer not be responsible with his authority? Should a gun owner not be responsible with that possession? Should someone giving advice on how people live their lives not do all they can to make sure they give good advice?

Nope, nope, and nope! (Well, maybe yup to you missing something, I don't know.) But no, I don't have any *shoulds* about people and responsibility. Again, I think it's a perspective that works really well, and I would even go so far as to say I would prefer it everyone used it, but I don't think they should. It's just not there for everyone to do, and I'm fine with that. Then again, I'm also fine for advocating it and turning people on to the power of it.

Do you not agree that a certain percentage of people who land on personal development sites will take the information at face value based on the way it is presented? If so, do you not agree that this position carries responsibility to these people? If not, why not?

Sure to the first question, and no to the second, for the reasons above.

I'm not on a crusade to influence all personal development bloggers. But I'll speak my mind when the topic comes up.

In any case there's a bit of a contradiction here, because if I didn't think someone was ethically wrong, I probably wouldn't want their behaviour to be different!

That's fine, but your thinking someone is ethically wrong or that you want their behavior to be different doesn't mean that they will agree with you, that they shouldn't be fully self-expressed, or that they'll behave as you would prefer.

I've seen that the more deeply a person believes that others should do what they prefer others do, the less influence they have in getting them to do so.

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Angela

Nope, nope, and nope! (Well, maybe yup to you missing something, I don't know.) But no, I don't have any *shoulds* about people and responsibility. Again, I think it's a perspective that works really well, and I would even go so far as to say I would prefer it everyone used it, but I don't think they should. It's just not there for everyone to do, and I'm fine with that. Then again, I'm also fine for advocating it and turning people on to the power of it.

Are you serious? You don't think police officers should be responsible with their authority?

Sorry, it's probably a matter of getting wires-crossed due to text only communication, but could you explain what you mean by "it's a perspective that works really well, and I would even go so far as to say I would prefer it everyone used it, but I don't think they should"

Do you mean, you would prefer it if police officers were responsible with their authority, but you don't think they should be? If so, why, and are you aware of what happens in other countries where the police officers are not so responsible?

That's fine, but your thinking someone is ethically wrong or that you want their behavior to be different doesn't mean that they will agree with you, that they shouldn't be fully self-expressed, or that they'll behave as you would prefer.

I don't expect them to agree with me. About being self-expressed - I guess in this case you're taking running a PD blog to be part of being fully self-expressed. In that case, is it OK to be fully self-expressed if it involves giving bad advice to another person?

[Mounds]

Here's a good article on what I'm trying to bring across:

The Dangers of Information Overload

As for the latest question, some of it is absolutely junk that should be filtered out.
Ironically, I'm starting to get a case in point feeling with this thread. It's becoming increasingly difficult to keep focused on what it is that I'm trying to bring across and solve. The way I see it, I have two choices:

1. Continue to respond to posts that create more of what I don't want. That being: debates on subjective vs objective, taking responsibility, whether or not my posts are adding to the collective clutter, resistance to personal growth, ect. This thread is about progress dying due to too much information.


2. Focus simply on the bits of information that lead to a solution. This is the far more productive path but it does mean I'm not going to be dividing my attention in directions that have nothing to do with my cause. Like Medea33 said, I like to think out loud. Since I can't broadcast my thoughts through telepathy, my only real option is typing it out on here. Feel free to filter it out

No offence to anyone. I like you all as people and I enjoy reading many of your posts. If you want to have a debate thread, fire one up and if I get around to it, I'll pop in. I'm just not going to participate in it in this thread.

-Tim

[st33med]

You're still not answering Angela's question! Do you believe you are making threads and posts like this one that are contributing to the information overload; to the 'babble' of the online communities? Do you see the irony?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

Are you serious? You don't think police officers should be responsible with their authority?

Sorry, it's probably a matter of getting wires-crossed due to text only communication, but could you explain what you mean by "it's a perspective that works really well, and I would even go so far as to say I would prefer it everyone used it, but I don't think they should"

Yup, I'm serious. The wire-crossing may be due to our not having the same thing in mind when we say "responsible." Do you mean "obligated"? Because police officers are obligated by law; they could break the law if they chose to and there would be consequences to that. Similarly, there are legal, social, and individual standards that would mean consequences for certain blogger actions. Are police officers and bloggers responsible to follow them? If they take that perspective, I'd say they are, and if they don't, I'd say they're not. There are still consequences, of course. But that doesn't mean they're responsible.

Like I said, I think responsibility is something you choose to use, or you don't. Although I've found it works really well to use it, I don't get to choose that for anyone else but myself.

I don't expect them to agree with me. About being self-expressed - I guess in this case you're taking running a PD blog to be part of being fully self-expressed. In that case, is it OK to be fully self-expressed if it involves giving bad advice to another person?

Of course I think it's OK! What I think is "bad advice" may very well be great advice for someone else. And of course, I'm free to say, "listen, here's some consequences I can see to taking that advice. You may want to consider some alternate advice." I trust people to listen, evaluate, and make the right choices for themselves.

[WarrenG]

Tim,

I really like the philosophy (and you might too, in this respect at least) of a guy someone linked to a while back, Ran Prier, who actually deletes posts on his site that he doesn't like on the basis that too much clutter is bad. So as i understand it, you get the most recent few posts, but older ones that don't make the grade are culled. Pretty bold idea I thought.

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by st33med

You're still not answering Angela's question! Do you believe you are making threads and posts like this one that are contributing to the information overload? Do you see the irony?

Actually, I did answer it. I requested another thread for debates and I said that said that some of my posts absolutely contribute. The saddest, most ironic thing of all though is that it can't be discussed without an information overload.

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

Tim,

I really like the philosophy (and you might too, in this respect at least) of a guy someone linked to a while back, Ran Prier, who actually deletes posts on his site that he doesn't like on the basis that too much clutter is bad. So as i understand it, you get the most recent few posts, but older ones that don't make the grade are culled. Pretty bold idea I thought.

Agreed. I'll look into him

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Mounds

As for the latest question, some of it is absolutely junk that should be filtered out.

By whom?

Ironically, I'm starting to get a case in point feeling with this thread. It's becoming increasingly difficult to keep focused on what it is that I'm trying to bring across and solve. The way I see it, I have two choices:

1. Continue to respond to posts that create more of what I don't want. That being: debates on subjective vs objective, taking responsibility, whether or not my posts are adding to the collective clutter, resistance to personal growth, ect. This thread is about progress dying due to too much information.


2. Focus simply on the bits of information that lead to a solution. This is the far more productive path but it does mean I'm not going to be dividing my attention in directions that have nothing to do with my cause. Like Medea33 said, I like to think out loud. Since I can't broadcast my thoughts through telepathy, my only real option is typing it out on here. Feel free to filter it out

No offence to anyone. I like you all as people and I enjoy reading many of your posts. If you want to have a debate thread, fire one up and if I get around to it, I'll pop in. I'm just not going to participate in it in this thread.

-Tim

No offense taken. I'm not debating. I'm simply responding to your clutter.

This is a forum, Tim -- it's a place where people come and add their opinions, their subjective experience, their advice, their rants, and their ramblings. It's a place where YOU do that. Don't you think it's a little, well, self-immolating to come to a place that is designed for people to come and submit information, and to complain about being overloaded by information, rather than simply filtering it to suit your ability or willingness to consume it? It looks a little masochistic!

[Mounds]

This whole topic reminds me of a fun little question, "How do you throw away a garbage can?".


Question: How do you discuss information overload without being accused of contributing to the information overload?

Answer: Wage a silent war and don't say jack **** until you've got answers. Some things simply can't be discussed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Problem is, not everyone knows how to filter. I would wager that very few people know how to filter this stuff.


-Tim

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Angela

Yup, I'm serious. The wire-crossing may be due to our not having the same thing in mind when we say "responsible." Do you mean "obligated"? Because police officers are obligated by law; they could break the law if they chose to and there would be consequences to that. Similarly, there are legal, social, and individual standards that would mean consequences for certain blogger actions. Are police officers and bloggers responsible to follow them? If they take that perspective, I'd say they are, and if they don't, I'd say they're not. There are still consequences, of course. But that doesn't mean they're responsible.

No, I'm not talking about legal responsibilities. As I said earlier, what does regulation have to do with treating fellow humans with the decency? I'm talking about responsibility of being sensitive to the consequences of your actions and behaving accordingly.

Of course I think it's OK! What I think is "bad advice" may very well be great advice for someone else. And of course, I'm free to say, "listen, here's some consequences I can see to taking that advice. You may want to consider some alternate advice."

As I said earlier, giving caveats to advice is fine. I just don't see that on PD blogs.

I trust people to listen, evaluate, and make the right choices for themselves.

This is what I referred to earlier as a cop-out. "I trust people to make the right choices for themselves, therefore I can say whatever I want without any discrimination, and if it ends up bad for them, it's their problem, not mine, because they didn't make the right choice for themselves."

What I'm proposing, is that this situation is more complicated, and sometimes people do not make the right choices for themselves, for a whole host of reasons, one of which being uncritical acceptance of an authority figure; and if you happen to be that authority figure, then you have to be sensitive to this and cater your service to match.

People follow authority. This is well demonstrated by research. I propose that starting a personal development site and all the branding and positioning that goes with that will be seen as authority by enough people to require responsibility from the blogger.

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Learning how to filter information is a necessary skill that all adults have to learn.

[st33med]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

This is what I referred to earlier as a cop-out. "I trust people to make the right choices for themselves, therefore I can say whatever I want without any discrimination, and if it ends up bad for them, it's their problem, not mine, because they didn't make the right choice for themselves."

Do you enjoy taking Angela's words and putting in what is not there?
She *could* make it her problem if she wanted to if she saw it as an opportunity to look into her values or how she communicates, but she doesn't have to.

What I'm proposing, is that this situation is more complicated, and sometimes people do not make the right choices for themselves, for a whole host of reasons, one of which being uncritical acceptance of an authority figure; and if you happen to be that authority figure, then you have to be sensitive to this and cater your service to match.

People follow authority. This is well demonstrated by research. I propose that starting a personal development site and all the branding and positioning that goes with that will be seen as authority by enough people to require responsibility from the blogger.

The 'wrong' choices can also be the right ones.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Mounds

This whole topic reminds me of a fun little question, "How do you throw away a garbage can?".


Question: How do you discuss information overload without being accused of contributing to the information overload?

Answer: Wage a silent war and don't say jack **** until you've got answers. Some things simply can't be discussed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Problem is, not everyone knows how to filter. I would wager that very few people know how to filter this stuff.


-Tim

I don't know that being silent is the answer. That doesn't seem right to me. You seem to be saying that it's the information that should change -- or other people who are providing information should change -- so that you (or "we") are not overloaded by it. Is that right? When you yourself have already, in your OP, distinguished the very simple answer to information overload, which you have all the power in the world to effect: create an end to it. If you don't want to hear people's opinions, for instance, stop logging on to a forum where people discuss their opinions. Pretty easy!

Edit (after post #54, sorry!) But since it looks like you want to look for a more complicated answer than that, one that requires other people to change, maybe.... I'll stop overloading you with information now.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

...if you happen to be that authority figure, then you have to be sensitive to this and cater your service to match.

Actually, I don't have to. That's why I ask you about how you would enforce that - a person doesn't have to be sensitive to other people accepting what they have to say uncritically. And lots of people aren't. You're arguing with reality. Do you think only people who are sensitive to other people accepting what they have to say uncritically should be granted the right of free speech on the internet -- would you like to change the First Amendment? That if someone isn't sensitive to that, they should be barred from saying what's so for themselves? Do you think someone who isn't sensitive to other people listening uncritically (or someone who IS sensitive to it, but expresses themselves fully anyway) is likely be open to changing their ways because you or someone else thinks they should?

[Mounds]

Nah, I work better alone. I'll get to the bottom of it and post the results. I actually should have waited until I had the idea more fully fleshed out but it was kind of a "Eureka" moment.
I would be a bit more inclined to talk about it if I felt I could bring across the idea properly. Gauging by many of the responses, that isn't happening. Until next time

[st33med]

Originally Posted by Mounds

Nah, I work better alone. I'll get to the bottom of it and post the results. I actually should have waited until I had the idea more fully fleshed out but it was kind of a "Eureka" moment.
I would be a bit more inclined to talk about it if I felt I could bring across the idea properly. Gauging by many of the responses, that isn't happening. Until next time

I'm chuckling at this.

You said at first that you would want someone else to start a thread about information overload so you could get help.

I will suggest something if you don't mind. What if this were not all 'clutter'? Don't you think you could do something about this, 'clutter' to empower you? Think about that.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Mounds

This whole topic reminds me of a fun little question, "How do you throw away a garbage can?".


Question: How do you discuss information overload without being accused of contributing to the information overload?

Answer: Wage a silent war and don't say jack **** until you've got answers. Some things simply can't be discussed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Problem is, not everyone knows how to filter. I would wager that very few people know how to filter this stuff.


-Tim

Its not hard to filter information when you are unaffected by it. That is, there are several people here (some of them prominent posters) that all I do is skim their posts because in the past I haven't gotten much value from them or they have desplayed an unwillingness to engage in synergistic communication. Of course, when iwas resisting and dismissing them, they were all id read and in turn I would engage them and things wouldn't end well.

When I examined why I. Was arguing with them and got to the bottom of it, they suddenly lost their draw to me and *poof* they blipped off my radar and id find myself uninterested in what they had to say. I wouldn't say I ignored them, I just don't feel compelled to respond to them anymore.

Other people, however, I lap up their posts like a kitten laps up milk.

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by st33med

I'm chuckling at this.

You said at first that you would want someone else to start a thread about information overload so you could get help.

I will suggest something if you don't mind. What if this were not all 'clutter'? Don't you think you could do something about this, 'clutter' to empower you? Think about that.

Dear God man, what are you even talking about?

I would not complain if this thread just died. What a fiasco.

[st33med]

Originally Posted by Mounds

Dear God man, what are you even talking about?

I would not complain if this thread just died. What a fiasco.

Originally Posted by Mounds

Actually, I did answer it. I requested another thread for debates and I said that said that some of my posts absolutely contribute. The saddest, most ironic thing of all though is that it can't be discussed without an information overload.

Oops. I misread. I thought you were asking here that you wanted someone else to set up someplace else to debate about information overload so you could get help about dealing with it!

Mmmm... So you are giving power over this thread so you can complain about it distracting you?

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by st33med

Mmmm... So you are giving power over this thread so you can complain about it distracting you?

No. Were gonna have to think outside the bun on this one. The answer is not in the realm of PD.

This is Mounds, signing off.