Community Discussion (continued...)

A couple of options...(source)

This blog entry is a continuation of this ongoing discussion.

yvesoler has intentionally done exactly what I asked people to do: support me in learning my craft. I’m thrilled to receive such cooperation.

I’m grateful for her (or his; I’ve inferred the former) support, her analyses, and her advice. I admire her commitments to authentic communication, introspection and learning.

yvesoler, you seem to have more insight into my difficulties than anyone else who doesn’t know me very well. I appreciate your willingness to work with me, which is a courageous action from my perspective. And I'm very honored that you chose the tag #higherorderthinking !

I’ve been asked to explain myself. Perfect; I’m used to that!

Why did I come here, and what keeps me here?

My work is intended to explain some principles of educational philosophy and educational psychology to inquiring learners who haven’t studied those areas. Its purpose is to support people (learners!) in developing deeper and more coherent networks of ideas. I’ve invited folks to read my blog entries at #rortian , to engage with my subject matter, and to discuss it with me or with anyone else who might be interested.

I’ve done something very much like that before, and I wrote about it. You’re welcome to see my report on that; I’ve dropped a copy for you at https://discord.gg/3UJyZPc

My authenticity, my character and my sincerity have been called into question; that’s happened before. That’s not a huge problem for me, since I think that I understand myself somewhat better than those who’ve maligned me.

I’d like to pick up the conversation here:

"If you are convinced that people do not want to engage in these topics, then why write about them?"

Well, that would be very silly, wouldn’t it? Foolish?

Fortunately I’m pleased to report that I’m not convinced that people don’t want to engage, and that I don’t feel quite that foolish. (I could be fooling myself, though, right?) I often do think that, I admit, and I'm very happy every time that people talk with me about my work. I certainly don't want to be completely convinced of that; then I'd have to go sailing and fishing instead of doing this!

Here’s where I stand on this: I’m terrified (not convinced) that the people I talk to would rather discuss their opinions of my style and my personality characteristics than engage in deep learning about learning.

I no longer wonder about their motivation, as I've been studying this phenomenon since I was ten years old, and I think that I understand it quite well. It continues to recur regularly. (Oh, well...)

I’ve spent the last eighteen years supplementing my science education so that I’d have the academic chops to explain stuff; the result is that editors, agents, my family, my wife’s family, most of my friends and most people I meet have little to no interest in what I’ve learned. I've seen their eyes glaze over and their attention wander the moment they realize what I'm going on about. That's my experience.

Do you think that many people want to learn that stuff?

My commitment is to avoid talking to anyone who doesn’t want to hear what I want to say. In face-to-face talks I can quite easily tell when someone is disinterested, so I can stop; online is different, and there’s a time delay before I can get the reactions. That’s a malefit of online discussion. On the other hand nobody’s obligated to read me – and yet there’s this issue about my motives, as if my hidden purpose (the one I’m that I’m supposedly lying about) is more important to folks than anything I’ve uttered.

Is this ironic?

“I was so convinced that no one wanted to engage in the debate I wanted to have that I did not recognize that my own writing was preventing the debate.”

I recognize your insight, yvesoler, because I noticed just that about my face-to-face conversations thirty years ago; I realized something very similar about my situation then, and I've been working (and failing) to turn that around ever since.

I wouldn’t put it quite the way that you have though, though. I don’t think that we actually ever “prevented” conversations. My view is that I failed to reach people, and that they preferred not to be involved. I don't think that their reactions were my fault or that I was to blame; I don't think that way anymore.

I think that think what they think. They might want to learn to change what they think, or they might not. If they don't, it's not up to me to insist on anything whatsoever!

So I believe that my social game wasn’t very great, and it was/is also possible that people actively avoided learning my perspectives for their own reasons.

This is much like something that happened in 2000 when I first did something like this. If any of you wants to figure me out I’m actually honored; that ebook could help, but please keep in mind that I must have changed somewhat since then!

I’m still working to improve my actions, and I’m seeking support in improving my writing. I could hire a coach, or an editor; I need to decide whether there’s much chance that my stuff will ever get disseminated very much.

I do my work to improve my life and to learn to support others in working through complex problems. That commitment drives my actions.

Does that shed light on your question about why I'm bothering?

Do you think that many people want to learn that stuff (I wonder)? I wonder whether I might be mistaken about that…!

Which brings me to:

I can’t know the absolute truth or describe the absolute truth about anything

I believe that telling the truth isn’t an available function of natural language. Reflecting reality in an approximate and warped fashion is the best that words and sentences can do. So I never insist (or even claim) that my descriptions are true.

This puts me in a tough position with the people who are selling the idea that their beliefs are absolutely and incontrovertibly true. There’s no possibility for those folks to understand something different that conflicts with their truths, and anybody who believes that they know the truth believes that they know better than I believe I know!

Have you had the experience of seeing that someone doesn’t want to listen to what you want to say? Sure; you understand this, right?

If I could I’d begin every assertion with “I think” or “I believe” I would, in order to distinguish my humility, but that gets to be very clumsy, so I don’t. Yet I'll never insist that my beliefs or my sentences are necessarily true, because I don't believe that. I just think that they're reasonably justifiable.

And then there’s this:

Is it correct to say that I've been writing “in such a way as to purposefully alienate people in order to use their lack of response as a justification of your own belief? In other words, you rigged the game in your favor.”

In my favor? I don’t get that what we’re talking about is a phenomenon that favors me! Do you think that I’ve been pretending to suffer after working for my entire life to learn what goes on around people? Does anybody believe me when I say that I don’t get off on that kind of trip?

Ouch.

Well, this is interesting. I don’t know if it’s possible for me to refute this, because I can’t say that I’m doing that on purpose (since doing so would be both inauthentic and self-defeating), and I can’t say that I’m not because there’s no way to prove my motive.

Is that a “rigged” question, yvesoler?

I don’t know whether thinking about it will help. Is there anything other than people’s feelings to indicate that my motives are confused in that way?

What is the significance to you of your suspicion? I think that, if you were convinced that it’s a true reflection of my purpose, you wouldn't have bothered to re-engage (but of course I might be missing something).

Here's my difficulty with my responsibility to improve my style: I’m imperfect, and if people want to use their opinions about me as justifications for avoiding me there's nothing to stop them. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't improve (and I will!), but it calls into question the degree of difference that any improvements could make. There's also the distinct (to me) possibility that I might perform faultlessly (briefly, on rare occasions) and that someone could make up any unjustifiable accusation about me to change the subject and avoid my conversation.

Does that ever happen to you? (Is it just me? Am I completely mistaken?)

I believe that my failed results arise out of the combination of my faulty prose and people’s aversion reactions. On the other hand, I’ve had many excellent results in working with people; there’s some good stuff in that ebook I’ve left for you.

What can we do to resolve our questions and issues?

This is to ask whether we can design an approach to this conversation that's likely to be useful in figuring things out and resolving conflicts.

I suggest that we

a) clearly distinguish the issues under consideration
b) analyse each one to see what we can discover about it
c) work together to see what we can resolve

I’m hopeful about that. I have some experience in these things.

I’ve got lots more to share, but I’ll do some listening before I continue my prattling.

I trust that you’ll talk to me about this!

Thanks again to everybody who’s encouraging and supporting me, and especially to yvesoler, who has inspired me by manifesting her commitments to inquiry, to coherency, and to higher order thinking.