skram01 wrote: » dmz1983 wrote: » I disagree with counting non starchy vegetable calories. My limit is already low and I eat huge volumes of non starch vegetables. When I include them, I have zero energy. It does not affect my weight personally when I don't count them. This is the thing that bothers me. We all know one size doesn't fit all and when advice is given it assumes people have a baseline information (or the ability to recognize that they don't and either ask it Google it) and the advice is given to cover the majority in the middle of the bell curve. I realize this person isn't generalizing and did say that this is what works for them. However, I have seen people go into threads and poo poo the advice that works for most people, and is a good starting point for most discussions, and claim that it doesn't work for them because they are part of this fringe population, or claim that everyone should be eating x or not eating x because it's a super food or a devil food. There has to be room for error and individual situations/personalities. There also has to be a starting point for solving a problem. The quicker you can narrow down the viable solution the better. I think I would be less bothered if the fringe situations were presented in a, "hey, in case this doesn't work for you, maybe consider that you're on the fringe and you may want to check out xyz" and less in a argumentative way.
dmz1983 wrote: » I disagree with counting non starchy vegetable calories. My limit is already low and I eat huge volumes of non starch vegetables. When I include them, I have zero energy. It does not affect my weight personally when I don't count them.
amberellen12 wrote: » “What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?” When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it. As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner.
amberellen12 wrote: » It’s how something is worded that can make someone listen or reject it. The blunt nasty ones I just block.
snowflake954 wrote: » amberellen12 wrote: » It’s how something is worded that can make someone listen or reject it. The blunt nasty ones I just block. Too bad--as mentioned above, you'll be missing out on a lot of good information.
amberellen12 wrote: » I would never take a vice from rude know it all people. There’s a way to deliver you thoughts or beliefs without chastising people.
mg07030 wrote: » amberellen12 wrote: » “What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?” When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it. As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner. Agree - although I’d rather someone disagree with me out in the open instead of using the cowardly woo button.
try2again wrote: » mg07030 wrote: » amberellen12 wrote: » “What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?” When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it. As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner. Agree - although I’d rather someone disagree with me out in the open instead of using the cowardly woo button. The woo button is actually intended to keep people from being ganged up on with multiple posts debunking something questionable that's been put forth... so, to be kind. Of course, it's helpful if at least one person explains the source of disagreement. But keep in mind, many people have no idea what the woo button is actually for (some think it's a cheer), so take it with a grain of salt
lemurcat2 wrote: » I really don't see this "chastising" and for some people disagreement seems to = mean, no matter how politely and gently it's phrased. There seems to be an idea that no one should ever be disagreed with, because it's supposedly too humiliating to told you are wrong about anything (which is a really problematic approach to discussion of anything, IMO). This is actually one of the gentlest places on the internet I've come across.
FireOpalCO wrote: » try2again wrote: » mg07030 wrote: » amberellen12 wrote: » “What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?” When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it. As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner. Agree - although I’d rather someone disagree with me out in the open instead of using the cowardly woo button. The woo button is actually intended to keep people from being ganged up on with multiple posts debunking something questionable that's been put forth... so, to be kind. Of course, it's helpful if at least one person explains the source of disagreement. But keep in mind, many people have no idea what the woo button is actually for (some think it's a cheer), so take it with a grain of salt It should be renamed. I recommend either "Bull *kitten*" or "Oh Hell No".
Tacklewasher wrote: » FireOpalCO wrote: » try2again wrote: » mg07030 wrote: » amberellen12 wrote: » “What commonly MFP forum advice do you disagree with?” When you post something and then get attack or ridicule for it. As it’s been said so many time each person journey is different and if it works for you then good on you. If you disagree with what someone is following don’t attack them. Asking questions is fine or share your thoughts but in a kind, respectful manner. Agree - although I’d rather someone disagree with me out in the open instead of using the cowardly woo button. The woo button is actually intended to keep people from being ganged up on with multiple posts debunking something questionable that's been put forth... so, to be kind. Of course, it's helpful if at least one person explains the source of disagreement. But keep in mind, many people have no idea what the woo button is actually for (some think it's a cheer), so take it with a grain of salt It should be renamed. I recommend either "Bull *kitten*" or "Oh Hell No". Somewhere in the bowels of the forum, it does show up as a WTF button. I'd prefer it if it had been left that way.
tbright1965 wrote: » amberellen12 wrote: » I would never take a vice from rude know it all people. There’s a way to deliver you thoughts or beliefs without chastising people. Never? Sure, we would all prefer advice delivered with kit gloves. It doesn't always come that way. Well, at least not good advice. There are those who deliver suspect advice with lips of honey. Sugary sweet bad advice is still bad advice. That's my point. Tone doesn't have much, if anything at all to do with the quality of the advice. Just as we are cautioned not to judge others because we don't know their journey, why isn't the same grace offered to the grouchy subject matter expert? Maybe he's just worn out by the seemingly never ending stream of nice sounding, but totally wrong advice. Too many seem to have the standard grace for me, but judgment for thee...
leiflung wrote: » tbright1965 wrote: » amberellen12 wrote: » I would never take a vice from rude know it all people. There’s a way to deliver you thoughts or beliefs without chastising people. Never? Sure, we would all prefer advice delivered with kit gloves. It doesn't always come that way. Well, at least not good advice. There are those who deliver suspect advice with lips of honey. Sugary sweet bad advice is still bad advice. That's my point. Tone doesn't have much, if anything at all to do with the quality of the advice. Just as we are cautioned not to judge others because we don't know their journey, why isn't the same grace offered to the grouchy subject matter expert? Maybe he's just worn out by the seemingly never ending stream of nice sounding, but totally wrong advice. Too many seem to have the standard grace for me, but judgment for thee... I'll tell you why this is true for me. It's along the lines of this quote from Bertrand Russel, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." People who truly want to understand the world as it really is tend to be full of humility and self-doubt, because knowing the truth requires you to be able to self-correct, to always be aware that you might be wrong. A person who is so utterly convinced that they are completely right that they are angry about it lacks these qualities that would recommend them as advice givers. They come off as people who want to feel right more than actually be right. I'm not into people being sugary sweet either. I like plain talk but I also want basic human decency and respect. If you don't understand that there is a chance you're not as right as you think you are, you are not reliable. If you're not testing your certainty by attempting to falsify it, you are not reliable. And I have seen this anger and frustration at the ignorance of others in flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers. You can be both angry and wrong. There probably are people who are nasty and also right, but it's not worth it to me to deal with that. If you can't deliver the truth without condescension and mockery, I'll just wait for somebody who can.
CSARdiver wrote: » There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned.
leiflung wrote: » CSARdiver wrote: » There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned. Do you think anti-vaxxers are intentionally increasing risk? Or do you think they believe they are decreasing risk, despite doing the opposite? Also, do you not think that being condescending to a person is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in them which would more likely cause them to double down on their beliefs rather than abandon them? To me, it's one thing trying to convince a person they are wrong. That's already hard. But if you mock them as you do it, you're making it even harder. You're making them feel bad and asking them to agree that they *should* feel bad as you ask them to change their minds. That seems to expect way too much of people. I wouldn't think it would even be effective for an onlooker. If a person is on the fence about something and somebody who talks about it is mocked, that only makes the person less likely to try to discuss their own confusion. They'd likely rather avoid being treated poorly. They'd be less likely to understand where they were wrong. They might be more likely to drink the kool-aid later on, when and if surrounded and cut off from opposing views.
try2again wrote: » leiflung wrote: » CSARdiver wrote: » There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned. Do you think anti-vaxxers are intentionally increasing risk? Or do you think they believe they are decreasing risk, despite doing the opposite? Also, do you not think that being condescending to a person is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in them which would more likely cause them to double down on their beliefs rather than abandon them? To me, it's one thing trying to convince a person they are wrong. That's already hard. But if you mock them as you do it, you're making it even harder. You're making them feel bad and asking them to agree that they *should* feel bad as you ask them to change their minds. That seems to expect way too much of people. I wouldn't think it would even be effective for an onlooker. If a person is on the fence about something and somebody who talks about it is mocked, that only makes the person less likely to try to discuss their own confusion. They'd likely rather avoid being treated poorly. They'd be less likely to understand where they were wrong. They might be more likely to drink the kool-aid later on, when and if surrounded and cut off from opposing views. Lol... I think that's the fancy way of saying, "You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar" (But BTW, sincerely enjoying the thoughtful discussion, you guys )
leiflung wrote: » try2again wrote: » leiflung wrote: » CSARdiver wrote: » There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned. Do you think anti-vaxxers are intentionally increasing risk? Or do you think they believe they are decreasing risk, despite doing the opposite? Also, do you not think that being condescending to a person is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in them which would more likely cause them to double down on their beliefs rather than abandon them? To me, it's one thing trying to convince a person they are wrong. That's already hard. But if you mock them as you do it, you're making it even harder. You're making them feel bad and asking them to agree that they *should* feel bad as you ask them to change their minds. That seems to expect way too much of people. I wouldn't think it would even be effective for an onlooker. If a person is on the fence about something and somebody who talks about it is mocked, that only makes the person less likely to try to discuss their own confusion. They'd likely rather avoid being treated poorly. They'd be less likely to understand where they were wrong. They might be more likely to drink the kool-aid later on, when and if surrounded and cut off from opposing views. Lol... I think that's the fancy way of saying, "You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar" (But BTW, sincerely enjoying the thoughtful discussion, you guys ) lol, I see your point but I don't actually think the answer is in being nice. As I've said already, I'm not a fan of the saccharine. Also, flies prefer vinegar, but that's beside the point.
tbright1965 wrote: » lemurcat2 wrote: » I really don't see this "chastising" and for some people disagreement seems to = mean, no matter how politely and gently it's phrased. There seems to be an idea that no one should ever be disagreed with, because it's supposedly too humiliating to told you are wrong about anything (which is a really problematic approach to discussion of anything, IMO). This is actually one of the gentlest places on the internet I've come across. I was thinking the same thing while at work earlier today. Seems many confuse disagreement with hate today. Just because I disagree, or have a different opinion, or am not as tolerant of expressed ignorance doesn't mean I hate the person. One can attack bad ideas without it being a personal attack on the one expressing those ideas. If you are someone who believes the Earth is flat, I don't hate you. I think the notion of a flat Earth is ignorant, and will say so. But I don't hate you for believing what you believe. It's an allegedly free nation where I live, so believe what you want. Just don't demand or expect that I agree or that I hate you because we differ.
Tacklewasher wrote: » leiflung wrote: » try2again wrote: » leiflung wrote: » CSARdiver wrote: » There's an element of risk at play here. One can believe in a flat earth and this causes no harm to anyone, whereas spreading misinformation such as unfounded dangers of vaccines can objectively cause incredible harm. When you intentionally increase risk, then you should expect condescension and mockery. It was earned. Do you think anti-vaxxers are intentionally increasing risk? Or do you think they believe they are decreasing risk, despite doing the opposite? Also, do you not think that being condescending to a person is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in them which would more likely cause them to double down on their beliefs rather than abandon them? To me, it's one thing trying to convince a person they are wrong. That's already hard. But if you mock them as you do it, you're making it even harder. You're making them feel bad and asking them to agree that they *should* feel bad as you ask them to change their minds. That seems to expect way too much of people. I wouldn't think it would even be effective for an onlooker. If a person is on the fence about something and somebody who talks about it is mocked, that only makes the person less likely to try to discuss their own confusion. They'd likely rather avoid being treated poorly. They'd be less likely to understand where they were wrong. They might be more likely to drink the kool-aid later on, when and if surrounded and cut off from opposing views. Lol... I think that's the fancy way of saying, "You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar" (But BTW, sincerely enjoying the thoughtful discussion, you guys ) lol, I see your point but I don't actually think the answer is in being nice. As I've said already, I'm not a fan of the saccharine. Also, flies prefer vinegar, but that's beside the point. And who wants flies anyway?
