no! we are agreeing that
I am correct!
Nope. ME. :2razz:
yes, it does. How you say something is often nearly or just as important as what you say. This was beaten into me for three months straight when I was in training (my job involves briefing senior commanders) - words matter, including the ones not spoken, and your presentation will often stick more than your words do.
You CONTINUE to help me prove my point. So, if it is presented entirely in an informational way, what values the receiver perceives is on him or her.
so, in the world of immediately available results (operations are performed based off of intel briefings - the slogan for counterinsurgency is "intel drives ops"), what we have consistently found to be the ground truth of the matter is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming here.
Nope. One presents information, how the listener evaluates that information is on the listener. This is why it is important to impart the information clearly.
exactly. and that is precisely the same thing that anyone - including a student - will do. they will perceive a particular way in which you judge the relative weight of what you are discussing.
No, that's not precisely what I said. There is no weight presented. Only information. What the student does with that is completely on HIM/HER.
you cannot provide information free of context - literally, communication does not work like that. that is (for example) why we have emoticons here - to make up for the lack of context that we use our facial expressions or tone inflection to provide in RW communications.
Context and judgment are not the same concepts.
the trick being that information always comes in the context of it's presentation.
And if that context is to provide information, the value judgments perceived are on the listener.
no, the equivalency is in the presentation - because that is how the "information" is presented.
No, that is not equivelency. It is a list. YOU are assigning morality, NOT the presenter.
they may choose to impose their own values over those implied by the competing lists - but that changes the fact that the lists came with their own presumptions not at all.
The implication comes from their own morality and values, not those of the presentation of a list. You are demonstrating this point by how you are posting. You are presenting your own morality from the list that has been presented. The fact that others would see this list differently, demonstrates that this in about the listener, not the presentation.
wrong, all i did was provide a list, remember?
No, you didn't and you are being dishonest by posting that you did. Your second example was filled with value judgments. Here is your comment and I will, place in bold all of the value judgments:
however, i go to the next class and i say "the major form of sexuality used by humans is hetero sexuality. now, some claim that homosexuality, bi sexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, and all other manners of sexuality should be treated as no better or worse than hetero sexuality, but the fact remains that these are very, very, very small minority groups" then that is a format that presents a moral call. I separate hetero sexuality alone, first, and above all - and then make a point to list homosexuality in the same format as bestiality. I could throw pedohophelia in there too. the presentation is that these things all belong together - there is a fundamental equivalency between them. which is why homosexuals come down so hard on attempts to put homosexuality in the same list as pedophilia - because they know that the presentation presumes a moral judgement even if one is not highlighted.
These are value judgments. Stating "major form" indicates preference. Saying "some claim that homosexuality, bi sexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, and all other manners of sexuality should be treated as no better or worse than hetero sexuality, but the fact remains that these are very, very, very small minority groups" presents that this view is carried by a minority, and by using the word "claim" you impress that it is an unsubstantiated minority. Further, your comment is biased because it is fundamentally INACCURATE. By all accounts, your example was a complete failure.
in the instances, by the process of presenting multiple forms of sexuality in connection with particular others, I was able to change the presumed moral equivalency of homosexuality from a neutral to a negative. simply in an informational here-is-the-list-style manner; about as dry as you can get.
Your presentation was by no means equivalent, and certainly biased, and by no means dry. Not even close.
you can't split information from presentation. not for humans. computers, perhaps, yes. but not people - we're not built that way.
Of course you can.
no, one cannot. to even begin to give information is to immediately filter out all the information that isnt worth giving, which is to instantly translate a judgement value into communication.
No, it isn't. Giving information is providing THAT information. Now, it is possible to do what you are claiming, but not necessary.
:roll: And I would think that you were at least smart enough to get the difference between saying jokingly saying "F you
" and angrily screaming "F YOU!!!"
Certainly. Context. Not judgment.
now, see how that works? by describing your failure as a matter of intelligence, beginning with an eye-roll, and then giving a simplistic example, my presentation implied (full disclosure, i think you're one of the smarter posters on the board) dismissal on my part and a very low level of intelligence indeed on yours. The thrust is: how can you be so stupid as to not grasp such a basic alteration in interactions that even a baby can understand?
See? Your presentation was flawed. If your presentation had been clear, no interpretation on my part would have been necessary... and any would have been based on my own perceptions.
had i instead argued:
And I would have thought that to someone of the level of intelligence I have come to expect from you that the different information that is passed with raw data - what many call the "metadata" - would be obvious.
the tone is quite different. not just are the words larger, but the concepts called into question are more complex. the assumption here is that you are indeed intelligent, that you are fully capable of grasping what is going on, of dealing with in-depth subject matter, but for some reason just haven't yet with regards to this particular facet of communication.
Here, your presentation is clear. Perhaps I would have been offended. Why? Perhaps I haven't liked some of your positions, so I have built in animosity towards you (I don't). See? The presentation is not the issue in this case. You were clear, contextual, and without judgment. The problem was with the listener.
but both pieces of information are arguing the exact same thing - that you are apparently don't get it something that you should. but the context of how I say it dramatically shifts the actual meaning of the response.
You are STILL illustrating my point. If your presentation is clear and informational, the judgments that I perceive are on me.
just as some folks seem to erroneously think that it doesn't have to be.
but now we're just repeating ourselves.
So, you agree that it is not, always, but could be, correct?
agreed! I have no problem with schools teaching sex ed the way that they find best if that is what the parents want as expressed by those parents choosing to send their children there. one of the many reasons why school choice is a big deal with me - not only do i think it will improve our educational system, but i strongly suspect it will reduce conflict in society by not forcing a one-size-fits-all solution upon disparate and deeply held belief systems.
I vacillate with the school choice issue. Personally, I'd rather see an more effective and efficient use of funds in our public schools, but I could see school choice as a viable option.
