Re: Top posting
Hal Vaughan wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 June 2005 01:41 am, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Hal Vaughan wrote:
[snip]
> > > Putting a few sentences together in reverse order is not a comparison to
> > > top posting.
> >
> > Yes, it is because that is exactly what top posting does.
>
> Nope. Different scale entirely. That's like saying re-arranging protons
> within a nucleus of an atom does not change the atom, but if you have a group
> of atoms, they can form different molecules with different properties
> depending on their arrangement.
If re-arranging the protons within a nucleus produces an atom that is
indistinguishable from the former one, how does one know he/she
actually re-arranged anything? And if it _is_ distinguishable, how
could one say that it "does not change the atom"?
Swapping sentences causes a more dramatic decrease in readability than
swapping paragraphs does (we could agree that the order goes something
like: letters > words > sentences > paragraphs). But swapping
paragraphs _does_ cause a decrease in readability. There is no excuse
for a 95% "performance" when 100% was easily attainable.
[snip]
> > > As to the "as /most/ points", I have yet to see anyone saying that show
> > > that they have the least insight into learning and perception styles and
> > > how different types of minds/personalities read and perceive information.
> >
> > This isn't about how different minds/personalities read and perceive
> > information. It is about how things are done, why they are done that way
> > and how one can LEARN to do it that way if one weren't lazy.
>
> Actually it is.
It is not. We are not patronizing parents trying to "cut the wings" of
the "creative children" who strive to communicate by means of a new,
and equally valid, paradigm.
We are trying to educate vandals who struggle to disrupt a consensed
way of communication, or ignorants who do so without being aware.
> I remember Harry Truman saying he never wanted to hear from
> experts because all experts were people that didn't want to learn anything
> more about their field, because if they did, they'd realize there was more to
> learn and they weren't an expert anymore.
I don't know of a single expert who thinks he/she knows everything
about a field. Invariantly, the ones who think so, are ignorants.
Nevertheless, this doesn't mean an expert can't know that he/she does
know a lot. Did then Truman follow the advice of laymen?
> The point I am making, which you
> are so quick to write off is that not all people learn and process data that
> way. It's not a point of being lazy. It is a point that different people
> learn and process in different ways. We can be open to that, or we can be
> closed minded about that.
Yes, you are 100% right: not all people process data the same way. Some
are dislexical, some are autistic, and some others are so far beyond
common intelligence, that we could hardly follow their thoughts with a
written guide.
But 99% of people (reading this list, speaking English) do read
following the same logical structures, from left to right, top to
bottom, answer follows question, effect follows cause. Disturbing such
an scheme annoys far more people than it intends (I don't doubt of your
good intention as much as you doubt of mine/ours) to "liberate".
> And before you come back with something about it
> being done only one way, go back and look over the history of science and
> computers and see how many breakthroughs or advances were made by the people
> who didn't think like everyeone else. Are we so good we should adopt policies
> that discourage such people?
If you want to make such a breakthrough, write to a
psychology/education/whatever journal, or to a relevant Usenet list.
I'll be the first one getting happy because a new and better
communication paradigm has been disclosed.
> But I suppose the point here is that it is more important to set rules and
> feel we are right than actually deal with life and people in that life as
> they are.
Yes. The point _is_ setting rules. There are some rules that make us
understand each other better than without them (languages, driving
rules, laws). Those rules should only be repealed when a better way is
found, not for the sake of it. Repealing a set of rules is merely a
step to apply a new set, not to promote anarchy.
And then, supporting the new set of rules would invariantly be
considered "close minded" again by some.
Basajaun
Reply to: