A philosophy professor justifies tough grade policy

[mickthinks]

Philosophy of Death | Yale Philosophy Lecture (http://academicearth.org/lectures/death-intro/)

This is the introductory talk Shelly Kagan gives to his Death class. He starts by explaining the course, which is probably of interest only to those with a penchant for that kind of thing (if you are one of them, the whole lecture series seems to be available on-line so "Enjoy!"). But 21 mins in he starts to talk about grading, and to defend himself against the complaint of being one of Yale's harsher graders. It reminded me of some of the things TLR has written, so I thought it was well worth sharing.

Mick

[erimir]

I'm assuming he's taking a stand against grade inflation.

I understand the desire to counteract grade inflation, however, a response to it would be best done as a university-wide policy, not by an individual professor. You don't want to just give out an average grade of C because you simply want the average to be C while other people want the average to be a B, but you also want other people to know that a C is an average grade. That is, presumably he's not just giving out lower grades because he wants to be harsh. But if you're one of only professors doing that, then other people will read the transcript and think that the student did poor work to earn a C, rather than average work.

[mickthinks]

I'm assuming he's ... That is, presumably he's ...

It's almost as if you are commenting without having listened, erimir. That's the way to get a failing grade.

[erimir]

You are correct, because I didn't want to wait for 21 minutes of video to load to simply hear a discussion of grade inflation that would probably be similar to ones I've heard before. Am I wrong in my assumption?

That's generally the reason given for comparatively harsh grading.

[mickthinks]

I didn't want to wait for 21 minutes of video to load ...

LOL Then it would have been wiser not to offer a deliberately uninformed opinion, I think. You look as if you are taking issue with me for the sake of it.

[Naru]

That's an interesting misreading, mick.

[ChuckF]

Shame, shame erimir, for offering a deliberately uninformed opinion, mickthinks thinks. What do you think this is, phonology?

Re: OP, tl;dw.

[mickthinks]

:wtf: Shame? Why should erimir be ashamed of his desire to venture an uninformed comment, MockF?

[ChuckF]

BECAUSE OF THE INTERNET DAMAGES!

[mickthinks]

Okay, I guess you don't have a serious point to make here, Chuck. Quelle surprise...

[ChuckF]

Oh, sorry, you get a failing grade.

[davidm]

For some people, the actual lectures might be more intresting than Mick's starting this thread for the sole purpose of troll baiting and launching another discussion about himself. The philosophy of death lectures are all available in both video and in transcripts, as are a whole bunch of other Yale courses. I've read most of them, including the philosophy of death lectures; it's very intresting stuff. They also have online courses in the American Civil War, 20th century and classical literature, physics, cosmology, the Old Testament, etc. Quite good. Yale lectures for free! Beats Mickthinks lectures!

[fragment]

FWIW mick doesn't seem to have started this thread as troll-bait, and erimir's assumption about grade inflation was sorta wrong, although mick's somewhat condescending responses and the chick'n'muck roadshow don't exactly do any favours for discussion.

Anyway, I thought the grading stuff was a bit interesting.

[livius drusus]

I thought it was interesting too. In the one Philo class I took in college, I definitely found paper-writing a very different discipline from writing the English and History essays I was accustomed to. I'm sure I would have got a C or two had my prof insisted on an excellent-good-satisfactory standard.

Thankfully it was a small class (maybe a half dozen students) with lots of direct interaction with the professor. No army of TAs cranking out grades for masses of papers.

I also found it interesting that the whole spiel was addressed to overachiever students accustomed to getting great grades with minimal effort, as opposed to TLR's experience, for instance, of underachieving students accustomed to getting passing grades with no effort.

[mickthinks]

... mick's somewhat condescending responses ...

Condescending how? I'm guessing fragment means "critical" - a different thing entirely.

[mickthinks]

For some people, the actual lectures might be more intresting than Mick's starting this thread for the sole purpose of troll baiting and launching another discussion about himself. The philosophy of death lectures are all available in both video and in transcripts, as are a whole bunch of other Yale courses. I've read most of them, including the philosophy of death lectures; it's very intresting stuff. They also have online courses in the American Civil War, 20th century and classical literature, physics, cosmology, the Old Testament, etc. Quite good. Yale lectures for free! Beats Mickthinks lectures!

LOL Your petty hatred is seeping through your wadded panties again, daveyboy. :wink:

[erimir]

I didn't want to wait for 21 minutes of video to load ...

LOL Then it would have been wiser not to offer a deliberately uninformed opinion, I think. You look as if you are taking issue with me for the sake of it.Why's that? I never claimed to have watched the video, and that is my opinion about grade inflation - it's better tackled at an institutional level than by individual professors. I was hoping that if I was wrong, it might be explained as to what was wrong with my assumption, and what he actually said without necessitating me watching 21 minutes of a lecture.

Furthermore, your OP doesn't really offer much in the way of your opinion:
But 21 mins in he starts to talk about grading, and to defend himself against the complaint of being one of Yale's harsher graders. It reminded me of some of the things TLR has written, so I thought it was well worth sharing....so I don't see why you would get the impression I was trying to contradict an opinion you never offered.
erimir's assumption about grade inflation was sorta wrongWould you care to explicate, having watched it?

[fragment]

To bounce off the university-wide policy thing you mentioned, he was saying that there is in fact a school-wide policy on what grades mean, he was marking to that, and people should interpret the grades on that basis - A is excellent, B is good, C is satisfactory. He only mentioned grade inflation when he was talking about how he'd tried to find out whether he did in fact grade harder than others and was told that information wasn't given out because it might encourage grade inflation. He also said a bunch of stuff about how writing philosophy papers is hard but you get better with practice, if you put the effort in your grades will get better, and if you show improvement they'll weight the later papers more in your final grade.

[livius drusus]

You don't have to watch the lecture. There's a transcript here (http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/content/transcripts/transcript01.html).

Other bits of business. I should say something about grades. Now many of you may have heard, many of you may know, and if you don't already know this, I should warn you, that I have a reputation around Yale as being a harsh grader. I know this is true, that is, I know I have the reputation, both because I periodically in my student evaluations get told I'm one of Yale's harsher graders, and because every now and then the Yale Daily News will have an article about grade inflation and they'll always ask me, "Well Professor Kagan is somebody..." Once there was a story on grade inflation that the Yale Daily News began by saying, "As Shelly Kagan (known at Yale as one of the hardest graders)." So I know I've got at least the reputation of being a hard grader. I don't actually know whether it's deserved or not, because Yale does not publish information about what the grading averages are. At other schools I've taught at there's been information along the lines of well the typical grade in an introductory course in the humanities is such and such. Shortly after I came here to Yale, and I started realizing that people thought I was a harder grader than most other Yale professors, I called the administration and asked, "Do you have this sort of information?" The answer is "Yes." "Will you give it to me?" The answer was "No." They don't share this information with the Yale faculty. Seems odd. The explanation, of course, actually isn't that hard to come by. The worry is that those of us who are harder graders than average, if the information were published, would feel guilty and sort of ease up on our grading. But those who are easier graders than average will never feel guilty and toughen up. So the result would be a constant push up with the grades. At any rate, I don't know for certainty that I'm a harder grader, but I believe that it's the case based on reactions I get when I give the speech that I'm about to give.

Okay, so [laughter]. When I open the blue book, the Yale guideline, the Yale catalog, it's got a page, as you all know, where it says what letter grades mean at Yale. I didn't actually bring it this year. Sometimes I do, but I've got it pretty much memorized. It says, for example, next to each letter grade what it means. B, for example, means good. A means excellent, C means satisfactory, D is passing, F is failing. B, let's start with B. B means good. Now the crucial question then is what does good mean? I take good to mean good. Consequently, [laughter] if you were to write a good paper for me, that would get a B. And when you get a B from me--now, I say me, this is the royal me. Because I won't actually be grading your papers. Your papers will be graded by a small army of TAs. But they will grade under my supervision, and in keeping with the standards that I ask them to grade with. So when you're pissed off about your grade, the person to take it up with--well, take it up with them. But eventually you'll want to take it up with me. So when you get a B from us, B doesn't mean what a piece of crap. B means good job! And so you should be pleased to get a B, because it meant you were doing good work and it's not easy to do good work in philosophy.

A means excellent. Now excellent does not mean publishable. Excellent does not mean you are God's gift to philosophy [laughter]. So it's crucial to understand it doesn't mean that the only way you're going to get an A is to be God's gift to philosophy. A means excellent work for a first class in philosophy. This is an introductory class. It does not presuppose any background in philosophy. Still, to get an A, you've got to show some flair for the subject. You've got to show not only have you understood the ideas that have been put forward in the readings and in the lectures and so forth, but you see how to sort of put them together in the paper in a way that shows you've got some aptitude here. You did it in a way that made us take note. That's what we try to reserve As for. Some of you will end up getting As, if not at the beginning, by the end of the semester. Many of you will end up getting Bs, if not at the beginning, by the end of the semester. Many of you will not start out doing good work. Many of you will start out doing satisfactory work or, truth be told, less than satisfactory work.

Now look, I was an undergraduate once. And I know what it is to write a typical undergraduate paper. You sit down the night before and you had a couple of ideas. You thought about it maybe for a half an hour. And you meant to get to it sooner, but you had a lot of other things to do. And you throw it off in a couple of hours and maybe stay up late. You know it's not the worst thing you ever wrote, and it's not the best thing you ever wrote, and it has a couple of nice ideas, but maybe it could be better. It's sort of a satisfactory job. Yale says satisfactory means C. So many of you will start off the semester writing that kind of paper.

And the fact of the matter is, some of you will start off writing worse papers than that. Because writing a philosophy paper is a difficult thing to learn how to do. It's exercising a set of muscles that a lot of you have not spent a lot of time exercising. Now it's not as though you haven't spent any time doing it. You've had bull sessions, right, with your high school friends or in your college dorm or what have you. But you haven't done it with the kind of discipline and rigor that we're looking for here. So, like anything else, it's a skill that gets better with practice. And what that means, of course, is you won't do as well at the beginning as you're likely to be doing toward the end. Some of you, unfortunately, won't do very good jobs at the beginning--and my TAs, I'll encourage them to be prepared to give Ds. If the vices of the paper significantly outweigh the virtues, that's a D. If the vices very significantly outweigh whatever virtues there are, that's some kind of an F. So the fact of the matter is many of you in your initial papers will get lower grades than you've probably ever gotten before in your life. I wanted to warn you about that.

Now I say this not so much to depress the hell out of you, but (a) partly to warn you, and (b) to make it clear that I believe that it's a skill. Writing a good philosophy paper is a skill and you can get better at it. Consequently, most of you will get better at it. So let me make the following remark. Officially, each paper--you have three five-page papers. Each paper is worth 25% of your grade, officially. But--the remaining 25% is discussion section; I'll get to that in a minute--officially, 25% of your grade is for each of the three papers. But if, over the course of the semester, you get better, then we will give, at the end of the semester, when we're figuring out your semester grade, we'll give the later, stronger papers more than their official weight. For many of you, the first paper will be clearly the worst paper you write. And then we'll just throw that grade away; give greater weight to the second and third papers. If the third paper is the strongest, we will give even more weight to the third paper. There's no formula here, a great deal depends on the overall pattern, what your TA tells me about how you've done over the course of the semester. But this policy of giving greater weight, if you show improvement, is something that most of you will benefit from. So if you end up not doing well, the moral of the story is not to go running off and dropping the class, but to figure out what you did right, what you didn't do right, how to make the second paper better and the third paper stronger, again. And if you do show improvement, that will very significantly influence and emerge in terms of the impact it has on your overall semester grade. Because of this policy, I don't actually know when all is said and done whether at the end of the semester I'm any harder, whether I depart from the average or not.

Let me quickly mention there's a fairly typical grade distribution for the overall grades of this, at the end of the semester. Roughly 25% of you are likely to end up with some kind of an A at the end of the semester. Fifty, 55% of you or so are likely to end up with some kind of a B. Twenty, 25% percent of you might end up with some sort of a C. Sometimes there's a couple of percent that end up worse than that. Unsurprisingly, you've got the ability to do decent work in this class and most of you have the ability to do good work, and some of you have, a fair chunk of you have, the ability to do excellent work, though it may take some work on your part to get to that point.

The last thing I should say about the grades is why do I do this? It's really I try to do it as a sign of respect for you. I know that may seem like a surprising thing to say when I've just sort of gone on my little gleeful amount about how I'm going to fail all of you [laughter], but it's worth my saying you guys are so smart. You're so talented. You've gotten so far on your ability that many of you have learned to coast. It's not doing you any kind of service to let you continue coasting. My goal here is to be honest with you, right? Look, you're smart enough probably most of you to pull off some sort of B without breaking into a sweat, or at least not a significant sweat. So be it. But it's just lying to you to pretend that that's excellence in philosophy. So what I want to do in this class is be honest with you and tell you, "You've really done work here to be extraordinarily proud of yourself" versus "Yeah, you've done something okay" or "You've done good work. Admittedly, it's not great, but you've done good work." All right, that's 75% of your grade is the papers.

The remaining 25% of your grade is based on discussion section. Now that's a lot of your grade to turn on discussion section. So the first thing I need to tell you is I really mean it. If you blow off discussion section, you're grade will suffer. So it's worth knowing in a general way what you need to do to earn a good grade in discussion section and here the answer is, perhaps the obvious one, you need to participate. You need to come to discussion sections having thought about the lectures, having done the readings, having thought about the questions that they raise, and you need to come to discussion section then prepared to discuss this week's set of issues. You need to listen to what your classmates are saying and say why you disagree with them. And not just that you disagree with them, but to raise an objection. Or why you agree with them. And when somebody else then attacks them, say, "Look, I think that what John was saying was a good point and here's how I think he should have defended his position," or what have you. You need to engage in philosophical discussion. If you're not participating in discussion section, you're not doing what the section is there for.

Philosophers love to talk and we love to argue. The way to get better at thinking about philosophy is by talking about philosophy. So I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I'm saying, "Look, yeah, that's an important part of the class. So important that it's going to be worth 25% of your grade." Again, it doesn't mean--this is slightly different from the papers--that you've got to be brilliant philosophically to get an A. Rather, you've got to be a wonderful class citizen to get an A for discussion section. So, as I put it, in fact I think I put it this way on the syllabus, participation--and here I mean respectful participation, not hogging the limelight--participation can improve your grade, but it won't lower your grade. Nonparticipation, or not being there, that will lower your participation grade. Any question about any of that?

[Clutch Munny]

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. In fact, if those stats are right about overall grade distributions in his class, it's hard to see how he's a tough grader in the final analysis. My own intro phil courses have often seen lower grades than that, and I am not persuaded that the first-year Yale student intake is much better than my university's.

[LadyShea]

Are most grade policies not based on some kind of system? Either a curve or points or percentages or something? I understand there is some level of subjectivity, but I fail to see why a "tough" grader would have to justify his system....unless it's not a system at all, but completely arbitrary.

Perhaps my not understanding is due to my not having attended University, but I don't get the controversy.

[livius drusus]

This professor uses a basic A = excellent, B = good, C = satisfactory, D = passing, F = failing system, which is the general Yale standard. Of course there's some subjectivity involved in the assessment, but I don't think a points or percentages system would be effective grading philosophy essays and discussions, because it's not so easily quantifiable.

I suspect the controversy lies in the fact that a bunch of high school valedictorians might encounter their first C, D, F grades ever in his class, ergo they see the professor as a tough grader instead of the discipline as a whole new kind of challenge that takes some practice to excel at.

[LadyShea]

Thanks liv :)

[BDS]

If the Yalies would stop worrying about getting straight "A"s, nobody would care. If the "gentleman C" was good enough for the parents, it should be good enough for the legacies.

[mickthinks]

I don't see why you would get the impression I was trying to contradict an opinion you never offered.
Really? Consider:
... so I thought it was well worth sharing.
... I didn't want to wait for 21 minutes of video to load to simply hear a discussion of grade inflation that would probably be similar to ones I've heard before.
There's none so blind as those who won't see.

[Kael]

OMG, the internet is a mirror! :freakout:

Wait... wrong poster...

[erimir]

I don't see why you would get the impression I was trying to contradict an opinion you never offered.
Really? Consider:
... so I thought it was well worth sharing.
... I didn't want to wait for 21 minutes of video to load to simply hear a discussion of grade inflation that would probably be similar to ones I've heard before.
There's none so blind as those who won't see.Did I say it wasn't worth sharing?

I read the transcript of it, and it was somewhat interesting (interesting enough for me to read the whole thing). I just don't feel like waiting a long time for a long video to load on my crappy computer. You read too much into things.

[mickthinks]

:orly:

You think I should have taken your cavilling at a point Kagan hadn't made and your "I didn't want to wait for 21 minutes of video to load to simply hear a discussion of grade inflation that would probably be similar to ones I've heard before" as you endorsing my opinion that Kagan's views were worth sharing?

[Kael]

That's a strange reading, mick. Do you not think it possible, indeed likely, that he meant that comment as neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of your opinion on the matter?

[erimir]

:orly:

You think I should have taken your cavilling at a point Kagan hadn't made and your "I didn't want to wait for 21 minutes of video to load to simply hear a discussion of grade inflation that would probably be similar to ones I've heard before" as you endorsing my opinion that Kagan's views were worth sharing?No?

It wasn't a comment on your opinion on whether his views were worth sharing at all.

It's not all about you, you know.

[mickthinks]

Do you not think it possible, indeed likely, that he meant that comment as neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of your opinion on the matter?

You are suggesting erimir didn't realise that knocking Kagan's view was knocking my approval of it? It's possible I suppose, if he understands little or nothing about the social nuances of communication.

It wasn't a comment on your opinion on whether his views were worth sharing at all.

Indirectly it was. I guess you just can't see that.

[erimir]

You are suggesting erimir didn't realise that knocking Kagan's view was knocking my approval of it?I can agree that something is worth sharing without agreeing completely with the position taken in that something. Even according to my assumption (that he was talking about grade inflation and trying to counteract it) I wasn't in total disagreement - I didn't disagree that there's a reason to be concerned about it, for example. I was just expressing my opinion about how one should go about counteracting grade inflation.

If you had posted the transcript, I would've read it (I did read it, when posted). I think it was worth sharing - in that more convenient form. At least as far as the discussion of grades. The discussion of philosophy may or may not be interesting, I didn't look into it.

Given that there was very little in the way of explanation of what the professor's views were in your OP (other than it was an explanation of harsh grading), I wouldn't be commenting on whether it was worth sharing by not watching it. In fact, the reason I didn't want to bother waiting for the video was because I didn't know whether it was worth that much effort to watch.

I guess what you're picking up is that an endorsement from you as to something being interesting (with few details to give me any idea of how new the information would be) is not enough to get me to assume that it was worth the effort. But nevertheless, that's not the same as claiming that it wasn't worth sharing.
It's possible I suppose, if he understands little or nothing about the social nuances of communication.:ironymeter:x100
It wasn't a comment on your opinion on whether his views were worth sharing at all.Indirectly it was. I guess you just can't see that.Are you a psychic now, mick?

It was not meant as a comment on you at all. You are seeing things that aren't there.

I considered not posting my first response, because I wasn't sure whether this would happen or not. But yet again, you are more interested in discussing yourself, and whether I was trying to slight you, than in discussing what is ostensibly the topic of the thread.

[LadyShea]

Mick you gave no details, and erimir didn't want to watch a video. As he has had discussions on "tough grading policy" in the past, he brought some assumptions to the table based on those past discussions. That is normal in informal communication.

He didn't dis you or whatever it is you are bitching about now.

How about, instead of making this another thread demonstrating that Mick Sucks, you admit that your OP offered nothing about you to discuss. You didn't posit any opinion except that the video was "worth sharing". You didn't say you agreed or disagreed with the professor, or what your own thoughts on grading policy are, or summarize the video for those of us who dislike or can't use that medium, or anything like that.

[mickthinks]

I haven't turned this thread into an argument. erimir did that when he posted a criticism of something he knew nothing about and then tried to defend himself against my criticism of his appetite for criticism.

You didn't posit any opinion except that the video was "worth sharing".
I think that counts as an opinion. I haven't claimed to have posted more than one opinion here.

He didn't dis you or whatever it is you are bitching about now.
LOL Two people are arguing here - how do you decide which one is bitching and which is the victim of bitching?

... erimir didn't want to watch a video.
Exactly! This is a thread about a video I think is worth watching, and erimir decided he could criticise it without watching it. I think that was a dumb choice and I think he, Chuck, Kael, and now you should stop trying to defend it.

[LadyShea]

You are the one who is bitching, Mick. You are the one who took umbrage at erimir bringing his opinions based on past discussions of the topic of grading policy to the current discussion.

criticism of something he knew nothing about

He admittedly knew nothing about the specific argument or claims made in the video, so he mentioned his past conclusions on the general topic of grading policy....this is a valid way to open or expand a discussion, Mick.

[mickthinks]

You are the one who is bitching, Mick. You are the one who took umbrage ...
I'm offering what I think is valid criticism, and you are painting it as if that were a bad thing which erimir doesn't deserve. If by 'bitching' and 'taking umbrage' you mean any kind of criticism, then you are doing it too and with less justification.

He admittedly knew nothing about the specific argument or claims made in the video ...
And, as you say, he didn't want to know, yet he wanted to criticise. I think that appetite for criticism is remarkable.

[LadyShea]

Look Mick, after erimir stated he hadn't watched the video, but then offered some points made by others in his experience, you could have answered something like "In this video he says XYZ, so it is different than (or similar to or whatever) the arguments you have heard in the past in these specific ways" or "He made some unique points such as A, B, and C" or "I feel his point about X was interesting because....". These are ways in which most people would have responded to further discussion.

Did you read the brief exchange between livius and I? I admitted to having assumptions based on nothing, she explained her opinion to me using examples I would have experience with (high ability students being challenged for the first time), because she is a good communicator. She didn't criticize me for stating my admittedly uninformed opinion...she gave me information.

[erimir]

Exactly! This is a thread about a video I think is worth watching, and erimir decided he could criticise it without watching it. I think that was a dumb choice and I think he, Chuck, Kael, and now you should stop trying to defend it.Did I say that I thought that the professor was dumb? I was offering my opinion on grade inflation, while admitting that I was merely assuming that was his opinion. I wasn't criticizing the video or saying it was stupid.

And the thread is about a small section of an hour-long video that doesn't allow you to skip directly to the point of interest. It is not about the whole video. Ergo I didn't feel like loading a whole video on a slow connection just to get to a 4 minute discussion of grading policy when you gave me no information about it to let me know whether it was worth that trouble. It's not that I didn't want to know, which is how you are dishonestly characterizing me. I appreciated the transcript that liv posted, and read the whole thing.

If you had posted a video of simply the discussion of grading policy, it would've been different.

But you can't ever just discuss something, unless that discussion takes place within the strict parameters that you apparently require. If it's not within those parameters, then the thread has to be all about who violated them and how, and why this is a demonstration that they're making the thread about how "mick sucks." The thing you don't seem to be able to get is that not everyone operates within those same parameters, and that has nothing to do with you. I don't really give a shit about that, and if you wanted to discuss the grading policy, I would. But you apparently don't.

[mickthinks]

Ladyshea

Your main point now seems to be that I could have made allowances for erimir's poor judgement, presumably on some grounds such as he's young and doesn't know any better. Now THAT would have been condescending, which is sufficient reason for me not to do it.

livius didn't criticize you for stating your admittedly uninformed opinion, and neither would I. The difference between your opinion and erimir's was that his was a criticism of something someone had said in a video he hadn't seen, after I'd recommended it to any who were interested. I think that was a pretty dumb thing to do and I think it is okay for me to say that.

Mick
... after erimir stated he hadn't watched the video,...
He didn't actually make any such statement before commenting on what he hadn't seen. It would help our communications if you didn't misrepresent him like that.

[Naru]

... after erimir stated he hadn't watched the video,...
He didn't actually make any such statement before commenting on what he hadn't seen. It would help our communications if you didn't misrepresent him like that.

I'm assuming he's taking a stand against grade inflation.

lol reading comprehension

It would help our communications if you weren't an idiot.

[mickthinks]

Did I say that I thought that the professor was dumb?

No, you didn't - you just thought you could take issue with him without watching the video and as a result you. That was a dumb thing to do.

It's not that I didn't want to know, which is how you are dishonestly characterizing me.
I don't think LS was being dishonest here:
Mick you gave no details, and erimir didn't want to watch a video.

But you can't ever just discuss something, unless that discussion takes place within the strict parameters that you apparently require.
That's untrue, dude. I'm interested in criticising you for your rather arrogant assumption that you have a valuable opinion to offer without even listening to the other side. You seem to think it's okay for you to criticise out of ignorance. Communication doesn't work like that and you should know that better than most, I think.

Mick

[LadyShea]

Your main point now seems to be that I could have made allowances for erimir's poor judgement

Nope, my main point is that you could have run with the general discussion on grade inflation anyway, since erimir hadn't watched the video and you hadn't offered any specific points of interest to more closely examine. Or, you could have brought it back to topic my mentioning how his assumption was right/wrong. As is, you still haven't said what it was in the video you found worth watching, nor offered your opinions or thoughts on the content.

presumably on some grounds such as he's young and doesn't know any better

That's a ridiculous presumption

Now THAT would have been condescending, which is sufficient reason for me not to do it.

Nobody suggested you do that

The difference between your opinion and erimir's was that his was a criticism of something someone had said in a video he hadn't seen

This is where I see it as your comprehension problem. He discussed grade inflation after assuming that was the topic of the video. He didn't specifically criticize that speaker in that video.

after I'd recommended it to any who were interested. I think that was a pretty dumb thing to do and I think it is okay for me to say that.

Okay you said it, now how about discussing the topic? What specific points in the video did you find interesting? What are your thoughts on those points?


Mick
... after erimir stated he hadn't watched the video,...
He didn't actually make any such statement before commenting on what he hadn't seen. It would help our communications if you didn't misrepresent him like that.

He said "I'm assuming he's taking a stand against grade inflation." I read that as "I am assuming because I didn't watch it". You read it that way too since you pointed it out the next post.

Why not steer the discussion the way you want? I offered several ways you could have taken that assumption and brought it back to topic easily, instead we are down to another session of discussing discussion.

[mickthinks]

Naruto, your inability to distinguish between statement and implication makes one of us look like an idiot.

[Naru]

Naruto, your inability to distinguish between statement and implication makes one of us look like an idiot.

:roflmao:

[mickthinks]

Nope, my main point is that you could have run with the general discussion on grade inflation anyway.
Yes, but that would mean ignoring erimir's rather arrogant mistake. I'm more interested in discussing that new issue. You seem to be criticising my preference on the grounds that other choices are possible.

That's a ridiculous presumption ...
Not given the premise that I should make an allowance for erimir's dumb choice. What would be grounds for such an allowance in your opinion?

He didn't specifically criticize that speaker in that video.
I see that as your comprehension problem. He took issue with a view that he put into the mouth of Professor Kagan. I think that counts as a specific criticism of the Professor's comments on grading.

Why not steer the discussion the way you want?
You seem to be assuming that I don't want to discuss erimir's dumb choice and your attempts to defend him. That would be a ridiculous presumption, LS

Mick

[LadyShea]

So, you are far more interested in judging and berating people than talking about your own actual thread topic. Noted.

[mickthinks]

Just now I am far more interested in discussing whether criticising erimir is okay, yes. And you seem to be anxious to discuss that too. Why would that be a problem?

[Crumb]

Because supposedly you started the thread to discuss a completely different topic, and people that actually want to discuss the topic would generally ignore or minimize the attention given to distractions. You however never fail to highlight and dwell on every distraction as if the distractions themselves were the entire point in your starting the thread.

[mickthinks]

Because supposedly you started the thread to discuss a completely different topic,...
You are wrong about that, Crumbo. But even if you were right, that still wouldn't be a problem.

... and people that actually want to discuss the topic would generally ignore or minimize the attention given to distractions
... or maybe discourage the distractor by calling them on it, particularly if they thought that might lead the distractor to think twice in future.

You however never fail to highlight and dwell on every distraction as if the distractions themselves were the entire point in your starting the thread.
This is false too, but even if it were true, I don't see that it would present a problem. The point of my starting the thread and the point of my taking issue with the quality of erimir's contribution needn't be the same.

Mick

[Naru]

You are wrong about that, Crumbo. But even if you were right, that still wouldn't be a problem.


This made me think of Columbo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbo_%28TV_series%29) and is thus more of a namecompliment than a nameburn.

[Crumb]

Because supposedly you started the thread to discuss a completely different topic,...
You are wrong about that, Crumbo. But even if you were right, that still wouldn't be a problem.
You created this thread to talk about how erimir would respond to the OP this thread? :chin:

... and people that actually want to discuss the topic would generally ignore or minimize the attention given to distractions
... or maybe discourage the distractor by calling them on it, particularly if they thought that might lead the distractor to think twice in future.
And how is that working out for you?

You however never fail to highlight and dwell on every distraction as if the distractions themselves were the entire point in your starting the thread.
This is false too, but even if it were true, I don't see that it would present a problem. The point of my starting the thread and the point of my taking issue with the quality of erimir's contribution needn't be the same.
But in your response above you implied that they were. It just seems odd that if you really wanted to discuss the thread topic that you would cause a complete derailment. It leads one to wonder if you really care about the topic of the thread at all.

[erimir]

The difference between your opinion and erimir's was that his was a criticism of something someone had said in a video he hadn't seen, after I'd recommended it to any who were interested.I already explained that it was my opinion on grade inflation, assuming that was what his discussion was. And, it seems that my points would mostly still stand even after reading the transcript, so I don't think my assumption was far off. I did not suggest that I knew that's what he said. And even if that wasn't what he said, I still thought that it would be relevant to the discussion, although it would stand in a different relation to what he said (an assumption that turned out to be correct!).
I think that was a pretty dumb thing to do and I think it is okay for me to say that.Stupid? I was fully aware that I was commenting on it without watching it. You might find it rude or arrogant (I don't), but I really don't see what's stupid about it, except for being stupid enough to think you'd actually want to discuss the topic of your thread.
He didn't actually make any such statement before commenting on what he hadn't seen. It would help our communications if you didn't misrepresent him like that.As Naruto pointed out, my post made it clear that I had not watched it.

The fact that you seem to think that making a clear implicature is completely different from stating something makes one of us look like an idiot. (Hint: it's not me.) It was clear from my post that I hadn't watched it. And you picked up on it immediately as well. So I don't see what your supposed problem there would be.
No, you didn't - you just thought you could take issue with him without watching the video and as a result you. That was a dumb thing to do.I thought I could contribute to a discussion on grading policy and grade inflation without watching the video. The only dumb thing, as I said, was assuming that you would actually want to discuss the ostensible topic of your own thread.
It's not that I didn't want to know, which is how you are dishonestly characterizing me.
I don't think LS was being dishonest here:
Mick you gave no details, and erimir didn't want to watch a video. Not wanting to watch an hour long video, and not wanting to know what he said about grading policies are not the same thing. What you said is not equivalent to what LadyShea said, but nice attempt at sowing discord.
But you can't ever just discuss something, unless that discussion takes place within the strict parameters that you apparently require.
That's untrue, dude. I'm interested in criticising you for your rather arrogant assumption that you have a valuable opinion to offer without even listening to the other side.What's wrong with the opinion I gave? I do think I had something of value to contribute.

Of course, you haven't actually criticized the content of my contribution, just the fact that I made it before watching the video. I'm afraid for you to actually be correct in labeling it as arrogant to think that my opinion was valuable, you would have to show that the content of it was worthless, not just that it was offered before watching the video.
You seem to think it's okay for you to criticise out of ignorance.I was criticizing what I know is a common argument made in favor of harsh grading policies. I am not ignorant of that argument. I did not know whether that was the argument he was making, which I made clear in my post, so to take it as a criticism of him specifically is just silly.
Communication doesn't work like that and you should know that better than most, I think.Ha. Why should I know better than most? I'm curious to know why you think that is.
Yes, but that would mean ignoring erimir's rather arrogant mistake. I'm more interested in discussing that new issue. You seem to be criticising my preference on the grounds that other choices are possible.It's almost as if threads you start are merely opportunities for you to find something to criticize about other posters, rather than attempts to discuss the ostensible topic of your threads.
He took issue with a view that he put into the mouth of Professor Kagan. I think that counts as a specific criticism of the Professor's comments on grading.I think that's your comprehension problem.
You seem to be assuming that I don't want to discuss erimir's dumb choice and your attempts to defend him. That would be a ridiculous presumption, LS.How ridiculous to presume that something worth sharing is something worth discussing!

I guess you can't have thought it was worth that much, if a supposed faux pas by me is a far more interesting topic. Which begs the question of why you are so bothered by me supposedly implying that it wasn't worth sharing.

ETA: btw, if you ever do want to discuss what the professor actually said, I'm up for that. But I doubt that would happen, as it would require dropping this discussion. Something I have no problem with, but something that you would never do until everyone's exhausted with your tedium (and sometimes not even then, as evidenced by your repeated thread necromancies).

[BDS]

P1: Making kids happy is a good thing.
P2: Most kids are slightly happier if they get an "A" instead of a "C".

Conclusion: Grade inflation is a good thing.

Of course it is possible that: 1) Kids are happier getting "A"s when fewer people get them, so grade inflation doesn't really increase overall happiness; or 2) Hard grading influences kids to learn more stuff, which will make them happier in the long run; or 3) hard grading makes it easier to judge which kids are better socialized and smart, so hiring and admission to grad school is more accurate and society benefits overall.

However, I don't buy any of the above possibilities. Therefore, I support grade inflation.

[ceptimus]

How about:

1. Politicians set targets for exam results
2. Schools and colleges are given incentives to meet or exceed said targets
3. Therefore grade inflation occurs
4. Eventually, employers and academic institutions find that they can't differentiate between mediocre, good, and excellent applicants (they all have straight A's)
5. The institutions lobby for a new form of examination with more useful grading
6. The new exams are introduced
7. Repeat from step 1.

I always thought the best system would be where the grades reflected your performance compared to your peers - an A grade could mean that you scored in the top 5% of all those taking the same course at the same time - a B grade might mean you were in the top 20%, and so on. These grades would be much more useful to employers as there would be no need to take into account grade inflation when assessing candidates of different ages.

As long as a statistically significant number of people were taking the exams/courses then it would be self regulating.

[erimir]

Well, then the issue becomes standardized testing, and whether that's good for students or not.

And how do you compare different schools, if they're using different tests, etc. A top student in one school, or one class, might be a middling student somewhere else.

[ceptimus]

I'm assuming that all the schools are using the same tests.

[davidm]

New Mickthinks Thread Causes Internet Traffic Jam and Prompts Warning from Obama

FREETHOUGHT FORUM, Oct. 30 (Internet News Service) — The World Wide Web slowed to a crawl on Friday as users all over the world tried to access a new thread by Mickthinks at the Freethought Forum.

Servers crashed, monitors froze and even cable connections were reported to be sluggish from the online traffic jam centered around the postings of an Internet martyr who is famous for battling the social damage agenda advanced by his adversaries while stoically enduring their mob-like assaults on his integrity.

The long-awaited new thread, “A Philosophy Professor Justifies Tough Grade Policy,” was initially met with disappointment and even anger by some lurkers, who at first mistakenly assumed that Mickthinks was attempting to foster a discussion about a topic other than himself and his relationship with other posters.

In the thread’s opening post, Mickthinks used the words “I” and “me” only one time each, failed to employ green type and even spoke of “sharing” his thoughts with others.

“What the fuck is this shit?” said Abasiama Nwambo, 26, at an Internet cafe in Lagos, Nigeria, where had had spent three months’ earnings from his job breaking rocks to buy time on the Internet to read the new thread. “If I had known he was going to go on about some dumb-ass Yale professor instead of himself, I would have used this money to feed my kids.”

Analysts agreed, however, that despite his slow start, Mickthinks rapidly made up ground.

In only his second post in the thread, the Internet martyr insulted the thread’s only respondent to that point and also quoted him out of context in green type. In Mickthink’s third post, he said, “LOL,” and maligned the motives of his interlocutor.

“That’s more like it,” said Florence Jellem, 67, a grandmother in Terre Haute, Ind., who is an avid online follower of Mickthinks. “If it weren’t for Mickthinks and the Internet, I’d have to spend my time playing Bingo with the silly old bitches down at the VFW community hall. Go, Mickthinks! Yee haw!”

In subsequent posts Mickthinks, returning to the form for which he is famous, intoned “there are none so blind as those who won’t see” and upbraided another poster for understanding “little or nothing about the social nuances of communication,” a comment that Mrs. Jellem later sheepishly admitted caused her to lose bladder control from laughter. “It’s a good thing I wear adult diapers,” she added.

In Washington, a somber President Obama announced that the new message from Mickthinks “shows that we can never let down our guard, and that we must do everything in our power to promote peaceful co-existence on the Internet.”

The president is currently considering a request from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of the Internet Security Assistance Force (ISAF), for an additional 40,000 posters to join the battle against Mickthinks at the Freethought Forum. If the president grants the request, the Freethought Forum would for the first time have more active members than smilies, a state of affairs that military experts believe is crucial to the success of any counterinsurgency campaign on the World Wide Web.

Late on Friday, Mr. Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, ordered a drone missile strike on the Freethought Forum server. The missile went astray, however, and killed 67 lurkers, many of them women and children, who were gathered around computer screens for the online wedding and reception of a friend.

[BDS]

I think we should invite Florence Jellum to be a regular contributor. Very funny, David.

[davidm]

I'm afraid Flo Jellem is occupied at another forum, defending intelligent design and discoursing on the proper preparation of a cheese :sammich:

[mickthinks]

I think we should invite Florence Jellum to be a regular contributor. Very funny, David.
LOL Yep lil' David has a habit of making shit up as a way of getting even ...

[ChuckF]

:lol:

[mickthinks]

You created this thread to talk about how erimir would respond to the OP this thread? :chin:
... that still wouldn't be a problem.

And how is that working out for you? Fine so far, thanks! :thumbsup:

It just seems odd that if you really wanted to discuss the thread topic that you would cause a complete derailment. It leads one to wonder if you really care about the topic of the thread at all.
I haven't caused the derailment, I've just gone with it. It is more important to me that Shelly Kagan's ideas are added to the mix than anything I might say on the issue. You still haven't identified what you think is LadyShea's problem, Crumbo. Have you forgotten that was supposed to be your point?

[mickthinks]

I think we should invite Florence Jellum to be a regular contributor. Very funny, David.
LOL Yep lil' David has a habit of making shit up as a way of getting even ...

:lol:
But MockF just posts a smilie. :shrug:

[ChuckF]

MockF
Is this another one of your anti-Semitic slurs?
posts a smilie
Oh sorry, I forgot to put it in a form you will understand. :lol:@davidm.story

[mickthinks]

MockF
Is this another one of your anti-Semitic slurs?
posts a smilieOh sorry, I forgot to put it in a form you will understand. :lol:@davidm.story
:wtfsign: Is there one of your hilarious burns in there, MockF?

[ChuckF]

MockF
Is this another one of your anti-Semitic slurs?
posts a smilieOh sorry, I forgot to put it in a form you will understand. :lol:@davidm.story
:wtfsign: Is there one of your hilarious burns in there, MockF?
Thanks for taking an interest, mickthinks, but you haven't actually offered an answer. It may be difficult to say whether you're using yet another anti-Semitic slur (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=750022&postcount=17), but ":wtfsign: Is there one of your hilarious burns in there, MockF?" isn't really any kind of attempt. Can you not say whether or not "MockF" is another of your anti-Semitic slurs? I think it's a fair question.

It's ok, I don't expect you to answer, because I don't think you have the moral courage to own up to your overt anti-Semitism. You'll say any old shit to avoid being held accountable.

[mickthinks]

MockF
Is this another one of your anti-Semitic slurs?
posts a smilieOh sorry, I forgot to put it in a form you will understand. :lol:@davidm.story
:wtfsign: Is there one of your hilarious burns in there, MockF?
Thanks for taking an interest, mickthinks, but you haven't actually offered an answer. It may be difficult to say whether you're using yet another anti-Semitic slur (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=750022&postcount=17), but ":wtfsign: Is there one of your hilarious burns in there, MockF?" isn't really any kind of attempt. Can you not say whether or not "MockF" is another of your anti-Semitic slurs? I think it's a fair question.

It's ok, I don't expect you to answer, because I don't think you have the moral courage to own up to your overt anti-Semitism. You'll say any old shit to avoid being held accountable.
:yawn: You just jumped the shark, man.

[Crumb]

Oh, I'm sorry I lost my point. Can you kindly inform me what my point in this post is supposed to be?

[mickthinks]

Oh, I'm sorry I lost my point. Can you kindly inform me what my point in this post is supposed to be?
:? Sorry mate, maybe Chuck can help you?

[Leesifer]

wb to :ff: mick

[ChuckF]

It's ok, I don't expect you to answer, because I don't think you have the moral courage to own up to your overt anti-Semitism. You'll say any old shit to avoid being held accountable.
See? Told you.

[Brimshack]

The Mickthinks Conundrum:

When contemplating a response to someone who has so utterly misread a prior post as to raise real questions about their intelligence, honesty, or mental health, one must weigh carefully the prospective pleasure of shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel against the likely frustration brought on by dealing with yet another blatant misreading of still another post.

[davidm]

Hijack Hijinks! Internet Troll Hijacks Own Thread; Obama Orders It Shot Down

FREETHOUGHT FORUM.COM, Oct. 31 (Internet News Service) — In an episode that veteran Internet analysts described as “unprecedented,” “wacky” and “absurd,” an Internet troll recently hijacked his own thread and then, on Saturday, apparently tried to fly it into an office building in Terre Haute, Ind.

President Obama ordered the hijacked thread shot down, but the drone missile strike missed the flying thread and instead landed about 7,000 miles off target in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where it killed a wedding party of 74 people, many of them women and children.

The hijacked thread then missed its own apparent target, the Sycamore Building, Terre Haute’s tallest skyscraper, and was last seen cruising somewhere out above the Pacific ocean, engulfed in a cloud of venom, ridicule, sighs, weeping and laughter.

The wacky events, accompanied throughout by zany carnival music and Three Stooges-like bopping and boinking, began Oct. 24, when Mickthinks, a longtime Internet troll, started a seemingly innocuous thread about the grading policies of a Yale philosophy professor.

But in his very next post Mickthinks hijacked his own thread, responding to another poster with his trademark grotesque green type and sarcasm about his interlocutor’s “failing grade.”

“Honestly, I can’t remember a troll hijacking his own thread,” said E. Mota Khan, an Internet message board analyst with the RAND Corporation. “The whole point of trolling is to hijack somebody else’s thread, not your own.”

Dr. Khan added: “This is like the pilot of an airplane holding a gun to his head and ordering himself to fly to Cuba.”

The thread drifted aimlessly about for several days, until the self-hijacker apparently took aim at Terre Haute, for unknown reasons.

Florence Jellem, 67, a Terre Haute resident and retired home economics instructor, said that she was preparing a cheese :sammich: when she saw the thread go sailing past the front window of her home.

“It headed straight downtown like a bat out of hell for the Sycamore Building,” a visibly excited Jellem recounted. “We don’t often get much excitement here in Terre Haute, dear. If it weren’t for the Internet and the occasional hijacked message board thread flying by my front window, I’d have to spend my time playing Bingo with a bunch of silly old bitches down at the VFW community center.”

After the failed attempt to shoot down the wayward thread, a somber President Obama, speaking from the White House, said that someone had to pay the price for the brazen attack on Terre Haute.

“And the people to pay the price might just as well be a wedding party in Kandahar, Afghanistan, particularly one with a lot of women and children involved” the Nobel Peace Prize winner added.

[Alex]

Looks like Mick might need the wit of Pope, Dryden, and Swift combined to dampen this squib ^

[mickthinks]

The Brimshack Conundrum:

There is no way to tell the difference between a misreading and an insight you can't understand.

[mickthinks]

Creative Genius Gets Down and Dirty

FREETHOUGHT FORUM.COM, Nov. 3 (Internet News Service) — In a bizarre episode right out of one of his own stories, davidm, one of the Internet's greatest writers of imaginative fiction, was today found in the middle of Times Square mired in a pile of his own faeces.

As a cheering crowd looked on, he smeared sidewalk, shopfronts, and parked cars with his excrement in what he described as "an act of revenge against my enemies".

Fire crews hosed the famous novellist down before Office Dibble of the NYPD reluctantly took him into custody. As he was led away observers witnessed davidm pull a last defiant finger from his anus and stick it in his mouth declaring "I can taste the pure genius."

President Obama was unavailable for comment.

[Alex]

^ Something like Jonathan Swift's coprophilia is well worked into this little satire. :yup:

[mickthinks]

I did not suggest that I knew that's what he said.
No, you just criticised what you mistakenly assumed he'd said. If you had no way of knowing what he'd said that mistake would be easier to understand. But refusing to watch the video of the professor's ideas, but criticising your false version of them anyway - I think that was pretty dumb and I think it is okay for me to say that.

Not wanting to watch an hour long video, and not wanting to know what he said about grading policies are not the same thing.
The former is strong evidence of the latter, I think. I'm not saying you were dumb not to watch the video. What was dumb was commenting on it without bothering to watch it.

What's wrong with the opinion I gave?
It ascribed to Professor Kagan a view that he hasn't expressed. You seem to think it's okay for you to criticise someone's ideas without listening to them.

Mick
ETA: btw, if you ever do want to discuss what the professor actually said, I'm up for that. But I doubt that would happen, as it would require dropping this discussion.
That's just self-serving nonsense, erimir. We can have both discussions if you want.

[Kael]

:ohsnap:

[Brimshack]

The Brimshack Conundrum:

There is no way to tell the difference between a misreading and an insight you can't understand.

Ah, you're heart just isn't in it. 4.5, maybe a 6 at best.

[davidm]

Zany, Wacky, Wild Self-Hijacked Thread Drifts Toward East Coast; Obama Vows ‘Afghans to Pay’

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM, Nov. 3 (Internet News Service) -- An Internet message-board thread hijacked nearly two weeks ago by its own author was spotted Tuesday drifting toward the East Coast of the United States, in the general direction of Washington, D.C.

A somber President Obama, speaking at the White House, said that any attack by the hijacker of the thread on the nation’s capital would be met with “a swift, sure and devastating response against a wedding party in Afghanistan, preferably one with a lot of innocent women and children involved.”

“Make no mistake,” the president said. “In case of an attack on the United States, people not involved in it will pay a heavy price for it, a policy to which the United States has adhered since Sept. 11, 2001.”

The thread, “A Philosophy Professor Justifies Tough Grade Policy,” was started Oct. 24 at the Freethought-Forum by Mickthinks, a veteran message board troll. Two posts later, Mickthinks hijacked his own thread, a maneuver that longtime message-board analysts described as “weird,” “wonky,” and “way-out wacky.”

Witnesses said that on Saturday, Mickthinks attempted for unknown reasons to steer the thread into the Sycamore Building in Terre Haute, Ind., but missed. The thread then drifted aimlessly over the western United States and out over the Pacific Ocean, accompanied by wacky carnival music and repeated cries of, “Ooo! Wise guy, eh? Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk!” Witnesses reported repeated episodes of eye-gouging, face slapping and hair-pulling.

“Please help us!” a passenger on the hijacked thread said Tuesday via cellphone. “This lunatic is babbling about how he’s on someone’s ‘enemies’ list,’ and that this person wants to ‘get even’ with him. In his boundless narcissism, Mickthinks can’t seem to understand that the person in question couldn’t care less about him, except as an irresistible target of satire, ridicule and general fun.”

Chuff chuff chuff! the thread said Monday as it weaved erratically over Europe, on a course for the Atlantic Ocean. Chuff chuff chuff! It emitted garish green exhaust fumes that turned into skywriting: “It’s just an idea,” the skywritten words said, and, “not cool not big not clever.”

Experts puzzled over how the thread could stay aloft for nearly two weeks without a single refueling stop. But E. Mota Khan, a message board analyst with the RAND Corporation, said, “The thread is fueled by high-octane vitriol, lack of self-knowledge and self-pity, the kind of fuel that never runs low.”

[seebs]

Actually, it's pretty easy to tell a misreading from an insight you can't understand in many cases -- you can do careful analysis, ask people followup questions, and more.

Or you can just note that you have a participant who consistently misreads things and has an incredibly hard time admitting errors, and be done.

[mickthinks]

... a participant who consistently misreads things and has an incredibly hard time admitting errors ...

LOL Like this, seebs?

... I've been using the theory of "mickthinks is autistic" as a way to support his arguments -- showing that he's making claims which could be sincere, honest, and supported by data.

Every newcomer who comes to this tries to engage you a bit, gets turned off by painfully obvious misinterpretations, and writes you off as a kook.

The problem, mick, is that you have no evidence to suggest that you have presented arguments in a way persuasive to anyone but yourself.

Some of mickthinks' arguments have been persuasive to me.

It's been six months and you'd still rather pretend you have my posts and threads on <Ignore> than admit those errors.

[Adam]

Look everybody, it's mickthinks! And he's doin' stuff!

Speaking of quotes from old threads...

Can you not say whether or not you think that you laughing at billsout to his virtual face...was less hurtful than others laughing at the fashion choices of strangers who do not read :ff:?

:popcorn:

[erimir]

I did not suggest that I knew that's what he said.
No, you just criticised what you mistakenly assumed he'd said. If you had no way of knowing what he'd said that mistake would be easier to understand. But refusing to watch the video of the professor's ideas, but criticising your false version of them anyway - I think that was pretty dumb and I think it is okay for me to say that.It wasn't a "false version" because I admitted that I didn't know whether that was what he said.
The former is strong evidence of the latter, I think. I'm not saying you were dumb not to watch the video. What was dumb was commenting on it without bothering to watch it.And it just so happens that it's not true. It's not incontrovertible evidence. I'll be honest, I don't value your opinion enough to put the effort in to load an hour long video based on your recommendation that it will be interesting (given that, as I said, a lot of the time the discussion will be similar to those I've heard before - and indeed it was).

And why is that dumb? Like I said, you could try to say it was arrogant, but what is stupid about it?
It ascribed to Professor Kagan a view that he hasn't expressed. You seem to think it's okay for you to criticise someone's ideas without listening to them.I already explained why that's wrong (I never claimed that was what he said), but what I meant was for you to actually engage the content. That was the question. Was there something wrong with what I said, insofar as it was a discussion of grade inflation? Which is in fact related to what he said. Because for it to be arrogant for me to think my contribution was valuable, you know, it would have to actually not be valuable.
Mick
ETA: btw, if you ever do want to discuss what the professor actually said, I'm up for that. But I doubt that would happen, as it would require dropping this discussion.
That's just self-serving nonsense, erimir. We can have both discussions if you want.And yet, when I tried to get you to respond to the content of my posts, rather than the fact that I hadn't watched the video, you responded, yet again: "It ascribed to Professor Kagan a view that he hasn't expressed. You seem to think it's okay for you to criticise someone's ideas without listening to them."

When you actually respond to the content of what I said about grade inflation and its relation to what the professor said, then I'll believe it. But as far as I can tell, your pedantic hissy-fits always take precedence over any real engagement.

[Qingdai]

Chickpeas, perhaps garbanzos. That might emit a foul greenish smoke.

[mickthinks]

Actually, it's pretty easy to tell a misreading from an insight you can't understand in many cases -- you can do careful analysis, ask people followup questions, and more.

Only if your analysis and questioning results in an understanding you didn't have before. You say that's pretty easy, seebs, but it rarely is, and I doubt Brimshack even tried before accusing me of 'utter' and 'blatant' misreadings here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=770974&postcount=72).

[Kael]

I doubt Brimshack even tried before accusing me of 'utter' and 'blatant' misreadings here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=770974&postcount=72).
And as we all know, the fact that you doubt it obviously means that he didn't and anyone claiming he did or may have, including Brimshack himself, is simply being intellectually dishonest. Or perhaps you'd be willing to admit that your doubts do not correlate to indisputable facts, just this one time?

I doubt it.

[Brimshack]

See that's the neat thing about the Mcthinks Conundrum. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

[mickthinks]

:wtf: Of course I'll admit that my doubts are not indisputable facts. What a strange request, Kael!

And as we all know, the fact that you doubt it obviously means that he didn't and anyone claiming he did or may have, including Brimshack himself, is simply being intellectually dishonest.
You make a ridiculous claim that you don't actually believe in order to suggest my views must be likewise ridiculous. :chin: That's pretty clever.

[Brimshack]

You should read some of your own posts sometime, Mick. You might be surprised to find what they contain.

[mickthinks]

LOL Have you undertaken an analysis (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=772018&postcount=82) you can provide to show it isn't your lack of understanding that's due for a surpise, Brimmie babe? Do you not feel the need to ask me some followup questions? Or are my doubts related to the facts (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=772285&postcount=88) in this instance?

Kael, what's your opinion on the issue?

:popcorn:

[Brimshack]

Awe Mick, are you trying to get me to work at this? Do you think you've just proven something? That's sweet.

[mickthinks]

You kind of imply it would be hard work for you, Brimmie, but seebs declared it was pretty easy (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=772018&postcount=82). Who are we to believe now?

[Brimshack]

I'm assuming he's taking a stand against grade inflation.

I understand the desire to counteract grade inflation, however, a response to it would be best done as a university-wide policy, not by an individual professor. You don't want to just give out an average grade of C because you simply want the average to be C while other people want the average to be a B, but you also want other people to know that a C is an average grade. That is, presumably he's not just giving out lower grades because he wants to be harsh. But if you're one of only professors doing that, then other people will read the transcript and think that the student did poor work to earn a C, rather than average work.

So, Erimer, based on the transcript liv provided, it would appear that we are actually talking about an average grade of about a 'B'. Does that work for you? I can definitely see the concern over teachers single-handedly throwing off a gpa in the quest to reverse grade inflation. But I also wonder if grade inflation can be dealt with on a university wide basis, at least not without ugly side effects (such as tying teachers' hands on grading policies). It seems to me the nature of grade inflation that whatever policy you set, teachers tend to (these days anyway) to use whatever discretion they have generously. The only way to address that on a university wide basis is to remove that discretion altogether, a move I am uncomfortable with for different reasons.

And of course there remains the question of what a teacher can do about this if she does not have a school implementing university-wide changes?

I think there is a kind of threshold here. A teacher who decides to make a C into the average when As are the norm is probably bucking the trend too hard at the expense of his students, but one nudging the average down a little less than a full letter grade is probably working within acceptable margins. Students serious about their gpas can still manage and he still makes a statement. (A lot would depend on the teachers ability to communicate meaningful standards and apply them accurately so as to give students a means of knowing what they must do.) It's not ideal, but it nudges the average in the intended direction without producing an irresolvable dilemma for the students.

[Brimshack]

You kind of imply it would be hard work for you, Brimmie, but seebs declared it was pretty easy (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=772018&postcount=82). Who are we to believe now?

And we're back to the Mickthinks Conundrum.

Mick, the fact of the matter is that this is an interesting subject, it really is. And there have been people here, erimir among them, who have made a genuine effort to discuss that interesting topic. You have not. Unfortunately, the odds that you yourself will contribute anything meaningful to the discussion which you have yourself started are quite low. If this discussion is to go anywhere, the sad fact is that it will have to do so without you. It's not that you're incapable; it's that you, yes YOU, are clearly less interested in this subject than you are in playing the same game you have spread all over this forum, ever since you first arrived.

There, that one paragraph is already more than you deserve. Play what games you will with it.

This thread has two language games running through it, resolving the the Mickthinks Conundrum (which might as well be called squaring the circle), and discussing the topic of grade inflation. The former is fun for a post or two every so many months, but the latter is the only one worth any real time.

[Brimshack]

I have to say that I'm not terribly impressed with that transcript. Those are an awful lot of words that do not contribute much toward clarifying the professor's approach to grading. If the goal is simply to defend higher-than-normal standards, I think it could have been done in a paragraph or so (5 minutes of class time). When an instructor goes to that much length on the subject I would really expect to come away with a better idea of what it takes to earn a grade and/or how he/she will be determining that grade. This lecture does not appear to accomplish much toward that end.

Contact time is precious. Hell it's fucking gold. And I do not think this gold has been spent too carefully.

[mickthinks]

Mick, the fact of the matter is that this is an interesting subject, it really is.

Thanks.

And there have been people here, erimir among them, who have made a genuine effort to discuss that interesting topic.

I think there was something distinctly ungenuine about erimir's contribution. I've noticed that some people get upset when they are called on their failure to be totally genuine, and that is also an interesting topic of conversation - one which happens to be more important to me than grading schemes.

I've also noticed that some communities have members who protect each other from justified criticism from an outsider by attacking the critic on arbitrary and even spurious grounds. That is also a phenomenon I am very keen to discuss.

I did not ask erimir to provide the prompt for such a discussion, and I haven't forced anyone to demonstrate how the denizens of :ff: are opposed to an open discussion of it. But LadyShea, Kael, seebs and you have surprised me with the lengths you are all prepared to go to to make me feel I am in the wrong for pointing out this: that erimir had presumed he could respond to someone without listening to them, with the result that he criticised something which they hadn't actually said.

Now, tell me where you think the misreading is in that?

Mick

[Brimshack]

And once again you pose the Mickthinks Conundrum. It is an open question as to whether you do so out of malice or disability. Either way, the limitation has proven itself to be absolute.

[erimir]

So, Erimer, based on the transcript liv provided, it would appear that we are actually talking about an average grade of about a 'B'. Does that work for you?Well, I guess so. As you say yourself, it ends up seeming a bit vague. And what I took from it was that he was only a little bit more harsh at the end of the semester, than average. So while his grading of the papers was harsh, the final grade you get ends up being more typical (most likely due to 20% of your grade coming from the rather easy requirement of "participate in discussions").
But I also wonder if grade inflation can be dealt with on a university wide basis, at least not without ugly side effects (such as tying teachers' hands on grading policies). It seems to me the nature of grade inflation that whatever policy you set, teachers tend to (these days anyway) to use whatever discretion they have generously. The only way to address that on a university wide basis is to remove that discretion altogether, a move I am uncomfortable with for different reasons.It is a conundrum. It might be possible to use some sort of mathematical transformation to change the grade distribution to one reflecting the average and variance they would like, while combining it with teacher discretion, I suppose.

I'm not particularly committed to any particular way of combating grade inflation, I was just expressing my opinion that I think it's more important that there's consistency than that one single teacher decides that he or she's going to give an average grade of C, when that's going to be compared to other classes where the average is a B+, and people will conclude that that student was a bit below average.

And in considering how to deal with it, it would probably useful to examine how grading policies used to be handled. I suspect that it probably was never true that there was such consistency between teachers, or it may have been easier to do when the universities were smaller, etc. Usually the past isn't as golden as it's made out to be.

[mickthinks]

I don't value your opinion enough to put the effort in ...
And by posting in the thread as you did, you expressed that contempt very clearly, instead of keeping it to yourself. I think that was an arrogant and dumb move.

And yet, when I tried to get you to respond to the content of my posts, rather than the fact that I hadn't watched the video...
Yes, that's the way you're trying to avoid the issue.

When you acknowledge that you have made a mistake, and that, as usual, you've been attacking me as a way of defending your mistake instead of owning up to it, then I'll stop repeating the criticism that you ascribed to Professor Kagan a view that he hasn't expressed and you seem to think it's okay for you to criticise someone's ideas without listening to them.

I think that's fair.

Mick
It wasn't a "false version" because I admitted that I didn't know whether that was what he said.
:wtfsign: A falsehood that one assumes to be true is not rendered true by an acknowledgment it might be false.

Mick: The former is strong evidence ...
erimir: It's not incontrovertible evidence.
I see what you did there. Sneaky!

[Brimshack]

So, Erimer, based on the transcript liv provided, it would appear that we are actually talking about an average grade of about a 'B'. Does that work for you?Well, I guess so. As you say yourself, it ends up seeming a bit vague. And what I took from it was that he was only a little bit more harsh at the end of the semester, than average. So while his grading of the papers was harsh, the final grade you get ends up being more typical (most likely due to 20% of your grade coming from the rather easy requirement of "participate in discussions").
But I also wonder if grade inflation can be dealt with on a university wide basis, at least not without ugly side effects (such as tying teachers' hands on grading policies). It seems to me the nature of grade inflation that whatever policy you set, teachers tend to (these days anyway) to use whatever discretion they have generously. The only way to address that on a university wide basis is to remove that discretion altogether, a move I am uncomfortable with for different reasons.It is a conundrum. It might be possible to use some sort of mathematical transformation to change the grade distribution to one reflecting the average and variance they would like, while combining it with teacher discretion, I suppose.

I'm not particularly committed to any particular way of combating grade inflation, I was just expressing my opinion that I think it's more important that there's consistency than that one single teacher decides that he or she's going to give an average grade of C, when that's going to be compared to other classes where the average is a B+, and people will conclude that that student was a bit below average.

And in considering how to deal with it, it would probably useful to examine how grading policies used to be handled. I suspect that it probably was never true that there was such consistency between teachers, or it may have been easier to do when the universities were smaller, etc. Usually the past isn't as golden as it's made out to be.

I expect you're right that things might not be as they were imagined, and I'm not sure that more low grades is all that wonderful a prospect anyway. Sure it might mean higher standards, but it can also facilitate a variety of elitisms and/or discourage students in non-productive ways. Personally, I do prefer a little more stringent grading system than normal these days, but I do think there are definite down-sides.

I expect grade inflation may reflect other forces than just teachers being softies too. I think another thing that would be useful might be the degree to which grades have become loaded with more significance over time. At least I suspect this to be the case.

When I was out on the res. my students could lose financial aid if I gave them low grades at midterms. So, I would get pressure to change grades; "Hey, can I retake the test," stuff like that. I had real mixed feelings on that. To me the midterm was a good chance to give someone a kick in the ass and hope they would get to work, and I had already factored in ways for hard workers to recover their grades. But of course all of this assumed that they would be able to stick around. Once I learned that low grades at Midterms could literally mean the student has to drop out, I had to reconsider my approach. (Actually, I was furious with the college for setting it up that way.) But that's just one example of grades affecting students in a way that I suspect they didn't before. (Don't know, but I suspect, anyway).

It's one thing to give a low grade when you are making a statement, but when you know it will cost someone, that makes it more difficult. If you add to that a certain decline in the conscious elitism of universities and certain professions, I suspect part of the source of the inflation may be a more or less conscious decision to ensure that doors are not closed for students.

[Brimshack]

:wtfsign: A falsehood that one assumes to be true is not rendered true by an acknowledgment it might be false.

No, but a conditional statement is only false if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. When the antecedent is false it becomes a counter-factual, but not a false statement. Your decision to pretend otherwise is dishonest, but I have no doubt that you will evade taking responsibility for the misbehavior.

But of course this is all beside the point. There is only one thing worth hearing from you in this or any other thread: Do you, Mick, have Autism, Asberger's, or any related conditions? Have any professionals ever ascribed such a condition to you? Honestly, just getting a straight foreword answer to that question could potentially help a great deal. You have long since proven that engaging you in any other way is a complete waste of time.

[BDS]

Grades are a tool in the class war. Teachers use them to motivate students, maintain discipline, encourage right-minded thinking, etc. etc. The extent to which they actually help students become smarter is dubious. Instead, they help the school system (Harvard can use them to weed out undesirables); they help future employers; they are, in fact tools of the ruling class (in schools, the teachers and administration ARE the ruling class).

To the extent that grade inflation makes rabid competition for "A"s less significant, I support it.

I think grade inflation began in earnest during the Viet Nam era. If a teacher flunked a college student, the student could be shipped off to the Nam and killed. Who can blame teachers for wanting to avoid that?

It's reasonable to have some sort of requirements for (for example) getting a B.A. True: neither a high school diploma nor a B.A. actually mean very much, and neither does an M.A., and (well that's as far as I got in school, so I'm not so sure about the Ph.D.). And what they DO mean is dubious -- degrees probably say as much about the student's ability and willingness to conform to rules, meet attendance requirements, and play well with the other children as they say about actual learning skills or knowledge.

This being the case, why do so many peole descry grade inflation. It's sort of like the Medical Doctors who won't change the idiotic 24 hour shifts for interns -- older people think, "We had to go through intense competition for grades, why shouldn't our children?" What, I wonder, is the benefit of harsh grading? (I admit I haven't read the transcript of the O.P. for a couple of weeks now, and forget what the Professor said.)

[Brimshack]

Interesting question, BDS, where's the harm? At the moment, this one has a personal flavor, so I'll answer it in that accordingly.

I have 2 students who just took a quiz in my after school AP Government class. It was an in-class essay on the Right to Privacy. I added that I wanted students to discuss at least one court decision dealing with that right.

One of the students told me all about the "Amanda" Rights. The other told me about how people have rights and it's important to have rights, and rights are good, and like the police shouldn't just come into your home, and...

Neither addressed the presence or absence of the right in the constitution, nor did either address Roe v. Wade or Griswold v. Connecticut. Nor did either address the right to die or any of the other things we discussed for 2 days straight (and which are all present in the textbook). Now I have to grade them. I HAVE to. It's my job.

If I give them As (and in this environment that is exactly what is expected on all assignments), then I am effectively telling them that their performance is excellent. If I give them Bs, then I am telling them that it's above average. If I give them Cs, I am telling them that their performance is acceptable. The only grade the strikes me as an honest appraisal of their work is a D for the one and an F for the other. For me, anyway, the real trouble is in the message the grade gives to the student. It's not personal; I don't hate them for their poor performance, but I do NOT want to contribute to the misconception that completely missing the point demonstrates above average competence. If they are content to be D or F students, then so be it. I wish them well, but if they want higher grades, then I am going to expect to see more effort.

Oh yeah, both of these students are very intelligent. They are both capable of doing A work.

Of course there are definite class implications here (and by that I mean economic). I can hope the students will bounce back from the negative feedback and earn an A, thus maintaining their GPAs and facilitating their march toward college and professional careers. They are both upper-middle class to filthy rich, and while I don't think I will be contributing to positive social change by helping them, but basic human empathy leads me to want those with whom I associate to do well in life. I'd like them to succeed.

Whatever grade I end up giving them, I guess I can say, the significance for me is something of a statement about the quality of the work they are producing. I couldn't care less about lowering the overall average of grades, and I am as happy to give all As as all Fs, or anything in-between. Where grade inflation burns me up is in situations just like this, where I know that I am expected to give them a high grade, and the students are not doing a damn thing to earn it. I don't want to ruin their lives or even their days, but I also do not want to flatter their poor performance with a stamp of approval. And often grade inflation feels like a demand for the latter.

Gottagoby!

[BDS]

I don't think students are delusional. If 3/4 of the class get "A"s, the students aren't going to think the "A"s mean "excellent work" to the extent that they will if only one student gets an "A". Besides, there are other ways for a teacher to communicate besides the letter mark. You could give the student a "C", and write, "This is barely passing work, and you could do much, much better. To show a true understanding of the issue, you should have........"

My objection to an over-emphasis on letter grades is that it underemphasizes other motives for learning. The very best teachers (I'd suggest) are the ones who don't need grades to motivate their students to learn. Grades can be a crutch with which mediocre teachers can beat their students -- just like the cane with which teachers used to beat unprepared scholars.

In general, I think positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement in motivating children (i'm not so sure about older students). Give half the class "A"s and half the class will think, "Hey, I'm pretty good at this learning gig. This is sort of fun." Give half the class "D"s and half the class with think, "School sucks."

True: the competition at the top won't be as fierce (I remember in my son's high school class 35 students tied as "valedictorian" with straight "A" averages). But that doesn't much bother me.

[erimir]

I don't value your opinion enough to put the effort in ...
And by posting in the thread as you did, you expressed that contempt very clearly, instead of keeping it to yourself. I think that was an arrogant and dumb move.Hm?

Arrogant? You might argue that. *I* don't think that not valuing your opinion is a sign of arrogance, but obviously you would disagree with that.

I also don't find anything about not valuing your opinion to be dumb. In fact, it's the smart thing to do. But really, I don't see where intelligence comes into play with regards to how highly I hold you in esteem. If you think that everyone ought to value your opinion (such that not doing so marks one as "arrogant and dumb"), does that not make you arrogant as well?

And yet, when I tried to get you to respond to the content of my posts, rather than the fact that I hadn't watched the video...
Yes, that's the way you're trying to avoid the issue.

When you acknowledge that you have made a mistake, and that, as usual, you've been attacking me as a way of defending your mistake instead of owning up to it, then I'll stop repeating the criticism that you ascribed to Professor Kagan a view that he hasn't expressed and you seem to think it's okay for you to criticise someone's ideas without listening to them.

I think that's fair.I said that we could discuss the supposed topic of the thread, if you wanted. You said that we could discuss both.

I said that I didn't believe that you could discuss both.

This post proves that I was correct. If you wanted to discuss it, you would. Others in the thread have, including me. You have not - you're far more interested in me, and whether I'm slighting you and so forth.

Like I said, this does raise the question of how "worthy of sharing" the video was, if trivial subjects such as whether I watched the video are far more important than the information in the video.
:wtfsign: A falsehood that one assumes to be true is not rendered true by an acknowledgment it might be false.If I assume correctly (that Prof. Kagan was talking about grade inflation in this way), then this is what I would respond.

That's not the same as "Prof. Kagan said such and such." It just simply isn't, no matter how much you want it to be.

[Brimshack]

I don't think students are delusional. If 3/4 of the class get "A"s, the students aren't going to think the "A"s mean "excellent work" to the extent that they will if only one student gets an "A". Besides, there are other ways for a teacher to communicate besides the letter mark. You could give the student a "C", and write, "This is barely passing work, and you could do much, much better. To show a true understanding of the issue, you should have........"

My objection to an over-emphasis on letter grades is that it underemphasizes other motives for learning. The very best teachers (I'd suggest) are the ones who don't need grades to motivate their students to learn. Grades can be a crutch with which mediocre teachers can beat their students -- just like the cane with which teachers used to beat unprepared scholars.

In general, I think positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement in motivating children (i'm not so sure about older students). Give half the class "A"s and half the class will think, "Hey, I'm pretty good at this learning gig. This is sort of fun." Give half the class "D"s and half the class with think, "School sucks."

True: the competition at the top won't be as fierce (I remember in my son's high school class 35 students tied as "valedictorian" with straight "A" averages). But that doesn't much bother me.

You are right, they are not delusional. And I could probably even give them As without conveying the message that their performance was excellent. But I don't think I can give them A's without it be construed as acceptance of their efforts. One way or another, an 'A' or even a 'B' (i.e. any grade within the realm of their expected range) will effectively communicate acceptance of what I take to be a complete miss on the topic at hand. So, even if we dispense with a sort of fundamentalist reading of the grades, there still comes a point, and this example is right at that point, when a grade within the expected range is more positive than the student deserves. I can disappoint them a little, or I can disappoint them a lot. But in my experience if I don't disappoint them I will get the same performance next week.

Which brings me to your argument to the effect that grades are less effective than positive re-enforcement. On one level this striles me as something of a false dichotomy. The most effective approach has always seemed to me to combine both. And I while it is certainly true that teachers sometimes just keep slamming out bad grades in compensation for having little else to offer in the way of incentive, I have certainly seen the reverse as well; teachers who keep finding something to praise (and a reason to give out the A) without ever facing the fact that their students have not grasped even the most elementary concepts in the lessons at hand. Both can become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Which brings me to another point, whether negative or positive, in the log run the real motivators require some genuine consequence. I can produce changes (positive or negative) in the way I treat the students, but the only thing that is going to sustain students in long term positive performance is when there is some practical consequence on their lives. Not unlike people in most contexts, students tend to follow the path of least resistance, and a student who realizes that no negative consequences will follow from non performance AND no positive consequences will follow from serious effort is apt to find something else to do when they should be working on their homework.

Unfortunately grading is the only significant consequence that a teacher can hand out on a regular basis. Positives such as scholarships, letters of recommendation, etc. are occassionals; they don't sustain people week after week. And here's the kicker, it is precisely grade inflation that deprives teachers of the option to use a grade as a positive re-enforcement. When an 'A' is the standard grade, a teacher can only slap people for bad performance. And it is precisely the tendency to hand out As lightly that deprives teachers of the option to give out a genuinely positive re-enforcement when it is deserved.

What should be an extra becomes an expectation. Then there is no extra left to give.

[mickthinks]

:wtfsign: A falsehood that one assumes to be true is not rendered true by an acknowledgment it might be false.

No

Cool. So when erimir claimed that it wasn't a "false version" because he admitted that he didn't know whether it was true, that was another mistake.

... but a conditional statement is only false if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false ... Your decision to pretend otherwise is dishonest
In "I'm assuming he's taking a stand against grade inflation" the proposition that Kagan is taking a stand against grade inflation is not a conditional, Brimmie - it's a falsehood. I think you are too quick with your Mick sucks counter-accusations.

Mick
But of course this is all beside the point. There is only one thing worth hearing from you in this or any other thread: Do you, Mick, have Autism, Asberger's, or any related conditions? Have any professionals ever ascribed such a condition to you? Honestly, just getting a straight foreword answer to that question could potentially help a great deal. You have long since proven that engaging you in any other way is a complete waste of time.
LOL That's some monster butt-hurt you are nursing, dude!

[Brimshack]

:wtfsign: A falsehood that one assumes to be true is not rendered true by an acknowledgment it might be false.

No

Cool. So when erimir claimed that it wasn't a "false version" because he admitted that he didn't know whether it was true, that was another mistake.

... but a conditional statement is only false if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false ... Your decision to pretend otherwise is dishonest
In "I'm assuming he's taking a stand against grade inflation" the proposition that Kagan is taking a stand against grade inflation is not a conditional, Brimmie - it's a falsehood. I think you are too quick with your Mick sucks counter-accusations.

Mick
But of course this is all beside the point. There is only one thing worth hearing from you in this or any other thread: Do you, Mick, have Autism, Asberger's, or any related conditions? Have any professionals ever ascribed such a condition to you? Honestly, just getting a straight foreword answer to that question could potentially help a great deal. You have long since proven that engaging you in any other way is a complete waste of time.
LOL That's some monster butt-hurt you are nursing, dude!

So, Mick, was erimir wrong to assume that Kagan is taking a stand against grade inflation? Was that particular assumption false? When erimir said "presumably" was the specific presumption in that claim false? What specific claim did erimir make in his post that you believe to be false?

And do you have Autism, Asbergers, or any related condition? Have you ever been diagnosed with any such condition?

[mickthinks]

Yes, erimir was wrong to assume that Kagan was taking a stand against grade inflation in that video. And if he'd followed my recommendation and watched the video he wouldn't have made that mistake. I reckon one of the reasons, perhaps the most important reason, why he wanted to take issue with the view he imagined I was admiring without watching the video first, is that he thinks it is smart not to value my opinion. I think that's arrogant and his choice was a dumb one.

[Brimshack]

Looks like a stand against grade inflation to me.

[mickthinks]

Then you have misread it. Not only does he not say his grade policy is a unilateral attempt to keep Yale's grades from inflating; he make no mention of his attitude to grade inflation at all. Yet erimir found fault with a policy he doesn't espouse or seem to pursue.

[Brimshack]

Kagan also doesn't describe his speech as a "defense" of "a tough grading policy". Odd that you get to paraphrase so loosely, but erimir must match words exactly.

But I suppose the rules of this game facilitate your own interests quite well, don't they?

[Brimshack]

I have known many teachers that have taken a stand against grade inflation. They do not do so by standing up and saying; "Hello kids, I am taking a unilateral stand against grade inflation throughout this university."[/pompousvoice] They do so by grading more stringently than average and insisting on the integrity of their decision to do so. When pressed, they often cite the diminishing value of inflated grades, just as Kagan has done here.

Erimir's presumptions regarding the general intent of this presentation are quite sound.

[mickthinks]

You are right, Kagan doesn't use those exact words, but I think it is a fair summary of what he is saying and why. Okay, so Kagan actually doesn't even admit to being a tough grader so in that sense he isn't defending his policy as a tough grade policy at all. But he does acknowledge his reputation as a tough grader and he is saying something like "I think my grade policy is justifiable and I intend to stick with it even if it means I have a reputation for being one of Yale's harshest graders"

That is why I described his speech as a justification of a tough grade policy.

I don't expect erimir or you to match Kagan's words more precisely than I have. That's a Mick Sucks misrepresentation, dude. I think it would good if you stopped relying on those because they aren't honest.

ETA: They [teachers that have taken a stand against grade inflation] do so by grading more stringently than average.
Kagan would have to know what was average to be pursuing that kind of policy. He tells us that he doesn't.

When pressed, they often cite the diminishing value of inflated grades, just as Kagan has done here.
That's another misreading, dude. Nowhere does Kagan refer to the dimishing value of inflated grades.

Your continuing defences of erimir's presumptions are quite spurious.

[Brimshack]

If my point were that your paraphrase were inaccurate, this would be a good response. But of course my objection is to your double standard. You paraphrase, but when it comes to erimir's position, you say he is wrong because Kagan does not make explicit statements about grade inflation or urge a university wide policy.

Kagan does make an explicit argument about the protecting the value of a high grade from over-use. The prospect that excessive application of high grades diminishes their value is normally described as, ...wait for it, ..."grade inflation."

Erimir was not wrong in assuming Kagan was taking a stand against grade inflation. Kagan does take a stand against grade inflation.

So, was there some other claim that erimir made that you think was false?

[Brimshack]

Perhaps, Mick, you may think that erimir was wrong when he said; "presumably." That was one of the words that you originally quoted at the start of your granny-lecture. Of course you weren't yet saying erimir had produced a flase statement. That charge crept into your posts later, but let's check. This was the statement beginning with the objectionable 'presumably.'

"That is, presumably he's not just giving out lower grades because he wants to be harsh. "

Was erimir wrong about this. Is Kagan just doing this because he wants to be harsh?

[mickthinks]

If my point were that your paraphrase were inaccurate, this would be a good response.

Okay, so you aren't saying my paraphrasing is a misrepresentation. Thanks.

I am saying that erimir's describing Kagan's speech as "a stand aginst grade inflation" is a misrepresentation.

ETA: Perhaps, Mick, you may think that erimir was wrong when he said; "presumably."
No, I'm saying erimir was wrong to treat Kagan as if he were taking a unilateral stand against grade inflation. And I'm saying you are defending erimir's mistake with spurious arguments.

[BDS]

Which brings me to another point, whether negative or positive, in the log run the real motivators require some genuine consequence. I can produce changes (positive or negative) in the way I treat the students, but the only thing that is going to sustain students in long term positive performance is when there is some practical consequence on their lives. Not unlike people in most contexts, students tend to follow the path of least resistance, and a student who realizes that no negative consequences will follow from non performance AND no positive consequences will follow from serious effort is apt to find something else to do when they should be working on their homework.

Unfortunately grading is the only significant consequence that a teacher can hand out on a regular basis. Positives such as scholarships, letters of recommendation, etc. are occassionals; they don't sustain people week after week. And here's the kicker, it is precisely grade inflation that deprives teachers of the option to use a grade as a positive re-enforcement. When an 'A' is the standard grade, a teacher can only slap people for bad performance. And it is precisely the tendency to hand out As lightly that deprives teachers of the option to give out a genuinely positive re-enforcement when it is deserved.

What should be an extra becomes an expectation. Then there is no extra left to give.

Of course most professional educators agree with you in general -- which is why we have the grading system that we do. Any objections that I may have are strictly those of an amateur. However, (unlike teachers and educators) I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing for students to "find something else to do when they should be working on their homework". School is OK, but as long as the kid learns how to read and write and do arithmetic, he may well find something better to do when he blows off studying for his AP Government class.

Since I'm on a roll nitpicking about word usage (see the Wild Things thread), I'd just like to mention that I object to the standard scholastic use of the word "consequence" (Brimshack is simply using it like everyone else in the school system does). Educators use it to abrogate responsibility. Any punishment becomes a "consequence", as if the principal and teacher have nothing to do with punishing the kid, and the punishment is being handed down by God. The "consequence" of failing to study for your AP Governement test is that you will fail to learn some stuff about government; the grade you receive on the test (as is obvious from our discussion here) depends on your teacher just as much as it depends on you.

[BDS]

[ duplicate.

[Alex]

What mighty contests rise from trivial things!

~ Alex Pope. :wink:

[BDS]

What dire offence from am'rous causes springs...

Alex Pope

[Brimshack]

If my point were that your paraphrase were inaccurate, this would be a good response.

Okay, so you aren't saying my paraphrasing is a misrepresentation. Thanks.

I am saying that erimir's describing Kagan's speech as "a stand aginst grade inflation" is a misrepresentation.

ETA: Perhaps, Mick, you may think that erimir was wrong when he said; "presumably."
No, I'm saying erimir was wrong to treat Kagan as if he were taking a unilateral stand against grade inflation. And I'm saying you are defending erimir's mistake with spurious arguments.

I am trying to locate the specific claim that you regard as false. I have just given you an argument showing that erimir's interpretation of Kagan's position as a stand against grade inflation is reasonable. Thus far your only response to that argument is to call it spurious. ...which is ironic to say the least.

[Brimshack]

BDS,

Whether or not a student can find better things to do than study is not really the issue. If a student has better things to do, then so be it, but this does not change the status of things with respect to the quality of their school work. Not spending time on homework becomes a problem when the homework isn't done, or isn't done well and/or when the student shos poor understanding in some other context (such as a test). I can fully accept the possibility that a student might find something better to do than study, but my business stretches only as far as their own lack of performance.

Whether or not there are better things to do than assign grades is an interesting question, and if you take me to be defending the use of grades in preference to some other way of influencing students, then you have misread me. The point is that grading IS the tool that I have. I can praise. I can write letters of reference. I can even hand out candy. But the only consistent, institutionalized mechanism of influencing student behavior that I do actually have at my disposal is the assignment of a grade. Grade inflation deprives that tool of its power; it especially depreives it of any power to be used as positve re-enforcement.

Now, you have said that teachers describe bad grades as 'consequences' in ways that deny our own responsibility for those consequences. Is it your contention that I have just done so?

[BDS]

I agree, Brimshack, that your role as a teacher is not to judge how the student allocates his time, but how he or she performs in your class. I wasn't trying to misread your post -- just to make a general comment. I'm sure grades can be a valuable tool -- I'm just suggesting they might be JUST AS valuable if half the class gets "A"s as if 1/5 of the class gets "A"s. It might even be the case that a pass/fail system would work just as well.

As far as "consequence" -- I was making a general comment there, too. I mainly object to "consequence" when schools use it as a synonym for "punishment" ("If you are tardy three times is a semester the 'consequence' will be detention..."). However,you said:

Not unlike people in most contexts, students tend to follow the path of least resistance, and a student who realizes that no negative consequences will follow from non performance AND no positive consequences will follow from serious effort is apt to find something else to do when they should be working on their homework.

I'd suggest (and I'm not trying to be critical of you, just to analyze the speech of educators) that grades are not a "consequence" of performance. Some teachers give good grades for mediocre performance, others give bad grades for above-average performance. A "consequence" is "that which naturally follows from an action or condition". Grades don't "naturally follow" from anything -- they are artificial constructs of the school system. The "consequence" of failing to study is failing to learn; the "consequence" of studying is improved knowedge. Thus the "negative consequence" of non performance exists whether the students' performance is graded or not, as does the positive consequence. Grades add an additional "outcome", or "result" or "corollary" -- but (pedant that I am) I would not call it a "consequence".

[Brimshack]

Fair enough, BDS, and I'm sorry if it sounds like I am getting testy. This does seem like an oddly narrow construction of the term "consequence" as it seems to exclude any socially constructed responses from its application. I don't read a 'consequence' as implying lack of responsibility on the part of myself or the school (or any other teacher for that matter). To me grades give teachers a means of assigning consequences to behavior. This is established not merely by grading but by communicating standards before student performance comes into play. And I do think the results can be described fairly as consequences. If and when a teacher does try to pretend the consequences are automatic, then yes that's a B.S. disclaimer of responsibility. I could give both of the students I mentioned earlier As. I could give them A+s if I wanted, and I could do so despite any arrangements made in advance. Whatever grade I give them will certainly be my responsibility. But of course that's the nature of responsibility. It can be shared, and my responsibility does not preclude that of the students any more than the reverse would be.

When I say that a grade is a means of establishing consequence to a student I mean that it is a way of holding them responsible for meeting a given standard. It attaches positive and negative results (consequences) to their own performance. That those consequences remain a choice of the faculty and administration is certainly true.

Unfortunately, I do not think it is true that the shear quantity of people getting As makes no difference. Maybe on one assignment, but when groups consistently score in that area, the value of a grade slips. A good grade is just like any other cultural capital. It loses its value when the contrasting possibility becomes too abstract.

I would also say that the negative consequence of failure to learn is simply insufficient to sustain long-term study. If someone is really interested in a subject, they may well put in the work themselves. They may even do so outside the classroom or any official assignments. But that just doesn't keep people at the hard work of learning day after day in any and all subjects. For that, I am afraid it looks like people need a more tangible result. People just don't feel the immediate consequences of their own ignorance (which is true outside the classroom as well as in it). Which is why some artificial construction always seems to be put in place to supplement that natural consequence. Whether or not that other construction needs to be grades is another question, but for must of us, it is what we have.

[Iacchus]

Your Baby Can Read? (http://www.yourbabycanread.com)

So, if this program is as good as it's claimed (I'm guessing it is), and puts the children who are afforded the opportunity at a distinct advantage over those who are not, to where maybe they don't have to study quite so hard to get "good grades," does that sound fair? I'm not saying it's wrong to try and help your kids out this way but, aren't good grades (at least in this case) a reflection of "good parenting," more than anything? So, why are we pointing the finger at the kids when, in fact, maybe it has nothing to do with them?

[Alex]

What dire offence from am'rous causes springs...

Alex Pope

The line before - which I didn't quote because I haven't noticed any "amorousness" lurking in the causes of the dispute here. (lots of "dire offence", of course.)

[mickthinks]

I have just given you an argument showing that erimir's interpretation of Kagan's position as a stand against grade inflation is reasonable. Thus far your only response to that argument is to call it spurious. ...which is ironic to say the least.

I guess you missed my response to that argument and that was my fault, sorry:
ETA: They [teachers that have taken a stand against grade inflation] do so by grading more stringently than average.
Kagan would have to know what was average to be pursuing that kind of policy. He tells us that he doesn't.

When pressed, they often cite the diminishing value of inflated grades, just as Kagan has done here.
That's another misreading, dude. Nowhere does Kagan refer to the [diminishing] value of inflated grades.

Later you added this remark:

Kagan does make an explicit argument about the protecting the value of a high grade from over-use.
But I didn't hear him make any such argument. If I missed it you'll be happy to cite it, because at the moment it looks like another spurious defence of erimir's error.

[Brimshack]

Both points are contained here:

A means excellent. Now excellent does not mean publishable. Excellent does not mean you are God's gift to philosophy [laughter]. So it's crucial to understand it doesn't mean that the only way you're going to get an A is to be God's gift to philosophy. A means excellent work for a first class in philosophy. This is an introductory class. It does not presuppose any background in philosophy. Still, to get an A, you've got to show some flair for the subject. You've got to show not only have you understood the ideas that have been put forward in the readings and in the lectures and so forth, but you see how to sort of put them together in the paper in a way that shows you've got some aptitude here. You did it in a way that made us take note. That's what we try to reserve As for. Some of you will end up getting As, if not at the beginning, by the end of the semester. Many of you will end up getting Bs, if not at the beginning, by the end of the semester. Many of you will not start out doing good work. Many of you will start out doing satisfactory work or, truth be told, less than satisfactory work.

Emphasis added.

He says that they "Try" to reserve an 'A' for for excellent work, and he links this explicitly to the value of the statement he hopes to make with such a grade. Later comments about honesty simply add to the same theme. He is contrasting the meaning of the grade as it is given in his class from the meaning of the grade were he to hand out more of them, and his conclusion throughout the transcript is that an 'A' is more meaningful in his class because of the higher standard. If you missed that, then you missed the point of the whole thing.

Feel free to dismiss this with spurious arguments.

And yes Mick, you do suck. That's not a misreading. In practice you have held erimir to a higher standard than you do yourself. It's called hypocrisy, Mick. And it generally sucks.

[Angakuk]

mick holds most people to a higher standard than he holds himself. This is not hypocritical on mick's part. It is plain common sense. Most people are capable of achieving higher standards than mick is capable of achieving.

[mickthinks]

Both points are contained here:

A means excellent. Now excellent does not mean publishable. Excellent does not mean you are God's gift to philosophy [laughter]. So it's crucial to understand it doesn't mean that the only way you're going to get an A is to be God's gift to philosophy. A means excellent work for a first class in philosophy. This is an introductory class. It does not presuppose any background in philosophy. Still, to get an A, you've got to show some flair for the subject. You've got to show not only have you understood the ideas that have been put forward in the readings and in the lectures and so forth, but you see how to sort of put them together in the paper in a way that shows you've got some aptitude here. You did it in a way that made us take note. That's what we try to reserve As for. Some of you will end up getting As, if not at the beginning, by the end of the semester. Many of you will end up getting Bs, if not at the beginning, by the end of the semester. Many of you will not start out doing good work. Many of you will start out doing satisfactory work or, truth be told, less than satisfactory work.Emphasis added.

There is no reference to the diminishing value of inflated grades there, Brimmie - you are misreading Kagan like a champion. LOL

[Brimshack]

...and how ironic your own little conundrum statement turns out to be.

[mickthinks]

...and how ironic your own little conundrum statement turns out to be.

:orly:

[mickthinks]

*I* don't think that not valuing your opinion is a sign of arrogance, ...
Imagining that you could dismiss Kagan's opinion without listening to it was pretty arrogant.

I also don't find anything about not valuing your opinion to be dumb. In fact, it's the smart thing to do.

Right now you aren't looking all that smart, friend.

That's not the same as "Prof. Kagan said such and such."
No, it's more like "I think I'm smart enough to argue with Prof Kagan without listening to him".

[erimir]

I also don't find anything about not valuing your opinion to be dumb. In fact, it's the smart thing to do.

Right now you aren't looking all that smart, friend.Only if you assume that looking smart = valuing mick's opinion. Which would be a kind of arrogant thing to say.

I think most people will agree that the smart thing is not to place too much value on your opinion.

And do you truly consider me your friend?

That's not the same as "Prof. Kagan said such and such."
No, it's more like "I think I'm smart enough to argue with Prof Kagan without listening to him".Ummmm... no, not really.

It was more like "I assume that this guy is talking about grade inflation, or something related" (a correct assumption) and so "and this is my opinion concerning grade inflation."

[mickthinks]

It was more like "I assume that this guy is talking about grade inflation, or something related" (a correct assumption) and so "and this is my opinion concerning grade inflation."

"I know what this guy says about grade inflation and I disagree with him" is closer - arrogant and none too smart.

[Brimshack]

Now you're just lying.

[seebs]

Objection! "Lying" presumes information about his internal state. I don't think you can rule out the possibility that he's severely delusional. He's got enough NPD-like traits (e.g., I've never, ever, seen mick admit to errors; even yguy admits he's wrong more often) to make it quite plausible that there is no point at which he perceives anything but a set of stories his brain made up to make him feel good.

[LadyShea]

Your Baby Can Read? (http://www.yourbabycanread.com)

So, if this program is as good as it's claimed (I'm guessing it is), and puts the children who are afforded the opportunity at a distinct advantage over those who are not, to where maybe they don't have to study quite so hard to get "good grades," does that sound fair? I'm not saying it's wrong to try and help your kids out this way but, aren't good grades (at least in this case) a reflection of "good parenting," more than anything? So, why are we pointing the finger at the kids when, in fact, maybe it has nothing to do with them?

It's pretty much fact that kids with involved parents, and with early access and exposure to books, do better in many aspects of life, including school. Kids who have a larger than average verbal vocabulary at an early age tend to have better reading comprehension at school age.

It remains to be seen, however, if these baby sight reading programs do the same. I think not, as it's possible, maybe even probable they are not actually reading (as in decoding the words) but naming an image. If that's the case the word BALL and a picture of a ball are equal and most toddlers can identify pictured objects.

I tend to agree with BDS about grades being kinda arbitrary and maybe useless. The goal is to learn the material, and I can personally think of more constructive ways to evaluate the level of knowledge. That being said, college students know the system, have chosen to be evaluated by that system, are told what needs to be done up front, and need to work within it to further their own goals. Their previous experiences as babies and children are a factor, of course (one of many), but they know what they are getting into when attending college.

[mickthinks]

Objection! "Lying" presumes information about his internal state. I don't think you can rule out the possibility that he's severely delusional. He's got enough NPD-like traits (e.g., I've never, ever, seen mick admit to errors; even yguy admits he's wrong more often) to make it quite plausible that there is no point at which he perceives anything but a set of stories his brain made up to make him feel good.
seebs sure is sure ... - Freethought Forum (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=777332#post777332)

[naturalist.atheist]

I tend to agree with BDS about grades being kinda arbitrary and maybe useless. The goal is to learn the material, and I can personally think of more constructive ways to evaluate the level of knowledge. That being said, college students know the system, have chosen to be evaluated by that system, are told what needs to be done up front, and need to work within it to further their own goals. Their previous experiences as babies and children are a factor, of course (one of many), but they know what they are getting into when attending college.

It is an interesting problem. How to educate the next generation. If the pace of change continues to accelerate as it has then the only way we could hope to prepare the next generation would be to teach them to be autodidacts.

[LadyShea]

Well, certain aspects of autodidactism are teachable. I am often astounded at how helpless some people are at locating information and resources, which is the major step in learning something new.

[seebs]

There's also a need for a certain amount of raw mental horsepower (though most people, I think, have enough), and some questions of attitudes which are conducive to success.

[David Gould]

I am currently studying to be a teacher, and I think that teaching people how to find information is one of the keys.

This is why I support the idea of permitting internet access (or at least access to a sufficiently large intranet) during exams, for example.

[BDS]

I am currently studying to be a teacher, and I think that teaching people how to find information is one of the keys.

This is why I support the idea of permitting internet access (or at least access to a sufficiently large intranet) during exams, for example.

That sounds reasonable. Except, wouldn't it favor the economically advantaged kids? Obviously, if a kid's family doesn't have the internet, he won't be as adept at using it. Although you are doubtless correct that teaching people how to find information is important, rating and grading people using a system that favors the rich simply perpetuates a class system in education and (later) economically (it seems to me).

[LadyShea]

Well, before the Internet I was one hell of an information finder at the Library, which is available to all.

[Ensign Steve]

Did you miss the part about using the Internet on exams?

[LadyShea]

Yes, but that would be in school (presumably taught at school), and the Internet is also at the library, and so again available to all.

Anyway, teaching kids to find information would involve all kinds of media, like periodicals, Internet, primary sources, etc..

[Ensign Steve]

Okay, cool, I just wasn't sure if you were responding to that specific thing.

[LadyShea]

No, I was responding the general idea of teaching people to locate stuff. I don't see a definite class issue in that, personally, as resources are readily available if you know where to look. We should teach that in schools.

I swear sometimes people act like I am doing magic when I get answers, when all I have done is opened a phonebook and made a call.

[naturalist.atheist]

Yes, but that would be in school (presumably taught at school), and the Internet is also at the library, and so again available to all.

Anyway, teaching kids to find information would involve all kinds of media, like periodicals, Internet, primary sources, etc..

I agree. The most important class I took in high school was library science. That was long before the internet.

[Watser?]

A large part of what they teach you in university (at least at mine) is how to look for information. Most of the rest of it is how to interpret that information and how to write down your findings.

[LadyShea]

A large part of what they teach you in university (at least at mine) is how to look for information. Most of the rest of it is how to interpret that information and how to write down your findings.

It needs to be started as early as possible, IMO, not saved for University.

[Watser?]

Good point there.

[Angakuk]

Yes, but that would be in school (presumably taught at school), and the Internet is also at the library, and so again available to all.

Anyway, teaching kids to find information would involve all kinds of media, like periodicals, Internet, primary sources, etc..

You left out looking over the shoulder of the smart kid sitting in front of you and asking some random stranger on the street.

[Dragar]

I am currently studying to be a teacher, and I think that teaching people how to find information is one of the keys.

This is why I support the idea of permitting internet access (or at least access to a sufficiently large intranet) during exams, for example.

Long time David! :wave:

I found my open book exams to be the hardest, except for the code-writing ones (which became near trivial thanks to the power of google).

[Ensign Steve]

I enjoyed being able to use Google on code-writing exams, because it really tested my ability to write code in the real world, as opposed to memorizing STLs.

[David Gould]

That sounds reasonable. Except, wouldn't it favor the economically advantaged kids? Obviously, if a kid's family doesn't have the internet, he won't be as adept at using it. Although you are doubtless correct that teaching people how to find information is important, rating and grading people using a system that favors the rich simply perpetuates a class system in education and (later) economically (it seems to me).

It would be responsibility of the school system to ensure that students have access to the training that they need to do well.

The problem here is not the rating and grading system; the problem is that operating in the modern world requires people to be able to use the internet skillfully. We cannot alter the world by changing that fact. What we need to change is the skill sets of students, from whatever background.

[David Gould]

Dragar,

Hello. :) How are things going? I'm halfway through my maths teaching degree (just finished exams; results in a couple of weeks, but I pretty much know that I got HD for the stats one, D for the maths computing one, and D for the teaching one).

Open book exams can be very tough. My statistics exam was open book, and two out of the six questions were very tricky indeed. Knowing what to look at does not help if you do not understand it ...

[LadyShea]

Since we're already OT, I have to relay this thing that just now happened 5 minutes ago. On a homeschooling list I am on, this lady asks for a book, or a website, that will tell her how to get from state A to State B with educational yet fun stops, nice but not expensive hotels, and suggested alternate scenic routes.

When I plan travel I spend hours on Google Maps, with another window open to look up state or towns tourism info, and a third for my preferred hotel chain, and move the route around, see what's nearby, see where there are places to stay and things to do, work out the mileage and driving time, make reservations, set the itinerary etc. It's fun for me, we always have great trips, and the whole thing is educational in and of itself...just have the kids help.

It just hit me as totally lacking in resourcefulness.

[mickthinks]

He's got enough NPD-like traits (e.g., I've never, ever, seen mick admit to errors...)

I suspect I've seen mick admit to errors ...

Okay, so now we've established that I don't exhibit the one symptom of NPD you identify to the extent you claimed, maybe you'll withdraw your insulting diagnosis?

[Brimshack]

Or you could just tell us whether or not you have ever been diagnosed with any of the mental conditions that have been offered to explain your behavior.

[mickthinks]

The burden of proof lies with me to prove that the malign charges are false to just the same extent that the burden of proof lies with Obama to prove that he has not hidden his Kenyan birth.

You're thinking and acting like a :duh: birther, Brimmo.

[Brimshack]

Except that I never said that the burden of proof was on you, nor did I imply it. Please learn to read.

[erimir]

Okay, so now we've established that I don't exhibit the one symptom of NPD you identify to the extent you claimed, maybe you'll withdraw your insulting diagnosis?That fact doesn't really suggest that seebs necessarily ought to withdraw that diagnosis.

[seebs]

Er, mick, I put you on ignore months ago. I only see your posts when people inexplicably quote them as though they had content of any value.

You continue to exhibit all of the symptoms of NPD, even if some of them are not 100% always on every minute of every day. That's fine. Most mental disorders are like that. What's amazing, really, is how extreme your symptoms are; you're easily in the top five I've ever seen or read about. The degree to which you are incapable of processing data accurately astounds me.

[mickthinks]

You continue to exhibit all of the symptoms of NPD, even if some of them are not 100% always on every minute of every day ...

And someone who is sometimes convinced they are right is not suffering from a disorder that prevents them from realising that they are often wrong, dude. You have collapsed the distinction between "100% failure" and "less than 100% failure" which defines the difference between incapacity and capacity.

I think by now it is clear to anyone dogged enough to still be following this discussion, that you are having great difficulty admitting I might be right about some of this. But I don't believe you are actually pathologically incapable of it.

So, for instance, I have demonstrated the ability to see and admit when I have made a mistake and to apologise if necessary for what I said. You can admit that, surely?

[erimir]

And someone who is sometimes convinced they are right is not suffering from a disorder that prevents them from realising that they are often wrong, dude. You have collapsed the distinction between "100% failure" and "less than 100% failure" which defines the difference between incapacity and capacity.And you are collapsing the distinction between "sometimes" and "less than 100%".

"Sometimes" is not typically used for "almost always", but both are "less than 100%".

seebs may have admitted that you are not always convinced you're right, but that in no way precludes you from being almost always convinced that you're right (more than the average person, that is).

Which is to say, nobody* here would say that you are "someone who is (merely) sometimes convinced they are right". Most, I think, would say instead that you are someone who is almost always convinced that he is right, to an abnormal extent.

*no, not literally nobody (rather, almost nobody)

[mickthinks]

And you are collapsing the distinction between "sometimes" and "less than 100%".
:wtf: No I'm not, friend. I'm just pointing out that it isn't as big as the distinction between "capacity" and "incapacity" that seebs has confused it with.

... you are someone who is almost always convinced that he is right, to an abnormal extent.
Even if that were the case, it wouldn't explain or justify seebs's attempt to make out that I am incapable of recognising and admitting errors. Are you willing and able to acknowledge that?

[Brimshack]

So Mick, do you have NPD?

How about Autism, or Asbergers?

[mickthinks]

LOL May I take the question as proof that you, at least, finds seebs's testimony on the issue unconvincing? I'll settle for that.

[Brimshack]

If you wish to misrepresent yet another of my posts, Mick. So, how about an answer?

[mickthinks]

I'm afraid you'll just have to make do with this response (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=660932&postcount=50) I gave to LadyShea 11 months ago, Brimmy

[seebs]

Mick, there's a couple of key points.

1. There's a number of cases in which your interpretation of other people's posts has been LUDCIROUSLY wrong -- sufficiently so that no one without some kind of autism-spectrum disorder could plausibly get it wrong. These have been pointed out and explained in exhaustive detail in some cases, and yet, you've not admitted that you were wrong. These are cases in which failure to admit error means that either you're autistic and in serious denial about it, or you're pathologically unable to admit error. (Note that pathological inability does not imply 100% total inability, merely an abnormal degree of inability.)
2. In many other cases, you've stuck to things long after it became clear that they were false, but in cases where autism spectrum issues would not explain them. This latter category is perhaps more interesting, because the interpretation is less ambiguous.
3. We also have the interesting data point that you obsess about imagined slights and injuries for months or years after other people have forgotten them -- and that you view criticisms of your statements or positions as dire insults.

The last one is what cinches the NPD conclusion.

My guess, which is totally not a clinical diagnosis but is probably correct, is that you have both NPD and mild autism. The mild autism explains the specific ways in which you're unable to understand conversational language. The NPD explains why you're not willing to try.

There is nothing we can do for you. You might be able to improve if you wanted to, but in order to do that, you'd have to consider the possibility that, even if you genuinely believe that everyone else is at fault, believing that won't help you get along with people or get them to treat you the way you want them to. You will need to learn to accommodate other people's ways of communicating in order to achieve the results you want.

You can do it or not. It's up to you.

[Brimshack]

So Mick, how about an answer to the question?

[erimir]

And you are collapsing the distinction between "sometimes" and "less than 100%".
:wtf: No I'm not, friend. I'm just pointing out that it isn't as big as the distinction between "capacity" and "incapacity" that seebs has confused it with.1. The difference between 100% and 99% and 99% and 60% is much smaller. The difference between "sometimes" and "almost always" is not necessarily smaller than the difference between "always" and "almost always"
2. Therefore describing yourself with "sometimes" merely because seebs has admitted that you aren't always convinced you're right is making a larger jump than we have reason to make on the basis of a single counterexample.

... you are someone who is almost always convinced that he is right, to an abnormal extent.
Even if that were the case, it wouldn't explain or justify seebs's attempt to make out that I am incapable of recognising and admitting errors. Are you willing and able to acknowledge that?That's ludicrous. Of course you being someone who refuses to admit errors at an abnormally high rate would explain why someone would describe you as incapable of recognizing and admitting errors.

It is, as has been mentioned, hyperbole. If someone says "George Bush never does anything right" it's not literally true, but the fact that George Bush made a lot of mistakes certainly does explain why someone would say it. Maybe you're the type of person who finds hyperbole to never be justified, but I'm not.

And it makes little practical difference as to how people should interact with you whether you literally never admit mistakes or whether you admit them in a very few trivial circumstances.

[mickthinks]

So Mick, how about an answer to the question?I'm afraid you'll just have to make do with this response (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=660932&postcount=50) I gave to LadyShea 11 months ago, Brimmy
:dunno:

[Brimshack]

Excellent!

So, how about an answer, Mick?

[mickthinks]

So, how about an answer, Mick?
So Mick, how about an answer to the question?I'm afraid you'll just have to make do with this response (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=660932&postcount=50) I gave to LadyShea 11 months ago, Brimmy
:dunno:
:dunno:

[Brimshack]

...and again, the question, Mick?

You've done your best to keep it on the table. You really ought to answer it.

[mickthinks]

There's a number of cases in which your interpretation of other people's posts has been LUDCIROUSLY wrong
No, I believe there are no such cases, dude. What there are are a number of cases which you have misunderstood and declared I am wrong in error.

In many other cases, you've stuck to things long after it became clear that they were false.
No, I believe there are no such cases, dude. What there are are a number of cases which you have misunderstood and declared I am wrong in error.

We also have the interesting data point that you obsess about imagined slights and injuries for months or years after other people have forgotten them -- and that you view criticisms of your statements or positions as dire insults.
No, I believe there are no such cases, dude. I have imagined no slights or injuries and I view no constructive criticism as insult of any kind.

As we have seen, when it comes to my posts your testimony is completely unreliable.

[Brimshack]

...which of course leaves us with the 64,000 dollar question. The one Mick wants to talk around all day, but not answer.

[mickthinks]

...and again, the question, Mick?
And again the answer, Brimble ...So, how about an answer, Mick?
So Mick, how about an answer to the question?I'm afraid you'll just have to make do with this response (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=660932&postcount=50) I gave to LadyShea 11 months ago, Brimmy
:dunno:
:dunno:
:dunno:

[Brimshack]

ad infinitum.

I guess we should just apply your own standard Mick and assume that silence is assent.

Bubye.

[Brimshack]

I'll just respond to your next post now.

...which leaves us with the grand question. Mick, how about an answer?

[mickthinks]

The difference between "sometimes" and "almost always" is not necessarily smaller than the difference between "always" and "almost always"
I agree. Sometimes it isn't and sometimes it is.

Therefore describing yourself with "sometimes" merely because seebs has admitted that you aren't always convinced you're right is making a larger jump than we have reason to make on the basis of a single counterexample.
That doesn't follow, and I believe it isn't so.

Of course you being someone who refuses to admit errors at an abnormally high rate would explain why someone would describe you as incapable of recognizing and admitting errors.
I think you either don't know or don't care what 'incapable' means.

The example "George Bush never does anything right" is interesting. It is impossible for anyone to mean that literally. The same would not be true of a White House aide who said "I have never, ever seen George Bush sober". I think seebs testimony is similarly plausible and makes a similar claim to authority. Therein lies the falsehood.

And it makes little practical difference as to how people should interact with you whether you literally never admit mistakes or whether you admit them in a very few trivial circumstances.
I agree. The only difference is in whether they have to provide a case for asserting that I've made a mistake which I'm not admitting, instead of just pointing to a diagnosis of NPD and suggesting that it goes without saying.

seebs is unable to make a convincing case that my disagreements with him and others arise from mistakes I've made and can't admit. He's just made repeated empty claims to that effect.

[seebs]

Very few people get a clinical diagnosis of NPD, because characteristically they don't think there's anything wrong with them. Mick might actually have gotten a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in the past, but be refusing to acknowledge it because the one thing worse than baseless speculation about your mental illnesses is spot-on speculation about your mental illnesses.

[Brimshack]

Very few people get a clinical diagnosis of NPD, because characteristically they don't think there's anything wrong with them. Mick might actually have gotten a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in the past, but be refusing to acknowledge it because the one thing worse than baseless speculation about your mental illnesses is spot-on speculation about your mental illnesses.

Agreed.

It is interesting to see the shear consistency with which he keeps the spotlight on other people. Even when the issue is his mental faculties, it turns out to be about someone else's conduct. I'm guessing the odds are pretty good he's seen a professional at some point. I also think the odds are very low that he does better in real life than he does here. This cannot be the first time someone has questioned his mental health.

[seebs]

It's hard to guess. People with these traits often manage to avoid any sort of professional contact, although they're often completely dysfunctional. Still, a lot of people are able to somehow survive despite being completely crazy, and mick's problems probably wouldn't keep him from doing some jobs -- although they'd be crippling disadvantages in trying to get promoted. (Which, of course, he'd explain as flaws in all the people he worked with...)

[mickthinks]

Very few people get a clinical diagnosis of NPD, because characteristically they don't think there's anything wrong with them. Mick might actually have gotten a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in the past, but be refusing to acknowledge it because the one thing worse than baseless speculation about your mental illnesses is spot-on speculation about your mental illnesses.

Agreed.

It is interesting to see the shear consistency with which he keeps the spotlight on other people. Even when the issue is his mental faculties, it turns out to be about someone else's conduct. I'm guessing the odds are pretty good he's seen a professional at some point. I also think the odds are very low that he does better in real life than he does here. This cannot be the first time someone has questioned his mental health.

It's hard to guess. People with these traits often manage to avoid any sort of professional contact, although they're often completely dysfunctional. Still, a lot of people are able to somehow survive despite being completely crazy, and mick's problems probably wouldn't keep him from doing some jobs -- although they'd be crippling disadvantages in trying to get promoted. (Which, of course, he'd explain as flaws in all the people he worked with...)

LOL mick-sucking FTW!

[Naru]

LOL mick-sucking FTW!

:mickey: + :blowme:

[seebs]

Mick, if a whole bunch of people tell me I suck, it's a safe bet that there is some aspect of my behavior or expressed personality which they are having a negative reaction to. Usually, if I explore it, I can find ways in which I could improve myself -- by my own standards, even, not just theirs -- that would mitigate this.

In general, I have found that it is best to evaluate every criticism I receive, even the ones which aren't particularly credible, because every so often someone spotted something I'd missed. I have known, of course, some people who prefer to dismiss any and all criticism. They are usually not particularly happy or effective.

[erimir]

The difference between "sometimes" and "almost always" is not necessarily smaller than the difference between "always" and "almost always"
I agree. Sometimes it isn't and sometimes it is.

Therefore describing yourself with "sometimes" merely because seebs has admitted that you aren't always convinced you're right is making a larger jump than we have reason to make on the basis of a single counterexample.
That doesn't follow, and I believe it isn't so.What doesn't follow? All you've established is that you're not 100%. From that we don't necessarily conclude that you're 50% and not 99%, etc. Only that you're less than 100%.
Of course you being someone who refuses to admit errors at an abnormally high rate would explain why someone would describe you as incapable of recognizing and admitting errors.
I think you either don't know or don't care what 'incapable' means.While I think that's an idiotic statement.
The example "George Bush never does anything right" is interesting. It is impossible for anyone to mean that literally. The same would not be true of a White House aide who said "I have never, ever seen George Bush sober". I think seebs testimony is similarly plausible and makes a similar claim to authority. Therein lies the falsehood.If someone says "I never see George Bush sober" and it's not literally true... if it is the case that he very rarely sees Bush sober, that fact would explain why he said "I never see George Bush sober."

It's called hyperbole. It's not "mysterious" why you would say "never" when it's actually "almost never". The highly abnormal amount of drunkenness explains why you would say never. Only in mick's world is this some extremely big deal.

seebs admitted that it wasn't literally true. But to act as if therefore it was thus a statement that stands with "no explanation or justification" is ludicrous.
I agree. The only difference is in whether they have to provide a case for asserting that I've made a mistake which I'm not admitting, instead of just pointing to a diagnosis of NPD and suggesting that it goes without saying.We've read your threads. We've all seen the evidence.

I agree with seebs.
seebs is unable to make a convincing case that my disagreements with him and others arise from mistakes I've made and can't admit. He's just made repeated empty claims to that effect.If you've made mistakes and won't admit them, how exactly would pointing out those mistakes now ever possibly get you to admit that he's right about the NPD?

You will say that those weren't mistakes, you know, because the whole point was that you weren't admitting that they were mistakes over a long period. Because otherwise you would be admitting that they were mistakes, and thus demonstrating that you don't have NPD. Really the only kind of evidence that could demonstrate that you don't have NPD would be if you pointed out many mistakes that you've made - asking others to point out mistakes that you've made and repeatedly refused to admit to is a pointless exercise. All it will result in is retreading those same arguments.

Of course, I'm sure you'd love that.

[Alex]

Hasn't it occurred to anyone that Mick's so-called "narcissism" etc., might be part of a pose? His bouts of contrariety - among other possibilities - amuse him. In short, his provocative behaviour is only meant to tease.

It's a reasonable assumption that behind the mask of anonymity, dissembling is rife on internet discussion boards. So it's probably best not to take at face value anything said beyond a plain statement of fact.

[seebs]

Oh, it's occurred to people. The thing is, posers normally screw up in a number of ways. Mick doesn't. He loses his shit in a manner that suggests strongly that he's deeply emotionally invested in this crap.

[erimir]

He's a very good troll if he's trolling.

He'd also be one of the most patient trolls ever. I couldn't manage to maintain that level tedium if I tried.

[mickthinks]

Mick, if a whole bunch of people tell me I suck, it's a safe bet that there is some aspect of my behavior or expressed personality which they are having a negative reaction to.
You make these pronouncements as if from a Papal throne, seebs. The only safe bet is that you've annoyed them somehow and aroused their collective hostility. You could have done that in any number of ways. (I understand there are places in the United States where you can do that just by being black.)

It is true I've annoyed a fair number of people here, you included. You are all angry and you want to make out that your anger is my fault. But it ain't necessarily so. I think you, seebs, are angry because I've accused you of dishonesty. Many communities have an unwritten rule that one shouldn't do that. But this is the Freethought Forum and no such rules are applied here.

So you'll just have to persuade everyone I am wrong about your dishonesty without resorting to blatently dishonest tactics like these spurious diagnoses of mental illness.

He loses his shit in a manner that suggests strongly that he's deeply emotionally invested in this crap.lol no u!

[ChuckF]

The only safe bet is that you've annoyed them somehow and aroused their collective hostility. You could have done that in any number of ways. (I understand there are places in the United States where you can do that just by being black.)

And in some places in the world, you can do that just by being Jewish.

[Brimshack]

I'm still trying to figure out what was Papal (or pronunciative) about Seebs' post.

(Yes, "pronunciative" is a word. It is now dammit! ...that was rather pronunciative of me, wasn't it?)

I mean it isn't usually hard to narrate someone else's post in derogatory terms, but of all the angles to pursue... somehow the notion that Seebs was making a papal pronouncement in that post just doesn't seem all that plausible. In fact, it's not even close. Makes you wonder what kinda lense Mick uses in his reading glasses.

[seebs]

Oh, it's always possible that it's all them and not you.

But you should always very carefully explore the possibility that it's mostly you, and not them. Because of all the instances in which people have found that everyone is against them, about 99.9995% have been cases in which they were utter jerks.

Even if you're in a group which is discriminated against, you will usually run into people who don't share that discrimination. Go read Black Like Me sometime; it's a very interesting story about a guy who got his skin dyed and wandered around the South for a bit finding out how people treated him differently. And you know what? Not all of them were jerks to him, even though many were.

The thing is, you never seem to be willing to seriously work through the possibility that you're just plain wrong -- not just on some excessively pedantic point, but genuinely and overall going about something in a completely inappropriate way. Other people consider that, and can give real arguments. All you have is "well, it's possible that I could see results like this if I weren't at fault."

Consider that even Sov, who was advocating raping children, was more able to communicate than you are. That should suggest that it's not people reacting negatively to you that's causing your problems...

[mickthinks]

All you've established is that you're not 100%. From that we don't necessarily conclude that you're 50% and not 99%, etc.LOL I agree. We don't necessarily conclude that I'm frequently wrong. It doesn't follow and I don't believe it's true.

If someone says "I never see George Bush sober" and it's not literally true... if it is the case that he very rarely sees Bush sober, that fact would explain why he said "I never see George Bush sober."
Why? Why would the fact explain, let alone justify, the misstatement of the fact?

It's called hyperbole.
You say that word as if it magically righted wrongs. I believe hyperbole can be and often is dishonest.

We've read your threads. We've all seen the evidence.
LOL I guess you mean you've exaggerated the evidence. You've seen me admit to a mistake and you want to say it doesn't count because of the overwhelming number of times you've seen me fail to admit a mistake. Okay, if the evidence is as overwhelming as you suggest, you'll be able to point to some of it. Post links, erimir, or admit you've absolutely no evidence to support seebs exaggerated claim.

[Angakuk]

I believe hyperbole can be and often is dishonest.


As in the following example?

You are all angry and you want to make out that your anger is my fault.

[seebs]

Mick, in general, hyperbole is not dishonest -- it's rhetorical. It's a tool for communicating something other than its literal meaning.

You could learn to understand ordinary human conversation, you know, if you wanted to.

[erimir]

All you've established is that you're not 100%. From that we don't necessarily conclude that you're 50% and not 99%, etc.LOL I agree. We don't necessarily conclude that I'm frequently wrong. It doesn't follow and I don't believe it's true.That is correct. We don't conclude from that that you're frequently wrong. Good thing I never said that.
If someone says "I never see George Bush sober" and it's not literally true... if it is the case that he very rarely sees Bush sober, that fact would explain why he said "I never see George Bush sober."
Why? Why would the fact explain, let alone justify, the misstatement of the fact?So, if it doesn't explain it, are you saying you see no connection between them? The fact that he very rarely sees Bush sober is not the cause of him saying he never sees George Bush sober?

You're talking as if this is a binary situation. He is not saying the opposite of what is truth, but merely a slight exaggeration of the truth. It's like saying the fact that I saw a shirt that was mostly blue with some white trim couldn't explain why I said I saw a blue shirt.
It's called hyperbole.
You say that word as if it magically righted wrongs. I believe hyperbole can be and often is dishonest.In what situations is hyperbole not dishonest, by your reckoning?

[seebs]

The point is, when a statement is hyperbole, that means that the literal reading IS NOT WHAT THE STATEMENT MEANS. Many rhetorical devices work that way.

[naturalist.atheist]

It's called hyperbole.
You say that word as if it magically righted wrongs. I believe hyperbole can be and often is dishonest.

I think typing everything in green instead of quoting it outright is dishonest.

[Dragar]

Perhaps we could make a list of other literary techniques that are dishonest. I think metaphor and similie must be included in there!

Quick, grab your pitchforks and torches! Meet me at the library!

[mickthinks]

Because of all the instances in which people have found that everyone is against them, ...
I don't think everyone is against me here, seebs. Yet again your 'exaggerations' undermine your point and help to establish mine.

The thing is, you never seem to be willing to seriously work through the possibility that you're just plain wrong ...
You are just plain wrong about that, dude, but I doubt you're willing to work you way through that possibility.

[Hyperbole is] a tool for communicating something other than its literal meaning.
Yes, and that separates it from dishonest forms of communication how, exactly?

You could learn to understand ordinary human conversation, you know, if you wanted to.
LOL You could learn to be a lot less arrogant and pompous in your posturing but I guess you don't want to.

[LadyShea]

A Glossary of Rhetorical Terms with Examples (http://www.uky.edu/AS/Classics/rhetoric.html)

[ChuckF]

Kentucky sure has a lot of words for lying!

[mickthinks]

So, if it [that he very rarely sees Bush sober] doesn't explain it [the misstatement "I never see George Bush sober"] , are you saying you see no connection between them?
No, there are many possible connections between them. A dishonest rhetorician will try to match her misrepresentations carefully to the prevailing circumstances in order to mislead successfully. I think it's a mistake to imagine that proximity to the truth could be a measure of the honesty of the falsehood.

It's like saying the fact that I saw a shirt that was mostly blue with some white trim couldn't explain why I said I saw a blue shirt.
Well, there you've chosen an example in which the detail being ignored is unlikely to be of much significance in most circumstances, whereas in the case of seebs's falsehood, what he suppressed wasn't a minor, almost insignificant detail, but was central to the point he was making. So, imagine the white trim was enough to exhonerate the shirt-wearer of the crime of, say, stealing a consignment of totally blue shirts that had been reported missing. In those circumstances, yes, I would agree it is like saying "The shirt I saw him wearing was blue without a trace of white". Context can be important like that.

In what situations is hyperbole not dishonest, by your reckoning
The usual principles apply, I think, so it would be situations where there is no deception, or when the deception is unintended, or when no one's agenda is served by the deception.

[The Man]

The usual principles apply, I think, so it would be situations where there is no deception, or when the deception is unintended, or when no one's agenda is served by the deception.So if seebs wasn't intending to deceive because he really couldn't remember that one exception to his statement, he wasn't being dishonest? Glad we've got that settled then!

[erimir]

Well, there you've chosen an example in which the detail being ignored is unlikely to be of much significance in most circumstances, whereas in the case of seebs's falsehood, what he suppressed wasn't a minor, almost insignificant detail, but was central to the point he was making.That's where you're wrong.

seebs's point is not particularly affected by a single counter example. It is not central to his point that you NEVER admit to mistakes (as opposed to merely rarely, at a rate significantly lower than a normal person, admit to them).

I don't know why you would think it was.

[mickthinks]

So if seebs wasn't intending to deceive because he really couldn't remember that one exception to his statement, he wasn't being dishonest?
:laugh: Oh dear, I do believe you think you've scored some kind of point there, Manny!

The thing is, if seebs really couldn't remember any exceptions then he was intending his statement to be taken literally, not as hyperbole. Agreed?

:popcornsoda:

[mickthinks]

It is not central to his point that you NEVER admit to mistakes...

Maybe, but my admitting mistakes is central to his point in a way that white trim is not central in your blue shirt example.

[erimir]

It is not central to his point that you NEVER admit to mistakes...Maybe, but my admitting mistakes is central to his point in a way that white trim is not central in your blue shirt example.And what of it? You just said that it was central to his point and compared it to a situation where the white trim would exonerate someone who was accused of stealing blue shirts without any white trim.

It turns out it's not central to his point in the way that white trim was central in your blue shirt example. So now you're saying maybe it wasn't central to his point that you NEVER admit mistakes, but that doesn't matter. But saying that it was central to his point was the very crux of your argument that his argument couldn't be seen as merely hyperbole, because that white trim supposedly makes all the difference.

Your vacillating has not gone unnoticed.

[mickthinks]

So now you're saying maybe it wasn't central to his point, but that doesn't matter.
No, I'm saying the detail that seebs suppressed was too important to the point he was making for it to parallel the white trim in your blue shirt example.

Your vacillating has not gone unnoticed.
Yeah yeah, "mick sucks" ftw
:yawn:

[erimir]

Yeeeeah, I'm really not seeing how your single counter-example is really so much more important than the white trim.

You assert that it is, but there's really no reason for us to say "OH. You admitted to a mistake that one time, you must not have NPD!"

[seebs]

Mick, I have told you many times, I do not care whether you absolutely never admit to mistakes or merely do so extremely rarely. The substantive point is that you do not admit mistakes even in cases where they are clear and unambiguous. More tellingly, while we could easily dispute any specific case, the broader pattern is indicative. Sane people, even extremely intelligent or skilled ones acting in their field of study, make mistakes. They acknowledge these mistakes and move on. In the course of an average day at work, I would guess that I make mistakes of some sort which coworkers become aware of, and/or which I discuss with coworkers, two or three times. Some of my coworkers are noticably better, but I don't think anyone regularly makes it more than a day or two between noticable and unambiguous mistakes.

If you look at other posters on this forum, they admit to mistakes of various sorts with some frequency. I'd guess that people acknowledge misremembering things, making typos, or being just plain wrong with pretty consistent frequency -- I'd guess my average is about once a day when I'm posting here with any kind of frequency.

By contrast, you are pointing to a single alleged example of you admitting having been wrong.

That you have to point it out -- and that you have a single example, not a half-dozen per week or more -- is very much the substance of my claim. You are amazingly and very unusually unwilling to admit to mistakes. That you have done so once or twice or whatever in the course of several years of active posting does not undermine this claim at all -- it actually strengthens my claim, because my essential claim is that these events are unusually rare.

[seebs]

As to the trim:

I'm wearing a blue shirt...

WAIT! STOP THE PRESSES! SEEBS HAS TOLD A GIGANTIC LIE!!!!!! There is some yellow paint on the shirt, actually.

... WAIT! OH MY FUCKING GOD IT'S SO DISHONEST IT MAKES ME CRY. Actually, some of the design has a little bit of green trim around the edges of the yellow paint.

... No, fuck it. I'm wearing a blue shirt. No one looking at the shirt is going to argue that the yellow paint, or green paint, make this untrue. (They might argue that it's more a grey than a blue, though.)

[The Man]

So if seebs wasn't intending to deceive because he really couldn't remember that one exception to his statement, he wasn't being dishonest?
:laugh: Oh dear, I do believe you think you've scored some kind of point there, Manny!Thanks for admitting that.

The thing is, if seebs really couldn't remember any exceptions then he was intending his statement to be taken literally, not as hyperbole. Agreed?In that case, as I already stated in the other thread, then yes, he would have intended it literally and it would have been an honest mistake. I also don't think it impacts his point as to which was the case, because in either case the one counterexample you have presented (and admittedly, the second example just now) is not particularly overwhelming evidence against the countless other times in which you have not admitted errors.

[seebs]

The statement "mick never admits mistakes" is hyperbole -- understood correctly, it accurately describes the situation, which is that mick admits mistakes much less often than sane people do.

The statement "I don't recall ever seeing mick make a mistake" is literal, and was entirely true when stated. However, while there was certainly a literal and true meaning to it, the interesting question is why someone would bring it up. I mean, I could say quite accurately that I don't recall ever seeing anyone put blueberries on a waffle, because as it happens, I don't recall ever seeing that. But I wouldn't normally say that... Because the implication is that the reason I'm mentioning not remembering having seen something is that I'm pointing out that it doesn't seem to happen very often.

So, again: Mick, you admit mistakes much less often than other people. I have seen many cases in which you clearly made a mistake, and where I or others were able to show in detail how we could demonstrate that your position was incorrect, and where you never admitted that you had been wrong. You make mistakes at least as often as everyone else; when it comes to interpreting plain English, you make them quite a bit more often than anyone else (unless you are lying about what you believe, which I have no reason to doubt). However, you admit mistakes rarely. This combines to yield the observation that you often refuse to admit a mistake that you've made.

The reason I'm less willing to omit lying than I used to be is that your refusal to admit errors happens to fit a pattern. Another element of that pattern is that you post obsessively demanding that other people answer your questions before you will answer theirs... whether or not they asked theirs first. Then, you often refuse to answer their questions anyway. This sort of double standard, like the refusal to admit error, would be completely characteristic of NPD. On the other hand, it's hard to say whether it's accurate to call that "lying" -- people with NPD are usually genuinely incapable of perceiving their own actions accurately.

[Crumb]

Another element of that pattern is that you post obsessively demanding that other people answer your questions before you will answer theirs... whether or not they asked theirs first.
Hell that's nothing. He has refused to answer someone's questions until someone else talking about a completely different point answers his questions. :crazy:

[seebs]

Yeah. Again, that's the kind of thing that looks a whole lot like NPD. He simply can't comprehend other people having priorities other than his own -- or at least, if they do, he thinks it's offensive and wrong for them to disregard the Actual Priorities. Which are of course his.

Pretty fucked up stuff. I'm told there's actually research in treating it, but there is a serious foundational problem in getting someone to even consider the possibility that there's something wrong. You'll note that, even with an example on the table of mick admitting an error (approximately, anyway), he's still totally unwilling to consider the possibility that he's more generally wrong, or that it's his behavior creating the strange refusal of people to cooperate.

[mickthinks]

You'll note that, even with an example on the table of mick admitting an error (clearly and undeniably), seebs is still totally and utterly committed to making it appear as if it somehow doesn't count.

:laugh:

He simply can't comprehend other people having priorities other than his own -- or at least, if they do, he thinks it's offensive and wrong for them to disregard the Actual Priorities.

:no2: This is pure fantasy, my friend, and the arrogance with which it is handed down as white-coated wisdom is a little disturbing, I think.

[The Man]

What are you talking about? Seebs just acknowledged it. Just because you've admitted to one or two errors doesn't absolve you of the more general charge that you almost never admit to them.

[seebs]

You'll note that, even with an example on the table of mick admitting an error (clearly and undeniably), seebs is still totally and utterly committed to making it appear as if it somehow doesn't count.

It doesn't "count" in that it does nothing to address the point of my claims.

Again, we're in "wait, that t-shirt isn't blue, look, there's a little bit of yellow paint on it" territory. Even if we grant that you've admitted an error, so what? At the time I wrote that post, I didn't recall a single such instance. You've now managed to find one, but... so what?

Look at it this way.

Imagine that you're a surgeon, and someone says "I can't recall a single case where your patient survived surgery." You dredge up a single example of someone surviving surgery that you performed. So... That granted, you're still killing five or six people a week, and in most weeks, you never perform a single non-fatal surgery.

Your argument is that, since you've found a single example of someone surviving your surgery, we should consider you equally qualified with any other doctor.

My argument is that if you have to look around to find a single example of yourself admitting error (and you've yet to show us a second, so far as I know...), you are clearly very unwilling to admit errors, and/or have serious cognitive difficulty in trying to perceive your own errors.

Interestingly, I've seen you make several mistakes since then, all of which you've harped on for days or weeks after someone pointed them out to you. I have yet to se you admit that, for instance, Fencesitter's post claiming she found some of your arguments persuasive was posted only after I said you had no evidence that people found your arguments persuasive, making her post totally irrelevant to the claim I made. (Any claim about the current state of the world is not affected by future changes.)

[The Man]

Mick is, as far as I can tell, attempting to claim that his acknowledgement that I had a point was him admitting a second error. I accepted that at face value at first, but he still seems to have persisted in his crusade to paint your statement as dishonest despite your acknowledgement that you simply did not remember the one (at the time) exception to the statement, so I'm not entirely sure I'm willing to accept that as an admission of error anymore. If it's an admission of error, it's a very conditional one.

[mickthinks]

Hell that's nothing. He has refused to answer someone's questions until someone else talking about a completely different point answers his questions. :crazy:
:ROFL: Hell that's nothing.

I've known one or two highly regarded veterans of :ff: refuse to answer a question for no apparent reason at all. I kind of assumed you guys are cool with that. I'd no idea it was so frowned upon...

[seebs]

It really is amazing. Anyone else would have, by now, addressed the substance of the claim -- the observation that there have been many more cases where mick has refused to admit even very obvious errors. Instead, he simply can't perceive anything but the one boundary case where he can claim he sort of has a defense.

[Angakuk]

If it were anyone else it is unlikely that we would be having this discussion, across multiple threads.

[seebs]

If you want to see the same pattern, have a look at soc.religion.quaker on Usenet, which is overrun by a guy who is deeply convinced by some crackpot's reinterpretation of the Bible. But! Since people argue with him when he talks about it, he refuses to talk about it. Instead, he posts links to previous discussions or articles and insists that people discuss them, while claiming he'd love to answer questions. But he never actually answers questions, for a variety of reasons.

The interesting thing is that, if you look at the occasional attempts by people to actually talk to him, it looks just like people trying to talk to mick.

[Iacchus]

If it were anyone else it is unlikely that we would be having this discussion, across multiple threads.Wow, interesting you should say just that (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=796081#post796081). Whatever caused you to change your mind?

[Angakuk]

What is it about the post that you linked to that makes you think I changed my mind about something and just what is it that you think I changed my mind about?

[Iacchus]

Okay, you didn't specifically mention which thread, you just said multiple threads. However, I don't see any difference between the bickering and arguing about mickthinks attitude in that thread, as I do over here. So? Does that mean mickthinks is not the total whack-job everybody thinks, or what? Why do you appear to be straddling both sides of the fence?

[Cliche Guevara]

There's none so blind as those who won't see.

Yeah.... :eyeball:


*sigh*

[Iacchus]

Well, apparently that was the case in the other thread anyway.

[Angakuk]

Okay, you didn't specifically mention which thread, you just said multiple threads. However, I don't see any difference between the bickering and arguing about mickthinks attitude in that thread, as I do over here. So? Does that mean mickthinks is not the total whack-job everybody thinks, or what? Why do you appear to be straddling both sides of the fence?

You are apparently under the impression that, because I posted, in a different thread, that I thought I understood the point that mick was trying to make, in that thread, that this means that I am, in some manner, supporting mick in that thread and therefore am guilty of comitting a contradiction of some sort. This, I take it, is the genesis of your fence straddling charge.

I don't think there is any contradiction involved. It is still the case that I think that mick is a self-absorbed, drama queen who ends up making nearly every thread he posts in a thread about him and how badly everyone treats him. That he is sometimes misunderstood seems to clearly be the case. That he is often maligned, sometimes gratuitously, is also pretty evident. That he frequently invites both the misunderstanding and the insult also seems to be inarguably the case. That he is the one who is primarily responsible for propagating these 'mick-discussions' across multiple threads seems indisputable. Hence, my observation that "[i]f it were anyone else it is unlikely that we would be having this discussion, across multiple threads".

So, to answer your question, I don't believe that I am straddling a fence. On the contrary, I think that I have been clear and consistent in my position with regard to mickthinks.

[naturalist.atheist]

Yes, sometimes I think mick is a parody of a Monty Python skit but not as funny.

[Iacchus]

That he is often maligned, sometimes gratuitously, is also pretty evident. That he frequently invites both the misunderstanding and the insult also seems to be inarguably the case. That he is the one who is primarily responsible for propagating these 'mick-discussions' across multiple threads seems indisputable. Hence, my observation that "[i]f it were anyone else it is unlikely that we would be having this discussion, across multiple threads".Or, maybe it's possible mickthinks doesn't like the idea of folks feigning to be too sure of themselves when, in fact they have no idea what they're talking about or, misrepresent themselves in general. I don't know, I haven't been following his posting all that closely. I entertain enough bickering and arguing in the threads I post in. :yup:

[mickthinks]

Yeeeeah, I'm really not seeing how your single counter-example is really so much more important than the white trim.

Someone who hasn't admitted an error is much more likely to be suffering from the kind of mental disorder that prevents them from admitting errors than someone who has admitted an error. So the complete absence of error admissions would be significant in a way that the complete absence of white trim on your blue shirt would not.

I find it hard to believe you need this spelled out for you, erimir!

[erimir]

So when you say it's central to his point, what you mean is that it is related to his main point? Or what? I kinda assumed that when you said it was central, that it was the crux of his argument, as in, this piece of evidence shows that he is wrong.

What you're saying is that the fact that you admitted a mistake makes you less likely to have NPD than if there were no examples of you admitting a mistake? That's true, but only trivially so.

Sure, it gets you a little closer to showing that you don't have NPD... but only a little. It doesn't make anywhere close to a convincing case that you don't have NPD. It is not even a speed bump in the way of seebs's argument. It could be part of a convincing counter-argument, but on its own it falls laughably short. I was being charitable and assuming you were trying to make a point that wasn't practically irrelevant.

I'll keep that in mind for the future. Mick may be making a trivial point that no one would really contest but also doesn't really affect the substantive issues.

[mickthinks]

Sure, it gets you a little closer to showing that you don't have NPD... but only a little.
Ah, but I'm not trying to show that I don't have NPD. I'm showing that seebs's diagnosis is faulty and if he's honest he would do well to amend or withdraw it.

Perhaps if I put it in mathematical terms it will help. Suppose p(N) is the reliability of seeb's dignosis that I suffer from NPD, and O and O' are the observations as he literally claimed (that he has seen me admit zero errors) and as amended according to the hyperbole defence (that he has seen me admit some errors). Then p(N|O) is the reliability of the diagnosis as seebs originally presented it, and p(N|O') is the reliability of the diagosis as he intended it to be read, according to you and the other hyperbole-theorists.

I reckon that p(N|O) > p(N|O')
You maintain p(N|O) ≈ p(N|O')

I think you need to provide some figures to back up your belief that the reliabilty of seebs diagnosis is not significantly reduced when his evidence claim is taken less literally. Are there any clinical studies that support your view over mine?

[erimir]

Sure, it gets you a little closer to showing that you don't have NPD... but only a little.
Ah, but I'm not trying to show that I don't have NPD. I'm showing that seebs's diagnosis is faulty and if he's honest he would do well to amend or withdraw it.

Perhaps if I put it in mathematical terms it will help. Suppose p(N) is the reliability of seeb's dignosis that I suffer from NPD, and O and O' are the observations as he literally claimed (that he has seen me admit zero errors) and as amended according to the hyperbole defence (that he has seen me admit some errors). Then p(N|O) is the reliability of the diagnosis as seebs originally presented it, and p(N|O') is the reliability of the diagosis as he intended it to be read, according to you and the other hyperbole-theorists.

I reckon that p(N|O) > p(N|O')
You maintain p(N|O) ≈ p(N|O')

I think you need to provide some figures to back up your belief that the reliabilty of seebs diagnosis is not significantly reduced when his evidence claim is taken less literally. Are there any clinical studies that support your view over mine?Are there any studies that support the view that a single observation of admitting a single error changes P at a statistically significant level? I mean, there probably aren't any studies on that specific subject anyway, because that's not enough of a difference for any researcher to care about it in the first place...

Buuuut I really doubt that you could show that it would change P at a statistically significant level. Saying that p(N|O) ≈ p(N|O') seems reasonable to me. Sure, p(N|O') is probably lower than than p(N|O), but at a significant level?

Really, when the difference is just a single data point, I think the null hypothesis ought to be that it is not significant.

[seebs]

Actually, mick, I've never seen you admit an error, I've just been told that you did.

And the influence on P is exactly zero. It's not even formally a direct diagnostic component, it's just evidence of the pattern. Here's a better summary:

Narcissists are (a) extremely sensitive to personal criticism and (b) extremely critical of other people. They think that they must be seen as perfect or superior or infallible, next to god-like (if not actually divine, then sitting on the right hand of God) -- or else they are worthless. There's no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists. They can't tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, "Please don't do that again -- it hurts," narcissists will turn around and do it again harder to prove that they were right the first time; their reasoning seems to be something like "I am a good person and can do no wrong; therefore, I didn't hurt you and you are lying about it now..." -- sorry, folks, I get lost after that. Anyhow, narcissists are habitually cruel in little ways, as well as big ones, because they're paying attention to their fantasy and not to you, but the bruises on you are REAL, not in your imagination. Thus, no matter how gently you suggest that they might do better to change their ways or get some help, they will react in one of two equally horrible ways: they will attack or they will withdraw. Be wary of wandering into this dragon's cave -- narcissists will say ANYTHING, they will trash anyone in their own self-justification, and then they will expect the immediate restoration of the status quo. They will attack you (sometimes physically) and spew a load of bile, insult, abuse, contempt, threats, etc., and then -- well, it's kind of like they had indigestion and the vicious tirade worked like a burp: "There. Now I feel better. Where were we?" They feel better, so they expect you to feel better, too. They will say you are nothing, worthless, and turn around immediately and say that they love you. When you object to this kind of treatment, they will say, "You just have to accept me the way I am. (God made me this way, so God loves me even if you are too stupid to understand how special I am.)" Accepting them as they are (and staying away from them entirely) is excellent advice. The other "punishment" narcissists mete out is banishing you from their glorious presence -- this can turn into a farce, since by this point you are probably praying to be rescued, "Dear God! How do I get out of this?" The narcissist expects that you will be devastated by the withdrawal of her/his divine attention, so that after a while -- a few weeks or months (i.e., the next time the narcissist needs to use you for something) -- the narcissist will expect you to have learned your lesson and be eager to return to the fold. If you have learned your lesson, you won't answer that call. They can't see that they have a problem; it's always somebody else who has the problem and needs to change. Therapies work at all only when the individual wants to change and, though narcissists hate their real selves, they don't want to change -- they want the world to change. And they criticize, gripe, and complain about almost everything and almost everyone almost all the time. There are usually a favored few whom narcissists regard as absolutely above reproach, even for egregious misconduct or actual crime, and about whom they won't brook the slightest criticism. These are people the narcissists are terrified of, though they'll tell you that what they feel is love and respect; apparently they don't know the difference between fear and love. Narcissists just get worse and worse as they grow older; their parents and other authority figures that they've feared die off, and there's less and less outside influence to keep them in check.

This applies more to face-to-face interactions, but the key characteristic at issue is an astounding tendency for believing that problems are someone else's fault. Mick may have admitted mistakes, in the trivial sense of having forgotten something or not known a fact. I've never seen him admit to any moral culpability -- to having done a thing which was not justified.

So there's a "never" for you to pick at, mick. Go ahead and show us a post prior to this one in which you admitted that you did something mean, or cruel, and that you were wrong to do so. :)

[Sock Puppet]

Now, that's entirely unfair. It will be impossible for mick to find something he's done here that's mean or cruel, because what he says is so laughably ineffectual that no one could suffer from it beyond mild annoyance or severe boredom.

[seebs]

Mean and cruel are fundamentally not about effect but about intent. Mick is regularly hostile and derisive towards people. Of course, since he has the stereotypical lack of empathy of NPD, he won't perceive that he's mean. That's the beauty of it. If he can't find such an example, that supports the NPD hypothesis.

[mickthinks]

Are there any studies that support the view that a single observation of admitting a single error changes P at a statistically significant level?
:wtf: It's simple probability, dude! JoeP posted this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20146) on it a while back.

The point I'm making here is that unless there's some clear clinical evidence that NPD symptoms don't follow the usual rules of statistics (and I don't believe there is), your belief (that the reliabilty of seebs diagnosis is not significantly reduced when his evidence claim is taken less literally) is a big mistake.