Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 5790040" data-attributes="member: 54707">This observation, based on what is said before and after, is obviously assumptive on 3 levels.I've never seen a boy build anything that he didn't attach a story to it. He might finish it first and then build the story, or, as has been my usual observation, have the story first in mind and then build the object/scenario. He might not discuss the story until the object is finished, but I've never seen a boy who couldn't ascribe a purpose and a story to an object he built or reproduced. (This can easily be tested with any boy you know.) The boy might not discuss his story, might prefer to keep it to himself unless asked, or his friends. Whereas a girl might voluntarily and without prompting describe her story to anyone around.Some of the conclusions of this study are self-contradictory (and erroneous) to careful observation, and the conclusions are very assumptive. The assumption in this case is because the boy builds in a different way the implication is he's not storytelling or devising purposes other than the act of building, when girls by contrast build to tell stories, or to model things beyond building. Different methods do not in any way necessitate different purposes. With complex behaviors it is often very easy to draw the wrong conclusions regarding behavior. It's part of the trickiness of the soft sciences.I understand it, I've seen wrong conclusions drawn over and over again in the soft sciences, and I've run experiments myself drawing faulty conclusions not because of errors in the evidence, but because of interpretive errors. It's easy to do because humans are so complex.But to honest the reason I don't point out things for others is because that's just not the way I think or prefer to argue. I know this seems strange to modern Geek culture (and that is a generalization of course, Geek culture), but I much prefer to point out discrepancies or clues and then let others see these things for themselves and come to their own conclusions about what they mean. I'll make an overt point if I feel it's really needed, but otherwise I'm not a Geek who argues point-counterpoint. It's not meant to be evasive, and I know the modern tendency is to say this obviously means that - but that's what I mean by the examples above. A thing may seem to mean that, but not mean that at all, that's just the conclusion drawn thus far.And a thing may seem to mean this, but that is only a partially accurate conclusion. That's what I mean by self-contradictory and paradoxical things. A thing can be self-contradictory and still be at least partially accurate, just as a paradox can be true and yet seem logically fallacious. The modern Geek tendency in analyzing things seems to me a naturally adversarial one of "wrong-proving." For instance I made an observation about the soft sciences which seems (I cannot be sure, but I suspect) some took as a proof-challenge about the soft sciences, or the conclusions the CAs drew in the article. That thought never occured to me in making the statement, my observation was based around the empirically provable fact that studies (especially in the soft sciences) are ripe with interpretative errors, as are some of the conclusions cited in the article. I meant nothing more by the statement than that. That cultural anthropology is a very fuzzy science open to wide gaps in interpretation. (All science is but especially soft sciences because they are about people and behavior. This is not a judgement, just a fact.)Arguments about wrong-proving are fine debates to have, but very incomplete ones. Me personally I'd rather see what parts of a thing might be true, and what parts of a thing might be false, and then set about refining things to get as close as possible to the Real Truth, which will never really be, the Real Truth. My observations above are at best also partial truths. So I try not, if possible, to tell people what I think they can figure out on their own. I don't object to it, just try and avoid it if possible, especially when discussing other peoples work and conclusions.I think everyone here is smart enough to come to their own conclusions, agree or disagree with me. So I try not to explain the things I think others can get for themselves, unless I'm just giving my personal opinion about some matter.</blockquote>

Verification