Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 5779977" data-attributes="member: 54707">I'll let you guys define it as you wish and then&nbsp; work outwards from there. I'm trying to avoid telling you what to think, so then&nbsp; you can modify what I say, agree, or disagree with it.&nbsp; &nbsp;This is, in my opinion, then single greatest weakness of&nbsp; the Geek mindset. (I am not a Geek, and I'm not attacking Geeks, merely making&nbsp; an observation about the way I notice most thinking and talking, which is:&nbsp; tell me how things operate and then I'll tweak it, improve it, or criticize&nbsp; it. Geeks assume the parameters already exist and therefore their job is to&nbsp; tweak them and make them work better or point out why they are not efficient.&nbsp; They rarely assume, &quot;hey the whole system is wrong, or what if there were a&nbsp; totally different system, how would that work?&quot;)&nbsp; &nbsp;I'm not talking about telling you what I think at this&nbsp; point, though I have my own opinions of course. That's not what I'm talking&nbsp; about at all. My definitions. I'm seeing what you guys can come up originally&nbsp; based upon how you see the problem (assuming there is one to you) or&nbsp; situation.&nbsp; &nbsp;I've got to sort of define or at least allude to the&nbsp; problem or circumstance in some way, for purposes of dialogue, but I'm being&nbsp; purposely and anti-Geekily vague. I'm not arguing, debating, or defining things&nbsp; Geek style, which is someone else sets the parameters and then you argue their&nbsp; initial assumptions. I'm saying, &quot;what are your initial assumptions, and what&nbsp; will that mean?&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp;You define things as you wish and then work from there.&nbsp; See what you and others can come up with.&nbsp; &nbsp;In this way rather than just typically Geekily&nbsp; discussing the minutiae of what has already been defined and redefined a&nbsp; thousand different times, let's see if real breakthroughs and breakaways of past&nbsp; mindsets can be promoted or established.&nbsp; &nbsp;That's how I'm handling all of these threads. Not as,&nbsp; &quot;explain to me what gravity is and then we'll all argue the accuracy of the&nbsp; calculations.&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp;I'm saying, &quot;let's assume we see gravity but don't yet&nbsp; know how to define it or how it works, or even necessarily what it should be&nbsp; called. Toss out some hypotheses of your own and let's see what might actually&nbsp; work.&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp;So, define things as you wish and run from there. The&nbsp; point is not for you to analyze my theories, but to see if you can start from&nbsp; your own vantage points and make your own breakthroughs based on your own&nbsp; observations, not on the observations of others. &nbsp; &nbsp;I hope we'll be getting at the way things actually work,&nbsp; and not just arguing one or another of a thousand already known postulated&nbsp; theories.&nbsp; &nbsp;So do what you do and let's see how it&nbsp; works.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jack7, post: 5779977, member: 54707"] [FONT=Verdana]I'll let you guys define it as you wish and then work outwards from there. I'm trying to avoid telling you what to think, so then you can modify what I say, agree, or disagree with it.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]This is, in my opinion, then single greatest weakness of the Geek mindset. (I am not a Geek, and I'm not attacking Geeks, merely making an observation about the way I notice most thinking and talking, which is: [I]tell me how things operate and then I'll tweak it, improve it, or criticize it[/I]. Geeks assume the parameters already exist and therefore their job is to tweak them and make them work better or point out why they are not efficient. They rarely assume, "hey the whole system is wrong, or what if there were a totally different system, how would that work?")[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]I'm not talking about telling you what I think at this point, though I have my own opinions of course. That's not what I'm talking about at all. My definitions. I'm seeing what you guys can come up originally based upon how you see the problem (assuming there is one to you) or situation.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]I've got to sort of define or at least allude to the problem or circumstance in some way, for purposes of dialogue, but I'm being purposely and anti-Geekily vague. I'm not arguing, debating, or defining things Geek style, which is someone else sets the parameters and then you argue their initial assumptions. I'm saying, "what are your initial assumptions, and what will that mean?"[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]You define things as you wish and then work from there. See what you and others can come up with.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]In this way rather than just typically Geekily discussing the minutiae of what has already been defined and redefined a thousand different times, let's see if real breakthroughs and breakaways of past mindsets can be promoted or established.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]That's how I'm handling all of these threads. Not as, "explain to me what gravity is and then we'll all argue the accuracy of the calculations."[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]I'm saying, "let's assume we see gravity but don't yet know how to define it or how it works, or even necessarily what it should be called. Toss out some hypotheses of your own and let's see what might actually work."[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]So, define things as you wish and run from there. The point is not for you to analyze my theories, but to see if you can start from your own vantage points and make your own breakthroughs based on your own observations, not on the observations of others. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]I hope we'll be getting at the way things actually work, and not just arguing one or another of a thousand already known postulated theories.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]So do what you do and let's see how it works.[/FONT] [/QUOTE]

Verification