Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
morty

Objectivity.

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Houston Canary"]Relax, nbs. You have a brain a third the size of ours. It''s science. YOUR READ MY NEWS!?!?[/quote]

 

Woosh[ap]

 

Houson, we have a problem!!!!

 

YOUR NOT READ MY NEWS!?!?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norfolkbroadslim,

 

I''ll say again, for the avoidance of guilt, yes it was done objectively but there is the emotional need to do it objectively before it can be done objectively, therefore underpinning all objective behaviour is an emotional need, which by definition is subjective, so SUBJECTIVITY RULES OK.

 

I must have better things to do today than spend my time on here, I could go and watch some Premiership football, oh wait.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LDC,

 

I''m afraid you have made an erroneous assumption, the external locus of control I refer to is not the same thing that makes a star or galaxy, so the rest of your considered reply doesn''t really apply to my point, but thanks for adding to the thread anyway.

 

The external locus of control I was referring to, quite simply meant that some people believe that others make then do things, or they have to do something, well they don''t but if they want to believe this then at least make it a conscious choice and not the default position.  But only when you accept full responsibility for where you are in life, a life which reflects all your past decisions and thinking, will you have the power to get somewhere even better.  If you believe you have an external locus of control then someone is pressing all the buttons on your remote control and you are dancing to their tune and you will probably find yourself saying things such as; now look what you''ve made me do.

 

Well if other people make you do things (outside of physical coercion) then you need to wait for them to decide how the rest of your life is going to turn out, in the meantime they will have a load of fun pressing your buttons! 

 

Enjoy the rest of your day folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ray"]

It appears there are posters on here who just don''t get the point I am making, yet the point I am making is scientifically proven.

 

Yes Pavlov''s dog salivated, but that for them it became a habit, as human beings we have habits and all habits are to satisfy an emotional need (apart from reflex action, which do not go through the brain), take smoking or drinking as an example.

 

We always act and behave in a manner that satisfies our emotional needs. A football manger may have the emotional need to keep inappropriate emotions from taking over, as fans often do and sometimes managers and players do too..

 

If we not driven by emotions, we would be robots.

 

As I said in an early post, beware of semantics.

 

Failure to accept we make every decision to satisfy our emotions means we do not take responsibility for our own lives and that we are happy to accept we have an external locus of control, which we don''t.  You and you alone are responsible for everything you do.

 

 

[/quote]

 

I don''t think that is the case. I think there are three problems. Firstly, you keep saying this is scientifically proved. Is it, to the satisfaction of everyone in the scientific community? Or is it a thesis supported by some findings but not yet accepted as a theory (using the term in its strict sense as something proven)? It is also not clear whether by "emotions" you are talking about emotions people have consciously (which are bound up with logic) or emotions that seem to be effectively conditioned reflexes in the brain. Unless the latter I don''t see how.they can be "scientifically proved".Secondly, despite you warning about semantics your posts have not always been clear expression of what you''re trying to say. I entirely get that this is a complicated area, and simplifying it so posters such as myself and morty can understand might lead to imprecisiion but...Thirdly, you have contradicted yourself over what seems to be a key point. In some posts you say that people take decisions (ie they decide to make a decision) emotionally, but then the decision itself  - ie the specific choice - can be objective. But elsewhere you say all actions (ie the choices) are emotion-driven. "We always act and behave in a manner that satisfies our emotional needs." This is exemplified by the conundrum I and NBS raised that if "SUBJECTIVITY RULES OK" and all decisions have at the very least an emotional base then how can you trust scientists to view data objectively? They will see what their deep-seated emotions want them to see. There is, after all, a long history of this in science, including the extreme examples of Germany during the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exemplified by the conundrum I and NBS raised that if "SUBJECTIVITY RULES OK" and all decisions have at the very least an emotional base then how can you trust scientists to view data objectively? They will see what their deep-seated emotions want them to see. There is, after all, a long history of this in science, including the extreme examples of Germany during the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.

PC, I would suggest that there are many ''scientists'' out there who are not in fact using scientific method, which is the formulation of predictive models.

There is so much misunderstanding of what science (the practice of scientific methodology) consists of that I despair.

Karl Popper''s work on the philosophy of science is as good as any I have read, & should be essential for all scientists - & probably everyone else for that matter; every living organism relies on science (wittingly or unwittingly), from an amoeba upwards, in order to survive. Science is woven into existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ron obvious"]This is exemplified by the conundrum I and NBS raised that if "SUBJECTIVITY RULES OK" and all decisions have at the very least an emotional base then how can you trust scientists to view data objectively? They will see what their deep-seated emotions want them to see. There is, after all, a long history of this in science, including the extreme examples of Germany during the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.

PC, I would suggest that there are many ''scientists'' out there who are not in fact using scientific method, which is the formulation of predictive models.

There is so much misunderstanding of what science (the practice of scientific methodology) consists of that I despair.

Karl Popper''s work on the philosophy of science is as good as any I have read, & should be essential for all scientists - & probably everyone else for that matter; every living organism relies on science (wittingly or unwittingly), from an amoeba upwards, in order to survive. Science is woven into existence.[/quote]

 

You''ve recommended this before, ron, I think. The trouble is there are still so many books to read!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

I have enjoyed our debate but to do this topic justice by writing posts is perhaps not the best method and as I have said, semantics can trip us all up.

 

There is a myriad of scientific research on the subject and maybe our discussions have fired you up to seek some of it out.

 

Perhaps scientists cannot be trusted to view data objectively, but as I have said before, unless they have the emotional need to view the data at all, they wont view it objectively or subjectively.  Perhaps this point is proven by the fact we have varying opinions of individual players'' abilities, yet we will have no doubt all seen the same data.

 

Finally, as I am leaving this thread because I don''t have the time to continue on (which of course I do but I am choosing to do something more emotionally pleasing with it) may I add that as we have varying opinions on even this topic, does this go to prove we start off with a subjective view, if we all viewed it objectively, then surely we would all see it the same, wouldn''t we?????????????

 

In other words the fact we all view things differently means we do not view things with our logics, or we would all see the same thing, we view them with our emotions, or at least with an emotional need to do so.

 

Thanks all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ray"]if we all viewed it objectively, then surely we would all see it the same, wouldn''t we????????????? [/quote]It''s scientifically proven that one ? is just as effective as ?????????????.Or perhaps you just have ''the shakes'' after a heavy night. [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Ray"]if we all viewed it objectively, then surely we would all see it the same, wouldn''t we????????????? [/quote]It''s scientifically proven that one ? is just as effective as ?????????????.Or perhaps you just have ''the shakes'' after a heavy night. [;)][/quote]

Of course fans are subjective. We all hope that our teams and players will be better than the others even when there''s absolutely no evidence to suggest that. Some will think that England might win the World Cup in Brazil next year should we qualify is an example. It''s difficult to be objective about something you feel passionately about. Some of the arguments on this board show us that although some do their best to force out those whose point of view differs from their own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="morty"]Jeez, always an agenda.[/quote]

 

I disagree fundamentally with all of the several points made in the above post.[/quote]

Your emotion is clouding your objectivity. [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="morty"]Jeez, always an agenda.[/quote]

 

I disagree fundamentally with all of the several points made in the above post.

[/quote]Free your mind, you must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="ron obvious"]You''re all binners

All of you[/quote]

 

True, Ron, but we have come to terms with it. You too need to embrace your inner Binner.

 

[/quote]

The Inner Binner is merely a bin liner. It is all he has to separate his bin-nes from reality. It serves an emotional and not a practical need, though the binner doesn''t realise it. The binner''s brain is hard-wired to deal with primordial needs and sabre-tooth tigers. He may not love his sister but it does not stop him from you know what. Is it nature or nuture? Emotional needs or a physical, perhaps involuntary, response?

We should examine this bin liner in more detail. If the cap fits, wear it, I say. If it doesn''t then it probably isn''t your cap. Which came first, the cap or the person wearing it? If it''s an England cap then it''s probably more of a metaphysical entity and there''s not been many of those from Norwich City players, has there Neil?

What are they doing in training? Satisfying emotional needs or press ups? Are keepyuppies an integral part of football or just showing off? Who knows? The nice Mr. Chris Hughton comes across as a decent chap but I don''t think McNally will stand for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Warren Hill"]Dr Crafty Canary,

I challenge you to find me someone who thinks England can win next years WC.[/quote]

The journalist Mike Parry who thinks England will win every World Cup they qualify for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting thread. Agree there is an emotional aspect to the comments on this message board although what emotional needs are satisfied by the current unjustified subjective criticism of CH and by the anti-deliarites in the past is not clear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unbelievably, how this thread has changed subject !It started with  ''Objectivity'' Fans and Managers, my comment on that is Hucks I think the fans had a lot more idea than the manager when he left.Then mid thread it was everything wrong with this board.And finished with "I challenge you to find me someone who thinks England can win next years WC." My comment Yes, I think we can win but so can any team that makes the final, Czechoslovakia and Greece have done it in the European Championships, one day it will be an outsider in the World Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Warren Hill"]Where has he said this Doctor Crafty?

Could you provide a link?[/quote]

 

A link? No, as he has said this on TalkSport radio and I didn''t think to have a tape recorder going when I was listening whilst travelling to work. He used to be a regular on the Alan Brazil Sports Breakfast show and the last two World Cups has come out with this tosh. Fortunately he then disappeared for a long time but has recently returned for the review of the papers. The bloke''s a complete ar*e with some ridiculous ideas like jockeys having wing mirrors fitted to their helmets so they can see what''s happening behind them. I suppose some find him amusing but there''s no accounting for taste.  

BTW, I know a lot of posters think TalkSport is TalkSh*te and when Durham is on I''d agree. However the breakfast show, without pr*t Parry, is not too bad and they occasionally interview the City manager of the day and Mick Dennis is a fairly regular contributor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure a tape recorder would have been the best tool for providing a link but if you could record these soundbites it would help.

Anyway, we''ve managed to find two people so far, so they are out there. Personally, I think we have absolutely no chance, first time I''ve ever thought that. Previously I''ve always managed to cling to some sort of optimism...

I wonder whether my pessimism of our chances makes my view more objective or whether it is equally subjective but in the opposite way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crafty,I agree about the Alan Brazil show now that they have got rid of dopey Ronnie Irani. Keys and Gray used to be good, but they have now been replcaed by Colin Murray from MOTD2 last year and I cant stand him. Hawksbee & Jacobs are good too. All in all a mixed bag, except for Durham who is unlistenable for anyone with the lsightes bit of education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Warren Hill"]Not sure a tape recorder would have been the best tool for providing a link but if you could record these soundbites it would help. Anyway, we''ve managed to find two people so far, so they are out there. Personally, I think we have absolutely no chance, first time I''ve ever thought that. Previously I''ve always managed to cling to some sort of optimism... I wonder whether my pessimism of our chances makes my view more objective or whether it is equally subjective but in the opposite way?[/quote]

 

Whereas I wonder, Warren, if you''ve consistently got it wrong previously, you may have it wrong again, which would leave us all delighted. [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Warren Hill"]Not sure a tape recorder would have been the best tool for providing a link but if you could record these soundbites it would help.

Anyway, we''ve managed to find two people so far, so they are out there. Personally, I think we have absolutely no chance, first time I''ve ever thought that. Previously I''ve always managed to cling to some sort of optimism...

I wonder whether my pessimism of our chances makes my view more objective or whether it is equally subjective but in the opposite way?[/quote]

I, too, don''t think England have any chance of winning it if we qualify. Hopefully some of the young players such as Redmond and the young Everton lad whose name eludes me for the moment will help to improve our chances in the future.

Given that, I have little interest in the WC these days because of the rampant corruption of FIFA. I hope the FA never wastes money bidding to host it in the future. To have the best technical and economic bid according to FIFA''s own technical panel yet only gain 1 vote other than our own because Blatter instructed the voters not to vote for us makes it pointless for me. I wouldn''t even be surprised if referees have been made aware of the desired result in some games by the FIFA high ups. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ha! Maybe Yankee, maybe.

I would add that I don''t think I''ve ever been convinced that we WOULD win it, just that previously I have thought that it was possible we COULD.

I just don''t see us having a prayer this time around. Crafty could be right in so much as Redmond, Barkley (?), Wilshere could improve our chances in the future but we look a long way short right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Louis Cyphre"]Crafty,I agree about the Alan Brazil show now that they have got rid of dopey Ronnie Irani. Keys and Gray used to be

good, but they have now been replcaed by Colin Murray from MOTD2 last year and I cant stand him. Hawksbee & Jacobs are good too. All in all a mixed bag, except for Durham who is unlistenable for anyone with the lsightes bit of education.[/quote]

I agree about Colin Murray, just switch over between ten and one now. Not sure what it is, just can''t be doing with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...