KajitiSouls Wrote:... this is one of the few times I would seriously consider saying "Fail!" and mean it.
No honestly. Harrison has a point. Who is going to respond if I quote that long article and break it down piece by piece with counter-points? Is the article-writer going to descend on Southperry's Rubik's Cube and spend time exchanging jabs back and forth? I highly doubt that Kassoljoy will argue with a piece-to-piece breakdown on a given article as he didn't dedicate the amount of time to contribute his opinions to the piece in the first place except for the subjective impression that the piece is "interesting." Everyone else is simply skimming the basic premise of the article and not attacking any of the gaping logical holes within the piece itself which relies on anecdotal evidence, philosophy (Socrates + Nietzche), movie quips, and wikipedia-history to drive its point across. Oh wait, is there a firm singular point that drives the paper in the same vein as a hypothesis? Or is it simply a piece about a social premise? I guess "reading" is required in order to answer that question.
It is ironic that my form of "skimming" is considered by other people to be "reading," and by "ironic," I mean vastly and utterly disappointing. Harrison has shown in the past that he can be meticulous when reading a given post by subsequently breaking it down into small parts in order to offer bit-by-bit responses. Taking such time out in order to offer such in-depth responses places a major drain on time and energy, two things which are both precious to all of us. You are "reading" in the truest sense of the term, when you take the time and effort to comprehend and analyze a given piece of writing. When such considerations are given to not only understanding, but also crafting a well-written response, it is often a childish hope that someone would respond with the same mentality. If such endeavors won't receive a similar priced return, then why would one waste time to truly read and carefully respond to an article that has been copy and pasted in a matter of minutes?
The quality of an expressed opinion is representative of how well a given article has been "read." A well-thought out opinion cannot be created without the pre-requisite of having a fairly strong understanding of the article that it covers. Certain criteria can be used in order to evaluate the depth of a response such as sophistication, pertinence, and the level of detail. Determining the standards for what can be assessed as "reading" is of relevance as the article references Socrates distinguishing between the illusion of wisdom in contrast to actually possessing wisdom in its truest form. To be honest, most discussions fall short of being truly intellectual in nature, especially on the internet. Most individuals are more interested in the sense of being recognized as an intellectual, rather than receiving knowledge and intelligence. Cognition, understanding, focus, and various other factors are blanket statements to discerning a decline in intelligence. Faithful quantitative measurements for gauging innate IQ have yet to appear therefore leaving qualitative assessments to hold weight leaving the field open to sociologists to fill the gap with crap. The fears of moving towards a data-set factor of intelligence, much less AI-centered thinking is greatly unwarranted and possibly childish in how the author represents and paints the canvas with his own inner bias and misgivings. Inability to read the article in its entirety might actually be considered a progression of intelligence as time is better spent accruing objective knowledge rather than reading the subjective slant of a glorified sociologist.