I don’t intend to be condescending. And I know I’m not better than others. Which is why I defer to experts and sources that have more knowledge and studies that reference what I think. Conversations are fine when talking about the weather or sports. But if you are getting your philosophy and politics from conversations with strangers on the internet, you’re at best going to learn a narrow view of the world, or worst going to be led astray.
Don’t look to social media to learn what to think, but use it as a tool to learn what not to think.
Discussing ideas is not the same as getting my philosophy blindly from what people say on the internet.
What you worry about, being led astray by a narrow view, is precisely what I worry about in people like you. If someone is unwilling to talk about their ideas or hear others out, which is what you did, then they are less likely to hear good reason to rethink their world view.
Likewise, if you are unable to summarize your ideas in conversational form, I have low confidence in believing you understand the things you say. An expert in a scientific field is almost always able to explain more complicated theories in simpler ways that the layman can understand. If a theory can’t be explained to a layman, it’s effectively useless.
You’re also suggesting that the reason I’m here is to finally get a grasp on all these theories I’ve heard about but never learned. That’s not what’s happening, and I already told you that explicitly. I am here to talk to you about what you think. That’s normal and should be understood as normal.
I don’t intend to be condescending. And I know I’m not better than others. Which is why I defer to experts and sources that have more knowledge and studies that reference what I think. Conversations are fine when talking about the weather or sports. But if you are getting your philosophy and politics from conversations with strangers on the internet, you’re at best going to learn a narrow view of the world, or worst going to be led astray.
Don’t look to social media to learn what to think, but use it as a tool to learn what not to think.
Discussing ideas is not the same as getting my philosophy blindly from what people say on the internet.
What you worry about, being led astray by a narrow view, is precisely what I worry about in people like you. If someone is unwilling to talk about their ideas or hear others out, which is what you did, then they are less likely to hear good reason to rethink their world view.
Likewise, if you are unable to summarize your ideas in conversational form, I have low confidence in believing you understand the things you say. An expert in a scientific field is almost always able to explain more complicated theories in simpler ways that the layman can understand. If a theory can’t be explained to a layman, it’s effectively useless.
You’re also suggesting that the reason I’m here is to finally get a grasp on all these theories I’ve heard about but never learned. That’s not what’s happening, and I already told you that explicitly. I am here to talk to you about what you think. That’s normal and should be understood as normal.