The Cult Of Likabilty

[newhaul]

It was fun and now I have proof vegetarian is a bad thing for survival of the human species glad I'm a carnivore

[Cherp]

This is a weird thread.

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

... Oh and anyone that uses Wiki as a source...I infer quite a bit from...ha ha

I get yer point Rich but I'm pretty impressed with Wiki for my own assuredly unscientific needs and the open source-ness of it makes updates quick and easy. I contribute when they ask.

[Canibul]

"If you read it on the internet, then it MUST be true."
Thomas Jefferson

[GordMay]

[QUOTE = SV THIRD DAY]
... Oh and anyone that uses Wiki as a source...I infer quite a bit from...ha ha[/QUOTE]

FWIW: Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a credible or authoritative source; but, rather a “tertiary source”. However, Wikipedia can be excellent at leading one to reliable/authoritative primary & secondary sources.

[Blue Crab]

Yeah, what Gord said.

Wiki usually answers whatever questions I have. But maybe that was Rich's point.

[barnakiel]

Yep. It has always been that the strongest in any group would dominate and tell the weaker ones whom/what to like and what to think. This is the basis for all social activities: religions, boy scouts or 'being cruisers'. Just think of fashion or of lifestyle choices: we mostly do what pleases others rather than think and do what we do like. In fact, this equals to not having our own 'likes' and letting others decide for ourselves. Great introduction to politics and wars too!

One can only either take it or leave it. Once you take it, you always pay the ride. Unless you are one of the dominators, then you ride at the cost of others.

We are in fact blessed (well, some of us) to live in times when membership in forums and churches is NOT obligatory and the penalties for non-belonging are pretty (historically) minimal.

Human nature they call it. Inherently evil, at times egalitarian.

b.

[JPA Cate]

Human nature they call it. Inherently evil, at times egalitarian.

Do you mean that mostly, humans are greedy, and opportunists? Maybe I'd understand it better if you defined what you meant by "evil". To me, evil is egregiously bad, but maybe you just meant self centered?

Thanks,

Ann

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Do you mean that mostly, humans are greedy, and opportunists? Maybe I'd understand it better if you defined what you meant by "evil". To me, evil is egregiously bad, but maybe you just meant self centered?

Thanks,

Ann

Well, greed and opportunism, when taken in the social context, may be evil. But when writing that post I was actually far from the moral take and I meant 'evil' in the more general sense of the word: along the lines of Webster (2) 'causing harm or injury to someone'.

b.

[SaltyMonkey]

Delancy is a very interesting fellow.

[svmariane]

Originally Posted by svmariane

So welcome to year 2016 AD. Or 2558 BE over there in Thailand.

For your entertainment, I've linked to

A bit dated, yes, but still..... And I would have posted it in that "likability" thread but, you know, folk were getting serious over there! Hope you enjoy the (short) vid.

Warning: some strong language, some adult themes, no nudity.

We didn't start the Flame Wars!
Peeps were hatin' on it
Cuz I left my comment.

Re-posted from http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...145284-59.html per suggestion from another CF member.

Blame him.

And NO! The video has naught to do with Bin Laden except an unfortunate screen grab.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by jwing

I thought the whole article was fluff, but that's what professional writers do; crank out new ways to say the same old thing. The most telling part of the article was this sentence:

"As a member of Generation X, rejecting, or more likely ignoring, the status quo came easily to me. "

Every generation has made that claim.

"Ultimately, the reputation economy is about making money. It urges us to conform to the blandness of corporate culture and makes us react defensively by varnishing our imperfect self so we can sell and be sold things."

Well duh, except there's more to it, like selling us political viewpoints and religion. Again, this has been going on forever, even if it has just become evident to Mr. Ellis.

"This in turn has led to the awful idea — and booming business — of reputation management, where a firm is hired to help shape a more likable, relatable You. Reputation management is about gaming the system. It’s a form of deception, an attempt to erase subjectivity and evaluation through intuition, for a price."

Actually, this idea has been around forever, known by different labels - "spin doctors" and "perception management" are two recent incarnations. Advertising long ago switched from extolling the virtues of a particular product to creating and managing an image to which they want their customers to aspire.

Interesting comments. Politicians reputation is built mostly based on reputation management and perception management and the "best" Politician is the one that has the one that has more likability since the one with more will be the one that will win an election.

Regarding making money to be a social-bench is more an American thing than an European one, related with the American dream.

Asking how much money one makes in a year, as a form of knowing someone, is not used in Europe. The usual question is what one does for a living and sometimes times I have heard excuses in what regards the service or work one provides to the community related with money.

Meaning, I only do that has a living, not because I like it or consider it meaningful but because provide me a lot of money, as a way to say that the type of work they do does not define them.

Many times we can find the opposite, people that earn little money but that are proud of the work they provide (that defines them) and in most cases justifiably so, in a social/cultural contribuitive way.

We, as specie are social animals and society is part of our lives even in what regards non conformist ones. Their vision of society and their values can be different, sometimes just odd, other times avantgarde, announcing a future mainstream but they too live inside of a social group, smaller than mainstream, but a social group with values and principles were the non conformity to the mainstream is valued.

Lots of them. The Cruising community is one of them, I mean not the ones that work in a social productive way and cruise on the spare time but the ones that cruise full time and consider that as their way of living.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by svmariane

Re-posted from http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...145284-59.html per suggestion from another CF member.

Blame him.

And NO! The video has naught to do with Bin Laden except an unfortunate screen grab.

Great Video

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

[QUOTE = SV THIRD DAY]
... Oh and anyone that uses Wiki as a source...I infer quite a bit from...ha ha

FWIW: Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a credible or authoritative source; but, rather a “tertiary source”. However, Wikipedia can be excellent at leading one to reliable/authoritative primary & secondary sources.[/QUOTE]

Wikipedia was compared to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica for factual accuracy, and came out ahead.

Wikipedia is brilliant -- in my opinion the single greatest product of the Internet. It aggregates huge amounts of knowledge in an incredibly accessible form.

However, it is not edited per se, so doesn't have any filters in it other than collective knowledge of Wikipedians (the fact that there are so many of them, that bull$hit is usually caught and taken out). It does not express any coherent editorial view like Brittanica does. So it has to be used correctly. But the first thing you should have learned in school is to never, ever cite any encylopedia as an authority. Not so much because of the possibility of errors as because you simply can't understand a subject based on a summary of it published in a single article. To understand a subject, you have to read more widely, encounter different points of view, and do some thinking for yourself. But using Wikipedia and other Internet resources, you can do all of that using a fraction of the time and effort that it took in the paper age. But ONLY if you do it correctly, not just googling up some unchecked carp and regurgitating it undigested.

[Blue Crab]

Yep. Sure beats calling the reference librarian.