You have an interesting analytic background to speak on this. I have definitely noticed this as well and it's been a pet peeve of mine for decades. I wrote an article about a month ago, about why the ancient Greeks were not gay, and I make a mini argument similar to what you're saying here. Before I cite my sources, I talk about how I came to this conclusion through reasoning and intuition, which I think is almost more valuable than the sources.
The need for sources seems to be directly linked to most people's complete abnegation of personal responsibility. They are completely incapable of forming their own thoughts or opinions on almost anything such as faith, history, current events, health. When I engage with these people, I get the feeling they truly don't think they are capable enough to make their own decisions and develop their own thoughts.
Really appreciate this comment. Your point about the abnegation of personal responsibility is sharper than how I put it.
The ancient Greeks piece sounds like it’d trigger Source Culture’s immune response immediately. Drop the link if you get a chance, I’d love to read it.
Haha it definitely triggered a response. I'm just glad to find other people even from different backgrounds that have come to the exact same conclusions. So I'll continue going through your works.
Brother, you're absolutely spot-on. When I was attending university just last decade (seems like so long ago lol) there was a professor whom many held in high esteem because she was French and Oxford-educated. Likewise, many found her attractive for this and she used this to her advantage. Though I was never in one of her classes myself (she was a history professor who taught about European women's studies and the Holohoax™), I had heard via a friend of mine that she was very meticulous about source material and vehemently shot down any dissent. It was very much a class where one was required to regurgitate her specific material and any deviation resulted in failure and chastisement. Even providing contradictory information that was otherwise irrefutable from a non-approved source went unacknowledged and was dismissed with arrogance. My entire career in academia left me wary of ever pursuing my doctorates in archaeology (to say nothing of my ideology which would be deemed heretical, as you well know) and was inundated with the need to cite source material. Using one's own logic or powers of deduction was simply insufficient. To be perfectly honest, one might envision a blue-haired bespectacled homunculus arrogantly saying "source?" in disagreement with an argument every bit as much as one arguing from the basis of blind faith to stubbornly abjure any logic or reason that comes into conflict with their dogma.
There’s nothing wrong with being rigorous about sources of course, but when it turns into “only the approved material counts” and any deviation is treated as heresy, it stops feeling like inquiry and starts feeling like compliance training.
I think that’s what puts people off, the absence of genuine discussion. A classroom should be able to handle disagreement without shutting it down.
Appreciate you sharing that experience. It’s more common than people like to admit!
You're most welcome. To add on a tad to it, my own personal experience rather than secondary through a friend: When I first began at that same uni, I was under the impression that I was going to be learning with mature individuals, as you said, among those where a disagreement or a logical discussion could take place without shutting down. I was 22 and idealistic. I took a class that focused on WWI entitled "European History From 1815-1914". The professor was quite decent and very friendly sort, open to discussion and had a pleasant sense of humor which he frequently incorporated to try to make learning enjoyable.
However, there was a 28 year old mestizo individual in the class. An outright Communist who dressed the part like a walking caricature for a propaganda poster, complete with the Che Guavara t-shirt or Marx/Lenin/Engels t-shirt. Mind you, I had never seen an actual Commie up close. The guy didn't look real. Whenever a classmate or the professor disagreed with one of his talking points, he'd insult them outright, burst into tears, and then storm out of the classroom. While discussing ideologies that came out of the Enlightenment, he took up the entire remaining hour and a half of a 2 hour class ranting about Communism, not allowing the rest of the class to give their discussion of what was a group project intended to last only 10 minutes. I had seriously never encountered anyone like this before. It was cretins like him who made the university system so repulsive in addition to the professors who appeared to exist to brainwash rather than instruct.
At least I’m not the only one who notices this phenomena. With these people who demand “the source”, what if you have a well researched source? One of the best out there? And you cite that source to the individual? Who’s to say that they won’t be turned down, and claim that “It’s not the one I’m looking for.”
Source citing is pointless. It’s just people who want their biases confirmed, while acting “intellectually superior” to somebody else.
Mainstream Academia would scoff at somebody like myself. I’d rather develop my own theories, instead of kissing the rear end of an institution that treats itself like a upscale country club that free thinking is an act of “dishonesty.”
Besides, the more academia falls into partisanism and all the rest, the less there will actually "evidence", that's an downward spiral. I think we will see more and more independent unaffiliated scholars, but depends if these scholars can participate in widerange academic reviews or something like that
I needed this. I am writing a piece on patented plants; was asking a coworker what they thought; conversed back and she said direct observation isnt a controled environment etc... thanks.
I will wrap up my piece and share. I was almost tettering on not.
You're right. Turns out that rules for making inferences from probabilistic models collapse to the rules of logic when the probabilities of the terms approach one or zero.
You have an interesting analytic background to speak on this. I have definitely noticed this as well and it's been a pet peeve of mine for decades. I wrote an article about a month ago, about why the ancient Greeks were not gay, and I make a mini argument similar to what you're saying here. Before I cite my sources, I talk about how I came to this conclusion through reasoning and intuition, which I think is almost more valuable than the sources.
The need for sources seems to be directly linked to most people's complete abnegation of personal responsibility. They are completely incapable of forming their own thoughts or opinions on almost anything such as faith, history, current events, health. When I engage with these people, I get the feeling they truly don't think they are capable enough to make their own decisions and develop their own thoughts.
Thanks for the article I appreciate your work.
Really appreciate this comment. Your point about the abnegation of personal responsibility is sharper than how I put it.
The ancient Greeks piece sounds like it’d trigger Source Culture’s immune response immediately. Drop the link if you get a chance, I’d love to read it.
Thanks for reading!
Haha it definitely triggered a response. I'm just glad to find other people even from different backgrounds that have come to the exact same conclusions. So I'll continue going through your works.
https://open.substack.com/pub/pollux88/p/the-greeks-were-not-gay-even-though?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=27fmhh
Brother, you're absolutely spot-on. When I was attending university just last decade (seems like so long ago lol) there was a professor whom many held in high esteem because she was French and Oxford-educated. Likewise, many found her attractive for this and she used this to her advantage. Though I was never in one of her classes myself (she was a history professor who taught about European women's studies and the Holohoax™), I had heard via a friend of mine that she was very meticulous about source material and vehemently shot down any dissent. It was very much a class where one was required to regurgitate her specific material and any deviation resulted in failure and chastisement. Even providing contradictory information that was otherwise irrefutable from a non-approved source went unacknowledged and was dismissed with arrogance. My entire career in academia left me wary of ever pursuing my doctorates in archaeology (to say nothing of my ideology which would be deemed heretical, as you well know) and was inundated with the need to cite source material. Using one's own logic or powers of deduction was simply insufficient. To be perfectly honest, one might envision a blue-haired bespectacled homunculus arrogantly saying "source?" in disagreement with an argument every bit as much as one arguing from the basis of blind faith to stubbornly abjure any logic or reason that comes into conflict with their dogma.
Yeah, I know the kind of environment you mean.
There’s nothing wrong with being rigorous about sources of course, but when it turns into “only the approved material counts” and any deviation is treated as heresy, it stops feeling like inquiry and starts feeling like compliance training.
I think that’s what puts people off, the absence of genuine discussion. A classroom should be able to handle disagreement without shutting it down.
Appreciate you sharing that experience. It’s more common than people like to admit!
You're most welcome. To add on a tad to it, my own personal experience rather than secondary through a friend: When I first began at that same uni, I was under the impression that I was going to be learning with mature individuals, as you said, among those where a disagreement or a logical discussion could take place without shutting down. I was 22 and idealistic. I took a class that focused on WWI entitled "European History From 1815-1914". The professor was quite decent and very friendly sort, open to discussion and had a pleasant sense of humor which he frequently incorporated to try to make learning enjoyable.
However, there was a 28 year old mestizo individual in the class. An outright Communist who dressed the part like a walking caricature for a propaganda poster, complete with the Che Guavara t-shirt or Marx/Lenin/Engels t-shirt. Mind you, I had never seen an actual Commie up close. The guy didn't look real. Whenever a classmate or the professor disagreed with one of his talking points, he'd insult them outright, burst into tears, and then storm out of the classroom. While discussing ideologies that came out of the Enlightenment, he took up the entire remaining hour and a half of a 2 hour class ranting about Communism, not allowing the rest of the class to give their discussion of what was a group project intended to last only 10 minutes. I had seriously never encountered anyone like this before. It was cretins like him who made the university system so repulsive in addition to the professors who appeared to exist to brainwash rather than instruct.
At least I’m not the only one who notices this phenomena. With these people who demand “the source”, what if you have a well researched source? One of the best out there? And you cite that source to the individual? Who’s to say that they won’t be turned down, and claim that “It’s not the one I’m looking for.”
Source citing is pointless. It’s just people who want their biases confirmed, while acting “intellectually superior” to somebody else.
Mainstream Academia would scoff at somebody like myself. I’d rather develop my own theories, instead of kissing the rear end of an institution that treats itself like a upscale country club that free thinking is an act of “dishonesty.”
Besides, the more academia falls into partisanism and all the rest, the less there will actually "evidence", that's an downward spiral. I think we will see more and more independent unaffiliated scholars, but depends if these scholars can participate in widerange academic reviews or something like that
very good point!
I needed this. I am writing a piece on patented plants; was asking a coworker what they thought; conversed back and she said direct observation isnt a controled environment etc... thanks.
I will wrap up my piece and share. I was almost tettering on not.
I really needed this ! Thanks!
Glad it helped! If only there was a controlled environment for everything haha, sounds like she needs to read the article. Thanks!
You're right. Turns out that rules for making inferences from probabilistic models collapse to the rules of logic when the probabilities of the terms approach one or zero.