DaggerAnimosity
 

in article , Michael Daly at
wrote on 10/15/05 9:45 PM:


On 15-Oct-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

Why do I have this funny feeling (trying not to speak for KMAN here)
KMAN wouldn't disagree either.

If he did, he'd find a way to insult me in the process. He's been
doing that in all the years since we first crossed paths on Usenet.

Mike

Example?

I think you are a bit paranoid, and I am starting to understand why you keep
failing to appreciate my actual position on this issue. You feel personally
challenged in some way. Relax. I'm not out to damage whatever reputation you
think it is you have. I don't know you, and that's not my purpose in
debating this issue. I have a genuine concern that our society is producing
citizens incapable of learning, and it seems to me that some ideas are
floated here (no pun intended) from time to time that seem to suggest
professional instruction is a MUST for anyone interested in developing their
kayaking skills. It just isn't so. And if that's not what is being said,
hey, no problem, it's still a good discussion to have.

DaggerAnimosity
 

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

But I don't think the professionalization of recreation is a good thing.
It's supposed to be recreation, not work that happens outside!

I suppose, though, all things considered, we could all agree that it is
better to contemplate the professionalization of recreation than that of
procreation.

DaggerAnimosity
 

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

I am ashamed to say I now have several acquaintances who feel they need
"personal trainers" because they can't stop eating like pigs or get off
their asses to go for walk. They honestly believe it is not possible for
them to lose weight without a professional to help them.

That particular issue may be more an issue of "locus of control". Some are
self-motivated, and these folks are spoken of as having an "internal" locus
of control. Others have an external locus, and still others what is called
a "powerful other" locus. There are little quizzes you can take that scores
you on all three dimensions. The people who employ a personal trainer
probably have a combination where the internal is the weakest of the
domains. The people whose doctors have to tell them they're fat and out of
shape and then join Weight-watchers probably have high external, higher
"powerful other" and very low internal loci. And so forth.

This may relate somehow to the current pie-fight on the topic of teaching
yourself vs. going to classes to learn how to have fun in a paddlecraft. Or
not.

(Become inner-directed, and be the envy of all your friends.)

DaggerAnimosity
 

On 16-Oct-2005, KMAN wrote:

Example?

Think twice before you challenge to prove you are a liar.

Mike

DaggerAnimosity
 

in article , Roger Houston at
wrote on 10/16/05 1:53 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

But I don't think the professionalization of recreation is a good thing.
It's supposed to be recreation, not work that happens outside!

I suppose, though, all things considered, we could all agree that it is
better to contemplate the professionalization of recreation than that of
procreation.

LOL.

Well, I once had a column published in a major newspaper about the
"professinalization of procreation." True!

DaggerAnimosity
 

On 16-Oct-2005, KMAN wrote:

Or certainly the inability
to have a discussion without resorting to personal attacks.

You mean like the personal attacks on me that you constantly
post?

Mike

DaggerAnimosity
 

in article , Roger Houston at
wrote on 10/16/05 2:01 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

I am ashamed to say I now have several acquaintances who feel they need
"personal trainers" because they can't stop eating like pigs or get off
their asses to go for walk. They honestly believe it is not possible for
them to lose weight without a professional to help them.

That particular issue may be more an issue of "locus of control". Some are
self-motivated, and these folks are spoken of as having an "internal" locus
of control. Others have an external locus, and still others what is called
a "powerful other" locus. There are little quizzes you can take that scores
you on all three dimensions. The people who employ a personal trainer
probably have a combination where the internal is the weakest of the
domains. The people whose doctors have to tell them they're fat and out of
shape and then join Weight-watchers probably have high external, higher
"powerful other" and very low internal loci. And so forth.

This may relate somehow to the current pie-fight on the topic of teaching
yourself vs. going to classes to learn how to have fun in a paddlecraft. Or
not.

(Become inner-directed, and be the envy of all your friends.)

Heh. I don't buy into the the locus pocus myself. They know they are
overweight. They know they need to eat better. They know they need to
exercise more. But they've bought in (and it's easy to buy in, since all
that is required is laziness) to the culture of professionalization, which
states that no matter what it is you are too lazy to do, it's not your
fault, the problem is you haven't yet hired a professional.

Now I don't mess around with people in my personal life when it comes to
this sort of stuff, because I'm just happy that they are doing SOMETHING to
have a healthier lifestyle, and I don't care if they hire a professional
trainer or worship the stars, as long as it means they will be on the planet
longer and enjoying a better quality of life.

But with one friend in particular, I carefully broached the subject - if (as
she was saying) you could not have done it without the trainer, then what
will happen when you no longer have the trainer? Or has the trainer been
supporting you to succeed on your own?

Answer: Oh, no. I'm planning to see the trainer for the rest of my life. I
could never do this on my own.

What can you say? I just put on my best fake smile, said "that's great" and
started talking about the weather.

And then, much worse I think, are my friends and acquaintances who go on
this Dr Bernstein (sp?) diet, where they give you vitamin injections and
basically starve you (so it seems) to produce rapid weight loss. Man o man,
this is some scary stuff. Sure enough they lose that weight, but how the
heck is anyone supposed to keep the weight off, when all you've done is a
totally unnatural and unsustainable method to get it off to begin with?

DaggerAnimosity
 

in article , Michael Daly at
wrote on 10/16/05 2:15 AM:


On 16-Oct-2005, KMAN wrote:

Example?

Think twice before you challenge to prove you are a liar.

Mike

Eh?

Here's the whole context:

===

in article , Michael Daly at
wrote on 10/15/05 9:45 PM:


On 15-Oct-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

Why do I have this funny feeling (trying not to speak for KMAN here)
KMAN wouldn't disagree either.

If he did, he'd find a way to insult me in the process. He's been
doing that in all the years since we first crossed paths on Usenet.

Mike

Example?

===

This means I am asking for an example of how I've been insulting you. I'm
not saying it never happened, but looking through the various posts here, I
don't see a pattern of that happening. I do see you be rather rude with me
on numerous occasions, however, and certainly engaging in personal attack
rather than addressing the actual points I am making.

DaggerAnimosity
 

in article , Michael Daly at
wrote on 10/16/05 2:17 AM:


On 16-Oct-2005, KMAN wrote:

Or certainly the inability
to have a discussion without resorting to personal attacks.

You mean like the personal attacks on me that you constantly
post?

Mike

Can you please provide, say, three examples? Just to establish a foundation
for your comment. Thanks!

And may I futher inquire...

Are you suggesting that your need to attack me on a personal basis rather
than addressing the points I am making is justified because you feel that
you have suffered attacks from me? Not very mature, if that's your
justification for your own behaviour.

DaggerAnimosity
 

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

Heh. I don't buy into the the locus pocus myself.

Well, you really don't have to buy into anything. The "locus pocus" is a
theory that "professionals" in behavioral science have used to help to
explain something they've observed.

They know they are
overweight. They know they need to eat better. They know they need to
exercise more. But they've bought in (and it's easy to buy in, since all
that is required is laziness) to the culture of professionalization, which
states that no matter what it is you are too lazy to do, it's not your
fault, the problem is you haven't yet hired a professional.

In a sense, the theory of locus of control would reinforce what you said
here. In fact, if you fully explained your theories of the
professionalisation of everything, you'd provide an operational definition
of the theory. If you talked long enough, you'd reveal that your
theoretical framework is parallel to that of the professionals who observed
behavior and postulated the theory of locus of control.

Don't believe it?

Internal: Some folks learn just fine on their own, others don't.

External: Some folks learn by observing others, choosing the things they
saw others do that worked and adopting them to their own performance, and
discarding, or not attempting in the first place, the things they've seen
others do that didn't work.

Powerful other: Some people figure they can never do it on their own and
seek professional instruction, often assigning guru-like attributes to the
instructor. (Not deterred by many instructors who assign guru-like
attributes to themselves).

So, in a sense, you have provided a reinforcement of this theory by
'publishing' your observations in this forum and defending your thesis
against the "other side" (using your dichotomy), and bolstering the
observations and theory of "professionals".

You don't buy into the "locus hocus pocus" yet you've arrived at similar
conclusions on your own but have chosen to call the described domains by
other names. Put another way, you've "discovered" something for yourself
that "professionals" have written about for others to learn without doing
the experiments you've done.

Other theoretical work to which your philosophy alludes (and which you could
look up) would be found using the phrase "learning style".

The dead horse in this particular line of discussion is that the theories
aren't laws, exceptions can be found for each, and you'll continue to point
out the exceptions -- often using yourself as an example.

No generalization is worth a damn -- including this one.