Topic: Anti-trolling with Socratic Method
mikelf wrote:
See, here is the thing. You can't appoint yourself sensei. You must be accepted as such. It should be clear that the proles here are not ready to accept your teachings. Perhaps it is your place, like Caine in Kung Fu, to wander in the wilderness, keeping your wits sharp and your rhetorical swords sharper. The day will come that they seek will you out. But, they must travel their own path to that future.
Wonderist wrote:But where have I actually *done* that, Mikelf? I talk about what works *for me*. I don't say, "you do this, and you do that," I say, "I did this, here's how I do. If you're interested, great, if you're not, just skip or ignore me. If it works for you, great, if not, oh well." And I've said repeatedly that I would be interested in learning from others here too.
mikelf wrote:
You cannot force a seed to grow, Grasshopper. You can only continue your life's journey and hope that someday, when you return, that it has borne fruit.
Wonderist wrote:
So, you don't have an example then?
mikelf wrote:
What you seek, young Padawan, is all around you, but Pride hath blinded you to its discernment. You have been granted two ears and only one mouth so that you may listen twice as much as you talk. Similarly, you have two eyes, yet only type with one hand, so that you may read twice as much as you write.
Wonderist wrote:
So, that's a, "No," then?
mikelf wrote:
No, it is not. The evidence you seek is right here in every response to you, but, alas, none are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Nice try, mikelf, ya dodgy cunt, but you implicitly claimed that I had tried to "appoint" myself "sensei". I asked for an example. You blathered. I called you on it. You claimed the evidence I seek is 'all around' me. Since it obviously is not, I asked you directly whether your answer is 'No'.
You claim your answer is not 'No', but then you contradict yourself when you claim that the evidence (of *me* making a claim) are in *your* responses to me.
I understand you're trying to go for lulz. I'm just showing you and everyone who might be interested in anti-trolling that you end up looking silly when you can't keep your trolling motif straight.
So, we see that your claim was bullshit all along. You may have actually believed it yourself, though. If you did, that was rather unskeptical of you. If you didn't, then you were merely trolling, trying to waste peoples' time rather than add to a productive conversation. Either way, using anti-drama techniques (such as Socratic method in this case) helped identify misunderstanding and/or trolling quickly, without contributing to the drama myself. I don't need to be some 'sensei' to point this out for anyone interested. Anyone can do it. It's the technique that's important, not the one demonstrating it. Socratic method is literally thousands of years old. It stands up on its own. Just because I decide to demonstrate it doesn't mean I think I'm a 'master' or superior to anyone. That would be a faulty assumption on your part.
Nothing personal, though. We all make mistakes, myself included. Have a nice day! :-)