Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Nick_A]

Ideally, a coach shows faith in a player, with the player determined to repay that faith. If that fails, then a coach can try to shock a player out of their complacency, but the fire & brimstone strategy must be used sparingly because it soon loses effect.

It would be nice to have a topic where people did not horn in the language of today's culture wars, but I guess that's too much to ask when players from Team Religion or Team Science are always looking to assert themselves over the "'enemy" nowadays.

Most topics require flattery to be acceptable if the goal is truth. We've learned for example that a realistic discussion on the realities of Plato's Cave analogy opposes flattery in pursuit of truth so must be avoided at all cost. Without flattery, certain topics cannot be approached. They disturb the peace.

A man learns early in life that if he wants to get a girls pants off, flattery works much better than the truth. After that revelation, it is all down hill.

[Nick_A]

The whole key is remembering the ancient truth of the value of style over substance or flattery over truth. Socrates never learned it and why he had to be killed as offensive garbage.

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.

[Sy Borg]

Ideally, a coach shows faith in a player, with the player determined to repay that faith. If that fails, then a coach can try to shock a player out of their complacency, but the fire & brimstone strategy must be used sparingly because it soon loses effect.

It would be nice to have a topic where people did not horn in the language of today's culture wars, but I guess that's too much to ask when players from Team Religion or Team Science are always looking to assert themselves over the "'enemy" nowadays.

Most topics require flattery to be acceptable if the goal is truth. We've learned for example that a realistic discussion on the realities of Plato's Cave analogy opposes flattery in pursuit of truth so must be avoided at all cost. Without flattery, certain topics cannot be approached. They disturb the peace.

A man learns early in life that if he wants to get a girls pants off, flattery works much better than the truth. After that revelation, it is all down hill.

There is a difference between flattery and telling a person their strengths. One is a lie, the other is truthful. Both are effective at times because many people don't care about truthfulness, only utility.

[Sushan]

Ideally, a coach shows faith in a player, with the player determined to repay that faith. If that fails, then a coach can try to shock a player out of their complacency, but the fire & brimstone strategy must be used sparingly because it soon loses effect.

It would be nice to have a topic where people did not horn in the language of today's culture wars, but I guess that's too much to ask when players from Team Religion or Team Science are always looking to assert themselves over the "'enemy" nowadays.

Too much flattery will lead one to laziness, and too much 'kicks in butt' will lead one to ignorance. Both are harmful as well as counterproductive. A children can be raised in both these extremities and the result will be a disaster. When moulding iron it should go under fire and then under water. None of these alone will produce the expected result. So, yes, the fire and brimstone strategy is useful, but have to be used with caution.

As with many things, it's a matter of balance. Often the best results come when a mentor is respected and trusted, and the students see the mentor's advice as the path to growth.

I agree. And I would like to add something to this. We should always keep in mind that balance is not always 50/50. There may be rare occasions that a character can be developed by applying flattery and punishment in equal amounts. But in many cases one part will have to be more to get a good final result efficiently. And it is upto the mentor to identify his followers as individual cases and apply both of these elements as required, in correct amounts, and most importantly at correct times.

[Belindi]

Sushan

That decision to see who has the right to correct someone comes in most occasions with the authority. And in some occasions it comes with the power of majority. In this latter race differences, gender differences, and many more are included. The issue is none of these acts (at least many of them) are not intended on improving the humanity or individuals, but to suppress the less privileged ones and maintain the authority and the superiority of the privileged or the powerful ones.

Quite true. The experts determine what improves humanity and define those who prevent it. The trouble makers become scapegoats. If 100 experts are asked what improves humanity they will respond "education." Maybe one out of a hundred will respond differently and probably be killed as disruptive influences maintaining the status quo.

Education will do a lot to determine one's future as well as character. But we see how many educated criminals the world has provided so far. Maybe the education has lost its initial goals and intentions too. Today's education is merely a pumping of facts to a young brain, yet they are not taught how to use them for the betterment of others, but for their own benefit. The good old days before the child rights were not implemented in all the irrational ways, the teachers could punish and correct their students along with the education. So the kids received not only knowledge but also were well disciplined. And I strongly believe that 'kick in the butt' is still not outdated, and should be coupled with education for better results.

Education increases the number of choices a man has: indocrination decreases his choices.

Educated criminals may possess much knowledge but still lack emotional knowledge, even to the extent of psychopathy.

[Sy Borg]

Ideally, a coach shows faith in a player, with the player determined to repay that faith. If that fails, then a coach can try to shock a player out of their complacency, but the fire & brimstone strategy must be used sparingly because it soon loses effect.

It would be nice to have a topic where people did not horn in the language of today's culture wars, but I guess that's too much to ask when players from Team Religion or Team Science are always looking to assert themselves over the "'enemy" nowadays.

Too much flattery will lead one to laziness, and too much 'kicks in butt' will lead one to ignorance. Both are harmful as well as counterproductive. A children can be raised in both these extremities and the result will be a disaster. When moulding iron it should go under fire and then under water. None of these alone will produce the expected result. So, yes, the fire and brimstone strategy is useful, but have to be used with caution.

As with many things, it's a matter of balance. Often the best results come when a mentor is respected and trusted, and the students see the mentor's advice as the path to growth.

I agree. And I would like to add something to this. We should always keep in mind that balance is not always 50/50. There may be rare occasions that a character can be developed by applying flattery and punishment in equal amounts. But in many cases one part will have to be more to get a good final result efficiently. And it is up to the mentor to identify his followers as individual cases and apply both of these elements as required, in correct amounts, and most importantly at correct times.

It's true that some of us only find motivation when trapped like a rat in a cage!

[Sushan]

Ideally, a coach shows faith in a player, with the player determined to repay that faith. If that fails, then a coach can try to shock a player out of their complacency, but the fire & brimstone strategy must be used sparingly because it soon loses effect.

It would be nice to have a topic where people did not horn in the language of today's culture wars, but I guess that's too much to ask when players from Team Religion or Team Science are always looking to assert themselves over the "'enemy" nowadays.

Most topics require flattery to be acceptable if the goal is truth. We've learned for example that a realistic discussion on the realities of Plato's Cave analogy opposes flattery in pursuit of truth so must be avoided at all cost. Without flattery, certain topics cannot be approached. They disturb the peace.

A man learns early in life that if he wants to get a girls pants off, flattery works much better than the truth. After that revelation, it is all down hill.

Absolute truth is not always good. And if you really want to get something done you should give what the other party expects rather than giving them the ugly truth. Your example about girls explains it clearly .

But if a man need to be really moulded and make into a better one, I think a kick in the butt is necessary atleast once in a while. In Plato's cave all the cavemen were happy with what they had until one was dragged out and shown what the reality was. It was really hard for the one who came out (a kick in the butt), but it lead him to see a new dimension of the world and it improved his thinking pattern. So the truth may not be sweet always, but it is necessary for an actual improvement, rather than being happy in a sugar-coated world.

[Sy Borg]

Ideally, a coach shows faith in a player, with the player determined to repay that faith. If that fails, then a coach can try to shock a player out of their complacency, but the fire & brimstone strategy must be used sparingly because it soon loses effect.

It would be nice to have a topic where people did not horn in the language of today's culture wars, but I guess that's too much to ask when players from Team Religion or Team Science are always looking to assert themselves over the "'enemy" nowadays.

Most topics require flattery to be acceptable if the goal is truth. We've learned for example that a realistic discussion on the realities of Plato's Cave analogy opposes flattery in pursuit of truth so must be avoided at all cost. Without flattery, certain topics cannot be approached. They disturb the peace.

A man learns early in life that if he wants to get a girls pants off, flattery works much better than the truth. After that revelation, it is all down hill.

Absolute truth is not always good. And if you really want to get something done you should give what the other party expects rather than giving them the ugly truth. Your example about girls explains it clearly 😉.

The thread has fallen into embarrassingly dumb clichés and lazy thinking.

The trouble with both flattery and butt-kicking is they are too often just manipulative lies. Painting a middling performer to be awesome or incompetent so as to get a result is risky; and it might or might nor work, depending on personality and circumstance. However, since these are ultimately not true so if one's dishonest ruse is seen through, then credibility is shot.

In many cases it's best to at least try to be truthful IMO, to point out both a student's strengths and weaknesses, which helps bring focus and direction.

[Sushan]

The whole key is remembering the ancient truth of the value of style over substance or flattery over truth. Socrates never learned it and why he had to be killed as offensive garbage.

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.

Conveying something to a powerful superior is different from telling something to a friend or a diciple. Socrates did not understand this difference and paid by his life.

If you have a real intention to make someone better, I think you should choose wisely the correct method. But if your intention (or the best option) is to merely sugar-coat the situation and survive for the moment, flattery is the best option. Throughout the history we see how the ones who praised the kings got all the ranks and facilities whie the truth speakers left this world quicker than they intended to, while the kingdoms were going towards doom.

[Sushan]

Ideally, a coach shows faith in a player, with the player determined to repay that faith. If that fails, then a coach can try to shock a player out of their complacency, but the fire & brimstone strategy must be used sparingly because it soon loses effect.

It would be nice to have a topic where people did not horn in the language of today's culture wars, but I guess that's too much to ask when players from Team Religion or Team Science are always looking to assert themselves over the "'enemy" nowadays.

Most topics require flattery to be acceptable if the goal is truth. We've learned for example that a realistic discussion on the realities of Plato's Cave analogy opposes flattery in pursuit of truth so must be avoided at all cost. Without flattery, certain topics cannot be approached. They disturb the peace.

A man learns early in life that if he wants to get a girls pants off, flattery works much better than the truth. After that revelation, it is all down hill.

There is a difference between flattery and telling a person their strengths. One is a lie, the other is truthful. Both are effective at times because many people don't care about truthfulness, only utility.

Flattery can be taken as truthful praising as well as sugar-coating with lies. The prior can be quite useful but I am not certain about the latter. Lying about someone's strengths or weaknesses will do no good to the person.

People love to hear good things, whether that is true or not. But of we think about utility I do not think a lie will have any utility rather than deceiving one's own self.

[Sushan]

Sushan

That decision to see who has the right to correct someone comes in most occasions with the authority. And in some occasions it comes with the power of majority. In this latter race differences, gender differences, and many more are included. The issue is none of these acts (at least many of them) are not intended on improving the humanity or individuals, but to suppress the less privileged ones and maintain the authority and the superiority of the privileged or the powerful ones.

Quite true. The experts determine what improves humanity and define those who prevent it. The trouble makers become scapegoats. If 100 experts are asked what improves humanity they will respond "education." Maybe one out of a hundred will respond differently and probably be killed as disruptive influences maintaining the status quo.

Education will do a lot to determine one's future as well as character. But we see how many educated criminals the world has provided so far. Maybe the education has lost its initial goals and intentions too. Today's education is merely a pumping of facts to a young brain, yet they are not taught how to use them for the betterment of others, but for their own benefit. The good old days before the child rights were not implemented in all the irrational ways, the teachers could punish and correct their students along with the education. So the kids received not only knowledge but also were well disciplined. And I strongly believe that 'kick in the butt' is still not outdated, and should be coupled with education for better results.

Education increases the number of choices a man has: indocrination decreases his choices.

Educated criminals may possess much knowledge but still lack emotional knowledge, even to the extent of psychopathy.

I assume that you are separating education from indoctrination, since today most preliminary educational systems are based on indoctrination. And I am not really against that as I believe that the basics has to be taught to a child and that will be seen as indoctrination. Many fundamental facts are proven and agreed by many, and many developments have been done based on them. How can a child reasonably question such theories. So he has to learn it as it is without questioning, and that is indoctrination. But that indoctrination will allow the child to expand his knowledge and that will give him enough choices.