Cataloguing the Different Ways the Mind Associates Itself with the Outliner Presented Screen

Posted by Foolness
Sep 12, 2012 at 06:18 AM

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
>So, you are referring to people who themselves have not purported to be outline
>experts, but someone else called them so derogatively speaking, and now you want to
>challenge the title they themselves have not claimed? And of course this will be done
>in your own preferred field of opus-long multi-topic posts, rather than the field of
>(to the best of intentions) focused threads that have been taking place over the
>course of 8+ years (the bits I’ve followed)?
> >As long as you have the time to spend in it
>(I don’t) it doesn’t sound like a very difficult job.

No, but I could see how one who has derogative intentions could see it that way.

This is why I say experts would think differently.

Both a false expert and a non-expert (and maybe lower hierarchy of experts) would often be more concerned about the paradigm of their ego and often easily expose their intentions that way. Not even if they are trying to be polite.

This is because their initial assumptions and defensiveness are wired differently that their interpretations of a challenge are wired differently. It would be like a person working in a lab being exasperated that there are more lab tests to be done versus someone excited at the fact that a new form of experiment has been introduced to challenge the years of knowledge they have worked upon.

Both people inside the lab are obviously knowledgeable but only those experts who are emotionally wired to invest in a breakthrough would be immune to the emotional baggage placed upon by the idea of extra work.

It doesn’t only apply to hard sciences either. Many in the teaching profession, even long time teachers, end up creating the anti-educational reform culture of teachers union because it is very hard to look beyond ones navel even when one has plenty of experience once a person has gone through a certain length of torture/cultural mindset regardless of expertise. It goes hand in hand with abundance. Those people who have worked hard to be rich can easily forget what got them there. Those people who have their problems solved could easily be apathetic yet intrusive in interpreting why other people haven’t solved their problems yet.

Take this statement:

“Speed boats are no superior to row boats in concept except in technical features but there’s things you can do with one that you can’t with the other.”

This is not incorrect nor rude taken as a sentence but say someone were to be concerned about engineering a boat and understanding the pros and cons of boat design, would such a sentence help? No. It’s a common unproductive roadblock set up to separate the elitist from the curious amateur so as to kill most enthusiasm on the subject or even as a form of deflection towards the real issue being discussed.

Even more so here because the analogy to the speed boat does not quite fit with the context of the conversation.

It is a talking point direction that can only be conjured up by an egomaniac. (I am using this term as a categorization as opposed to an insult) Indeed, you very strongly allude to this behaviour in a later sentence:

“That said, as I’ve written elsewhere, in recent years I’ve been mostly searching for collaborative tools, because my work is more and more related to others’. So it’s not a matter of choice.”

It is a matter of a choice. A matter of choice between making this topic about you or making it about a topic on outliners.

As you said, this is a forum with several threads. One of this thread that you happen to be posting in isn’t currently dealing with collaboration (in fact you were the one who suddenly turned this into a huge issue with your reply) and yet you not only felt inserting this issue but you totally abandoned the previous subject altogether which is either about Kanban/the mindset relating to Kanban.

The issue of:

“I don’t disagree that, as yet, most web services are limited in scope and functionality to the equivalent desktop software, but the former are catching up quickly.”

...wasn’t even brought up.

If you weren’t in a rush to get narcissistic about your own needs, you would have spotted my reply also containing web example vs. web example for I wasn’t talking about power alone, I was also talking about how the different design affected the model and why because of such effect, it cannot be a pure speed boat vs. row boat assumption. It cannot be a linear “this is a superior model to a Kanban” statement especially thrown loosely as you did.

In fact, have you only stopped for a moment, you would have realized that the reply wasn’t even that complex. One should not call for simplicity if one cannot even interpret simplicity IMO.

Set aside what you are feeling now and think of it from the simple model of basic math. If 1 person claimed they are an expert then that’s still 1 expert yes?

Now think how many poster it takes to do a challenge?

Answer: 1 could work so long as they still have posting priviledges.

It’s basic math.

Btw this isn’t even opus. Once again the failure of the forum model strikes again. Length = opus-long.

Really it couldn’t be just long?

if this were an experiment, it would be on par with a basic request for several different experts to label the subjects.

It is a huge failure for you to not notice it considering the prime topic of the thread is about models.

Take the aforementioned link provided, this is only talking about “one” form of interface with most focus on the shape of the bullet point “on a subject even novice outliner users would have figured out from seeing a slideshow with some small paragraphs beneath it/besides it”. How long did this turn out? http://www.atpm.com/10.02/atpo.shtml

Now take my so called opus-long post which deals with “8” examples dealing with issues beyond the aesthetic. How long is it? If I wanted to make an opus long subject on it, you could guarantee that not only would it be more than twice as long but also on a blog. But you know why it’s not? BECAUSE I ONLY PROVIDED NON-EXPERT EXAMPLES TO GET THE BUCK ROLLING!!! Non-expert, non-authoritative examples that are in need of feedback/criticisms/expert analysis. I wasn’t even examining nor claiming the examples provided to be well explored. If I were, I would not need to make it a forum topic CHALLENGING an expert to INSERT THEIR EXPERTISE ON IT. I have said as much in the beginning of this opus-long accused topic. No the opus is on this reply where I have to repeat what I have already expressed from the beginning.

In fact, if you aren’t too busy navel gazing, reread your own replies and then tell me you aren’t the one throwing multiple topics out. You were the one who chose to focus on Kanban as a specific subject when you could have easily explored all the examples and find a common singular topic which is located in the subject title. You were the one who then decided to ignore this Kanban upon replying and focus on the issue of desktop vs. web in my reply on Kanban to you. You were then the one who then chose to introduce a separate topic on Wikipedia. This is all in paragraph.

This not including how you jumped through several conclusions including chapters where I am now calling for those who didn’t claim themselves to be experts to step forward as experts. Sir! Get a grip and stop making this thread a multi-topic subject ABOUT YOU. Please utilize your knowledge of a forum and make a new thread if you are indeed in desperate need of collaboration and software vs. paper advise. This is strictly on “The Different Ways the Mind Associates Itself with the Outliner Presented Screen”. Outliner. Presented. Screen. This is strictly software related even if you haven’t read the first item and realized that.