Posted by Lou Pilder on December 27, 2007, at 8:07:56
In reply to Re: Lou's defense of Phillipa-, posted by Lou Pilder on December 26, 2007, at 17:11:31
> > > > > > the automatic ones ... more often than not are not acurate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't exaggerate or overgeneralize.
> > > >
> > > > Bob, do you think it is best, for instanse, If the whole psychobabble community put forth what the define as overgeneralization and exaggeration? You know as well as me that individuals would vary greatly to whether they deemed Philiipa's comments as hyperbolical, exaggeration etc... However, I respect that this is your site and you have the final say.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
> > > >
> > > > This disclaimer is good. I think many people could take offense or feel hurt by being blocked. I think this sort of message puts a cross a strong sense of the ban being due simply to the fact that they transgressed certain stipulations of the site. An objective stance.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards, Ace.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> > > > >
> > > > > Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Friends,
> > > Phillipa has been sanctioned for,[...exaggerating or overgeneralizing...]
> > > The principle of overgeneralization and exaggeration as I understand it is to write something that could be interrpreted as the author purporting something {as a fact}that is not in reality so.
> > > When someone is reporting from their experiance, and it is self- evident that that is so, that it is my understanding that an opinion based on that person's experiance is what is being purported as being visible to the reader. The reader may think that the person's experiance may not give an accurate appriasal of the situation, but it could be understood as such as not that the person is exaggerating, but only inncorrect.
> > > In order to distinguish as to if there is an overgeneralizaion or an opinion based on experiance, there is a test.
> > > For instance, let us look at this hypothetical example.
> > > Sam is talking to his frend Bill about repairing cars. Sam works as a mechanic. Sam says to Bill,"These automatic temperature controls fail more often that the manual ones."
> > > Bill knows that Sam is speaking as to what he thinks as he sees from working on the cars brought in for temperature control repairs. Bill knows that Sam has not done a survey to all the car repair shops to find out if it is also the situation with other mechanics as to when they do repairs to temperature control switches, being either automatic or manual.
> > > Bill goes on to say to Sam,"I do not like automatic temperature control verses the manual temperature control as they more often then not are not accurate."
> > > more...
> > > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> > There is another aspect of a test for such. This is the aspect of {reasonableness}. In the test one can ask, [...is it {reasonble} that the writer could be speking of their experiance and not exaggerating?...]. How is {reasonableness}determined?
> > There is a test for reasonablenes that is used. One is to ask if any harm could be done by a person reading the statement in question.
> > more...
> > Lou
>
> Friends,
> Anothe raspect of {reasonableness} is to see if there are collateral statements that could indicate an opinion based on experiance verses a statemnt of fact. Looking at Phillipa's post in toto, we see:
> A. Ace, {I do not agree}
> B. {Seems} nursing
> C. {What I've seen}
> D. {my favorite}
> E. {gives me the bility to >suggest<
> F. Things {I do not especially like}
> G. >I also do not like< the automatic ones
> H. you actually hear the blood pressure.
> In {H}, there is a qulifier as IMO reasonable that it is an opinion based on experiance.
> In the overiding atmosphere that I concieve after reading Phillipa's post, I see her as recounting her experiances as a nurse to Ace. She may be wrong about which device is better, if there was a national study done, but I see that it is plainly visible to me that she is recounting her experiance as a nurse.
> LouFriends,
One of the parts of a test to determine as to if exaggeration is intended or even can be seen in a statement, is to see if a {preference} is being brought out by the writer for them and them alone without bringing in other's experiances with in this case the two devices. A preference is indicated when an {advantage}or reason given for the choice is written about and a {choice} is made by the writer from the writer's own perspective for a reason that the writer has first-hand to know.
Let us look at Phillip's statement in question:
She writes,[...{I do not like} the automatic ones. A? real old-fashioned cuff and..is best as you actually hear the blood pressure...]. Here we see;
A. There is a {preference} stated as {she does not like} the one verses the other. She is talking from her own perspective and it is plainly visible that there is her experiance with both the devices and other user's experiances are not brought into her statement.
B. There is a {choice} by the writer as she writes as the reason given,[...old fashioned one is best because you hear the blood pressure...].
As to if a reasonable person would conclude from Phillip'a experiances useing the two devices that she is making a universal claim that one device is better than the others, she is just one user of the two devices and has not brought in other users in her statement. She writes of her {preference} and her preference alone. It is her liking or disliking that is the subject of her statement here, not a conclusion involving other's useage of the devices.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:802699
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20071106/msgs/802878.html