Tiny Thoughts — Introduction

This blog has many opinion posts buried among other poorly read — and probably poorly written — posts. My fiction still holds the record for least-read offerings, but my opinion pieces are a close second.

As mentioned before, I write not only to clarify my thoughts but also to keep track of my changing views.

What!?

Sometimes a person’s view changes without them realizing it. Worse yet, they’ll suppress memories of what they previously believed about a subject.

It’s true; I know people who insist they never believed the opposite of what they do now and even argue that we never debated topics about which we now share a common ground.

Perhaps I’m the one who misremembers!

A valid point — except that I document my views, and I can go back to the ’90s and sometimes earlier to revisit my thoughts about things.

One thing I’ve noticed about my opinion pieces — and possibly the reason for the limited readership — is their sweeping scope. I follow a formula of laying a foundation, establishing a premise, giving examples, defending assumptions, anticipating counterarguments, restating the premise, and … well, you get the picture. By the time I ask for feedback or invite readers to discuss the matter, well, by that time, most, if not all, readers have left.

These days, I consume a variety of podcasts touching on varied views about many topics, processing things on the fly:

  • Does what I’m hearing make sense?
  • Is it plausible?
  • Does it conform to what I know about human nature and the world?
  • If I don’t agree, why don’t I agree; what’s my basis for disagreeing or dismissing it (aside from the fact that maybe I don’t like hearing it)?
  • If I agree with what I’m hearing, is it possible I’m wrong?

I often pause the podcast and use the note-taking function on my phone to leave myself reminders; reminders about objections I might have, reminders to research what I just heard, reminders to give it more thought at a later time.

These reminders often come about because the interviewer or podcaster fails to ask questions I have, or they fail to follow through on a line of reasoning.

I also write down new lines of thoughts for me to explore later.

That’s why I listen to opposing views; I want to understand the basis for those views.

The goal?

I want to know enough about an issue to express the arguments of both sides just as well as people who champion them. If I’m discussing something with someone, I want to remove the “you just don’t understand!” argument as a reason to dismiss my opinion.

None of this guarantees that I arrive at what anyone will consider “the truth” — if such a thing even exists. Instead, it ensures that I understand arguments for and against something well enough to repeat them accurately in my own words, often going in more depth than what I’ve read or heard.

I’d love to engage the people I listen to in a discussion about what they said, and in my younger and more naïve days, I did so in the comments of podcasts or blog posts.

Anyone familiar with the cesspool commonly referred to as “the comment section” knows why I no longer engage. Not only because the other commenters — often fanboys and fangirls more interested in appearing loyal to the podcaster than to intellectual integrity — but also the hosts themselves (when they even bother to acknowledge the questions, let alone answer them) hate being challenged.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment I had was at the hands of Massimo Pigliucci. An exchange brought into question his ability for rigorous, unbiased thought and made me wary of anything he says. Not dismissive, but I question the motivation behind his supposed insights. (OK, OK, I don’t respect the man, so I’m not even listening to whatever he says.)

One other reason for publishing my thought in this forum: as rare as it might be, someone reading the post might offer illuminating insights to which I’m not privy. Understand, it’s not rare that others have insights; it’s rare that people engage.

Anyway, this is a long-winded notice about a new feature I’m starting that I call Tiny Thoughts. It’s opinions and thoughts about stuff I’ve pondered, heard, or read.

I’ll keep them short, and even the long pieces won’t go past 500 words (unlike this introduction which stops just shy of 750 words).

~ 0 ~

That’s it. This post has ended . . . except for the stuff below.

<><><><o><><><><><o><><><>

Note: if you are not reading this blog post at DisperserTracks.com, know that it’s copied without permission, and likely is being used by someone with nefarious intentions, like attracting you to a malware-infested website.  Could be they also torture small mammals.

Note 2: it’s perfectly OK to share a link that points back here.

<><><><o><><><><><o><><><>

If you’re new to this blog, it might be a good idea to read the FAQ page. If you’re considering subscribing to this blog, it’s definitively a good idea to read both the About page and the FAQ page.

10 thoughts on “Tiny Thoughts — Introduction

Add yours

    1. I tend to go in spurts, occasionally binging on new stuff that I’ve found, and other times revisiting podcasts I used to listen to years ago, but I have a set of current regulars that I make sure I listen to, somewhat depending on the topics.

      This will be a long list and I’ll include my thoughts on some. The core group:

      1) Making Sense (Sam Harris).
      If I had to only listen to one podcast (even repeats), this would be it. The man has a clarity of thought that I admire and maybe envy, and I definitively envy his mastery of language. He has another podcast (Waking Up) which is a companion podcast to the Waking Up app (a meditation app) which I occasionally listen to when it delves into science-based stuff about consciousness and the mind.

      2) The Michael Shermer Show (nee Science Salon)
      I’ve been following Shermer for a long time now, and while he’s not as impressive as Harris, he’s pretty good and has more of an “everyday man” approach and style.

      relatively recent, 3) Conversations with Coleman (Coleman Hughes)
      An apt description would be a young Sam Harris, only of African American descent. Actually, I’m not sure of his lineage. I should have said “Black” but I’m not sure how that term should be used (of if should be used and by whom) these days.

      All of the above deal with a mix of topics and are interview-style shows, although they occasionally have stream-of-consciousness shows. These days, the topics typically relate to current events.

      My instructional/educational podcasts are as follows:
      Hardcore History (Dan Carlen)
      Literature and History (Doug Metzger)
      Philosophize This (Stephen West)
      The History of Rome (Mike Duncan)
      The Human Bible (Robert M. Price)

      Obviously, history, literature, philosophy, and religion are things I think most people should educate themselves on.

      For a modern take on philosophical questions relative to the world we live in (with some swearing and some snark), The Very Bad Wizards (Tamler Sommers and David Pizarro)

      Freakonomics Radio, Sean Carroll’s Mindscape, Skeptoid, get mixed in there depending on topics.

      When they have something interesting (although that’s less and less often these days since I’ve heard as much as I can possibly hear about writing), I listen to The Mythcreant Podcast, and Writing Excuses. I used to (and still do) like the first 100 or so episodes of The Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy as they had a lot of useful and interesting interviews with authors. Not so much now.

      I used to listen to The Rubin Report but a few years ago he skewed hard right (although he calls himself a “centrist”), but these days I rarely pay it any attention unless he has a guest I’m really, really interested in.

      Same with a few other podcasts like NPR (skewing hard left), Left, Right, and Center (showing less and less critical/deep thinking about current affairs), and a few others.

      My rule is simple: if I can out-think the people on the podcast, I don’t need to listen to them. If I catch them on obvious biases — and no redeeming thoughts, I don’t need to listen to them. If they misrepresent news items I’m familiar with, I ban them from my life.

      There are a few new ones I’m trying out:
      Modern Wisdom – was introduced to it by his interview of John McWhorter.
      Rationally Speaking – promising, but the host’s voice grates, so I’m not to keen on continuing with it.
      thank god I’m atheist – an irreverent look at topical news items relating to religion(s). A tad on the snarky side, but I don’t mind it.

      I occasionally go back and listen to anything by Christopher Hitchens. One of my favorites for repeat listening is this one (which — bonus! — also includes Harris):

      Like

      1. That is certainly quite the list. I’m more of a topical/entertainment listener, so 99% Invisible and 5 Questions are my regulars along with limited series like 1619 and Passenger List to name a couple. I’m beginning to believe that your 24 hour days are much longer than mine. 😊

        Like

        1. I listen at 1.2 speed, plus, It’s not like I listen to every podcast (the subject has to interest me). I tend to focus on insight and research about the human condition, and especially behavioral insights. Aside from that, some social- political discussions relating to current events.

          Hmm … the 1619 Project … I equate it somewhat to listening to Creationists purporting to tell me how things “really” are by relying heavily on poor research and made-up stuff.

          I’ve not heard of the others, but I’ll look them up.

          The point of most of what I listen to is to hear in-depth and frank discussions about topics in interested in.

          Like

    1. I’m trying to cater to the temporally challenged. Plus, it forces me to focus the argument down to the essential.

      I’m actually trying to keep everything around half that, or about 250 words.

      This piece is at 500 but I deal with more than one subject. If you cut the post in half, it’s about 250 words per subject.

      We’ll see how well I do with future offerings.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. A reasonable deduction indicates that lots of tiny thoughts should produce great big ideas!

    I hope fun is part of this new venture.

    Like

Voice your opinion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑