this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
125 points (86.5% liked)

You Should Know

32856 readers
131 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

On these types of forums it’s easy to jump into an argument about the technicalities or a post or comment.

You should know, though, that there is a theory called Ways of Knowing which defines Separate Knowing and Connected Knowing. It’s been a part of my masters program I’m taking.

Separate knowing disconnects the humanity and context from what’s being said and tries to only argue the “facts”. But facts, and the things people say, don’t just occur in a vacuum. It often is the case when people are arguing past each other, like on the internet.

Connected Knowing is approaching the thing someone said with the understanding that there is a context, humanity, biases, different experiences, and human error that can all jumble up when people are sharing information.

Maybe even just knowing that there’s different ways to know would be helpful for us to engage in a different level of conversation here. I’m not sure. I just wanted to share!

https://capstone.unst.pdx.edu/sites/default/files/Critical%20Thinking%20Article_0.pdf

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 33 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Intetesing. But doesn't that like forget about bad actors? People arguing in bad faith and so on?

Also it's obviously waay different if you "debate" someone on the internet vs someone say at work when eating together.

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Something I've encountered constantly online is the pedantic type who simply wants to "win" the argument at any cost, and will very much argue in bad faith and ignore (or pretend to not understand) a solid counter-argument or facts that don't fit their narrative.

I think making a good effort at radical empathy and trying one's best to see the other side can potentially help expose the bad faith arguments. But, there are a lot of dirty tricks out there like the Gish Gallop, etc.

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And I don’t always have the energy if I’m being honest! Connected knowing takes energy and heart and it’s not always available for me to use. I have to pick my battles with this one too.

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Same here. I prefer discussion with reasonable folks. When it starts getting nasty I usually disengage or even block the person. I respect the radical empathy approach, and I try to use it with people I engage with in person. But I have little patience with online trolls and pendants anymore. It's a waste of time and energy.

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago
[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

the pedantic type

The pedantic type is one thing; the propagandist troll is another. "Making a good effort at radical empathy" won't do a damn thing against the latter; in that case the correct tactic is to call out their bullshit and mock them mercilessly until they're driven away (or get the mods to ban them, but you can't always count on that).

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I guess it’s also getting curious about their intentions and that would be part of learning about the context. Bad people say true things for evil reasons sometimes, does that bad intention matter?

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

It probably matters if the goal is to harm you or your close friends.

It's always a good idea to understand ppl and their views, because it helps to confirm or reject your own hypotheses, which are plenty. But there's a reason you always have to take any claim from an unknown or untrusted source with varying grains of salt. Especially considering we are living in a world where the internet is the one central source of information and bad actors are starting to flood all channels that provide information.

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Agreed! Because the way I understand it, connected knowing isn’t trusting the other peoples truths as fact, it’s understanding that it’s true for them and getting curious about that. We can’t just go around equating other people’s beliefs with fact and losing our sense of reason, science, and truth.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works -1 points 11 months ago

God, I hope amber turd doesnt flood the channels

[–] silverwind@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Can you share some examples? This concept is too obscure for me to understand.

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

Here’s another example I saw on the inter webs. One of the questions in the research was “Do you start to argue the opposite point of view of what someone’s saying while they’re saying it?” Or something like that.

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Yes good question! It was actually this response on one of my posts that got me thinking about it: https://programming.dev/comment/4765560

I felt it missed the point of my original post, because I didn’t do intensive research before posting it and just wanted to have a casual discussion and start some Lemmy engagement. I think this would be an example of Separate Knowing, missing the forest for the trees of a sentence or two I threw together in passing. And then I remembered that happens a lot on the internet but I didn’t want it to deter me!

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

You can just frame this as semantics and pragmatics. I basically disagree with the premise of this branch of sociology and find it disrupts discourse and effective problem solving.

Another way of putting that would be, such nuance is the skin on the apple, not the whole apple. It can add a little extra to your analysis, but shouldn't be used as a cudgel to undermine the foundation.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So the first type is INT and the second type is WIS ?

[–] MrMcGasion@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We've probably all witnessed CHA type, but I'm more curious what DEX would be like.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago
[–] Albbi@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago

This reminds me of the One Health approach to healthcare.

One Health is a collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach — working at the local, regional, national, and global levels — with the goal of achieving optimal health outcomes recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment.

One example of this would be trying to curb antibiotic resistance. We have banned certain antibiotics for human use, but let veterinarians still use it for animals. Well humans aren't dumb and just went to a vet for the same antibiotic they're used to using which defeated the purpose of banning it for human use (to reserve it so resistance to it doesn't spread). An understanding of the connectedness of people and a bigger picture of antibiotics use was needed before policy should have been made.

[–] Rindel@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Source: It was revealed to me in a dream.

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I wonder about what unknowns I don’t know about yet!

[–] miak@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This is really interesting. Without knowing there was a word for it, I've often found myself wishing people (including myslef at times) did a better job of the Connected Knowing approach.

[–] moistclump@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

I thought so too! It can feel like people are missing each other and talking past one another in our typical discourse. It’s not how adults change each others minds though, or change our ideology or grow our understand, we have to connect at a deeper level for that.

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 months ago

I think some people just don't have much capacity for connected knowing.

[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Are you reinventing empathy?