Originally posted by NordlysAny thoughts regarding "average minds"?
I don't believe it's true that small minds discuss only people. They might discuss people, stamps, the weather or Kant's categorical imperative. I think the size of the mind isn't defined so much by the range of things people discuss as by the ability to see connections, to see both the big picture and the details, to question things, to think creatively, an ...[text shortened]... interesting and educational, while small minds can make discussing ideas boring and useless.
Originally posted by NordlysGood point. But would you concede that small minds are primarily concerned with people, particularly gossip and human fallibility, rather than concepts and ideas? The problem with Eleanor's apothegm is that she oversimplifies.
I don't believe it's true that small minds discuss only people. They might discuss people, stamps, the weather or Kant's categorical imperative. I think the size of the mind isn't defined so much by the range of things people discuss as by the ability to see connections, to see both the big picture and the details, to question things, to think creatively, an ...[text shortened]... interesting and educational, while small minds can make discussing ideas boring and useless.
Originally posted by HandyAndyI don't know about numbers; it's possible that the majority of small minds is primarily concerned with people. But what they discuss will also largely depend on their environment and upbringing - for example, if they are in an environment where most people believe that discussing people is a sign of a small mind, they'll probably discuss something else. And what about all those small-minded people who almost exclusively try to convince other people that their religion is the only thing that will save you, or who tell you about all those conspiracy theories, etc.?
Good point. But would you concede that small minds are [b]primarily concerned with people, particularly gossip and human fallibility, rather than concepts and ideas? [/b]
Originally posted by NordlysAre religious fanatics and conspiracy theorists really exploring ideas? The ones I've known were firmly locked in and completely unresponsive to any other notions but their own. To discuss is to exchange views, to compare experiences and to weigh pros and cons.
I don't know about numbers; it's possible that the majority of small minds is primarily concerned with people. But what they discuss will also largely depend on their environment and upbringing - for example, if they are in an environment where most people believe that discussing people is a sign of a small mind, they'll probably discuss something else. And ...[text shortened]... the only thing that will save you, or who tell you about all those conspiracy theories, etc.?
Originally posted by Nordlys'Obviously' seems to subscribe to or even underwrite the simplistic gender distribution notion that populations on average sport one teste
They are somewhere in between, obviously.
and one teat. Medians and means usually factor. Suppose there's a clustering (or mini-bimodal spike) toward one of the 3-sigmas. If so,
"somewhere in between" might prove to be a grossly foggy estimate of the real world situation, especially if the clustering is toward 'small'.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyGrampy Bobby... grossly foggy
'Obviously' seems to subscribe to or even underwrite the simplistic gender distribution notion that populations on average sport one teste
and one teat. Medians and means usually factor. Suppose there's a clustering (or mini-bimodal spike) toward one of the 3-sigmas. If so,
"somewhere in between" might prove to be a grossly foggy estimate of the real world situation, especially if the clustering is toward 'small'.
It has a ring to it.