| USER PAGE | TALK PAGE | CONTRIBUTIONS | AWARDS | DASHBOARD | RECALL | MOTIVES | POLITICS | RTRC |
My Motives: for doing anything on Wikipedia is clear: to improve the encyclopedia. Any other speculation fails to assume good faith. If I appear to be disruptive to a discussion, it's because I compartmentalize the issues into their own distinct parts and I see the merits in some parts of an argument while other parts fail or I expect clear, explicit, and unambiguous declaration of logical reasoning to disagreements that conform to Wikipedia's goals and policies. I will argue along those lines despite agreeing with or disagreeing with the larger point. I evaluate the smaller elements of a picture for because there are plenty of big picture folks who will get the general idea. My goal is to ensure those people understand the finer and underlying details. Support or opposition to certain points is not indicative of my actual position on the general point nor is my communicated point indicative of my entire opinion, even if my communicated point exists entirely of a certain point of view that is contrary to my entire opinion.
To clarify: Just because I say something in particular, and I do not place it in a wider context, does not mean my opinion is encapsulated entirely in that something. It may be that I find that the message I communicated is all that is necessary at that particular time or that someone else has already formulated the rest of my argument or viewpoint. I will say only as much as I think is helpful at the time.
In short: I am a 'trees' person.
In other words: People are complicated, me included.
DGAF version: Ignore my rants.
- Compartmentalizing
On the issue compartmentalizing, I disagree with the academic view that it is a defense mechanism. I think that glossing over a subject is the defense mechanism whereby a person can ignore the sum of the parts if they equate to a positive result. I strongly disagree with this view. I feel it is more important to weigh the merits of the individual parts prior to adding them together. An example: I will argue that despite an action being an apparent eventuality, the mere certainty does not justify the action even if the action will achieve a positive result.
On disruption
I've been called a troll, a nuisance, disruptive, combative, and argumentative. This will happen in the course of a discussion with me because I try to understand your point of view through questions and I try to explain my point of view through symbolism and similes. We'll have a much easier time communicating if you just assume I'm not baiting you into a trap and you're honest up front. I'll try to do the same.