Minds - Great, Average or Small? (31)
Ill read it later ...and try to understand
<----small mind but big shalonga
<----small mind but big shalonga
------ This thread is Archived ------
Boban1: Ill read it later ...and try to understand
<----small mind but big shalonga
<----small mind but big shalonga
3
------ This thread is Archived ------
Boban1: Ill read it later ...and try to understand
<----small mind but big shalonga
<----small mind but big shalonga
Excellent!! 
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt
That's good - I'll keep it....
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt
.........
.........
Great quote!
The "size" of the minds does not limit them to be used on good purpouses.
------ This thread is Archived ------
lifeisadream: Great quote!
The "size" of the minds does not limit them to be used on good purpouses.
The "size" of the minds does not limit them to be used on good purpouses.
I agree. I also think the "size" of the mind isn't static or fixed and that the mind can grow in strength with exercise just as other parts of the body. I heard about some research three nights ago on the radio that suggested writing, math problems and debate all help stave off Alzheimer's and dementia by actively strengthening the mind and creating new neural pathways.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt
<snip>
What thoughts do you have to share on this topic and what category of thinking do they reflect; the idea, the event or the person?
<snip>
What thoughts do you have to share on this topic and what category of thinking do they reflect; the idea, the event or the person?
I think that everything is relative to a frame of reference.
If I say "this guy, X, is a murderer", and someone on the other side of the world says "no, X is a freedom fighter", are we then discussing a person or the ideas of that person?
Because we live on opposite sides of the world, it would seem that we cannot discuss ideas because we have different frames of reference, (a.k.a. different cultures), and we are therefore reduced to discussing the person so, according to your postulation, at least one of us must have a small mind. Correct?
------ This thread is Archived ------
marc62: I think that everything is relative to a frame of reference.
If I say "this guy, X, is a murderer", and someone on the other side of the world says "no, X is a freedom fighter", are we then discussing a person or the ideas of that person?
If I say "this guy, X, is a murderer", and someone on the other side of the world says "no, X is a freedom fighter", are we then discussing a person or the ideas of that person?
In this situation, the real topic seems to be value systems, rather than a person. The person, in this case, is a specific "instance", if you will, of the value system being discussed/debated, in my opinion.
In response to: Because we live on opposite sides of the world, it would seem that we cannot discuss ideas because we have different frames of reference, (a.k.a. different cultures), and we are therefore reduced to discussing the person so, according to your postulation, at least one of us must have a small mind. Correct?
I can't agree with that line of reasoning. Whether we are on opposite sides of the world or not, we should be capable of expressing different values and our reasoning for and/or support of them. Perhaps an example would illustrate the point I'm trying to make.
Discussing People: "George Bush is a stupid cowboy and everyone hates him".
Discussing ideas: "George Bush, correctly or not, came to be seen by many in the world as a rash leader that led the USA into devastating and unnecessary wars".
Option 1 - Personal in nature and reflective of no thought or idea other than negative personal opinion.
Option 2 - Discussing perception and maybe even promoting discussion about the accuracy of such a perception. It engages discussion about ideology and someone on your side of the world could be the protagonist of the assertion and someone on this side of the world could be the antagonist of that assertion and the entire discussion could be held without ever discussing the "people" that have the opposing value systems, while discussing at length the nature, characteristics, wisdom and rationality of the value systems by comparison to each other.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Boban1: Ill read it later ...and try to understand
<----small mind but big shalonga
<----small mind but big shalonga
Thats really ALL that counts Bo
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: In this situation, the real topic seems to be value systems, rather than a person. The person, in this case, is a specific "instance", if you will, of the value system being discussed/debated, in my opinion.
The thing is that, I do not believe that one can hold any discussion at all without a common frame of reference, and you don't have a frame of reference in which to discuss the value systems.
gardenhackle:
I can't agree with that line of reasoning. Whether we are on opposite sides of the world or not, we should be capable of expressing different values and our reasoning for and/or support of them.
I can't agree with that line of reasoning. Whether we are on opposite sides of the world or not, we should be capable of expressing different values and our reasoning for and/or support of them.
Yes, we should be, but I don't think we are.
In the physical world, every measurement requires a frame of reference, and the Theory of Relativity describes, among other things, how time dilates as you attain very high speeds. A person on a very fast spaceship communicating with someone stationary on the ground couldn't even agree on what the time is because their frames of reference become different as speed increases.
I think that an anologous situation occurs when you have two radically different cultures, and it might be even more noticeable if you wanted to communicate with intelligent beings in another planet.
The opposite would be to say that just as we ought to be able to communicate between different cultures, we should also be able to communicate with intelligent aliens from another planet.
Please note that I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. I am simply testing my thoughts against a capable mind.
------ This thread is Archived ------
A truly great mind would have the capacity to transcend the three, to understand the relation between events and ideas, and to how, through experience of such, that ultimately cumulates in the make-up of an individuals' character. For instance, someone who views being officious as some kind of guarantor of intellect is probably insecure about their own mental capacity, and thus feels impulsed to attempt to prove how intelligent they are time and time again to anybody that will listen.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: I agree. I also think the "size" of the mind isn't static or fixed and that the mind can grow in strength with exercise just as other parts of the body. I heard about some research three nights ago on the radio that suggested writing, math problems and debate all help stave off Alzheimer's and dementia by actively strengthening the mind and creating new neural pathways.
it seems you are speaking of the brain , not the mind
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: Wonderful quotes that would be excellent material for a new discussion even if their non sequiturs for this discussion. It would be a great thread starter, though.
This one is about Eleanor Roosevelt's quote regarding the small mindedness of talking about people. I think for the most part, her remarks are directed toward gossip, personal attacks and attempts to divert discussion from one of ideas to one discussing personal opinions about others. What do you think?
This one is about Eleanor Roosevelt's quote regarding the small mindedness of talking about people. I think for the most part, her remarks are directed toward gossip, personal attacks and attempts to divert discussion from one of ideas to one discussing personal opinions about others. What do you think?
(even if THEY are - not "their") just in case that error in grammar made it difficult to read. I should have proofed first. I don't always do that.
------ This thread is Archived ------
heatherhuntsman: it seems you are speaking of the brain , not the mind
hmmmm..... thinking...... Not sure I can agree because I don't think that exercising the mind causes the brain to become become larger. More and stronger synapse connections would make the brain more efficient. But wouldn't that strengthen the "mind"?
Your remark did pique my curiosity about the semantics of "mind" vs. "brain". I think of "mind" as the thinking activity of the brain while I think of "brain" as the physical organ, which is responsible for many processes aside from just thought.
What do you think about that?
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: Wonderful quotes that would be excellent material for a new discussion even if their non sequiturs for this discussion. It would be a great thread starter, though.
This one is about Eleanor Roosevelt's quote regarding the small mindedness of talking about people.
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt
I think for the most part, her remarks are directed toward gossip, personal attacks and attempts to divert discussion from one of ideas to one discussing personal opinions about others. What do you think?
This one is about Eleanor Roosevelt's quote regarding the small mindedness of talking about people.
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt
I think for the most part, her remarks are directed toward gossip, personal attacks and attempts to divert discussion from one of ideas to one discussing personal opinions about others. What do you think?
I think, like many quotes, this one generalises, and is a little vague as to the meaning.
My take on it would be, that she is referring to gossips, as her lowest form of intellectual/small minds. Gossips can be anyone, or everyone, since gossiping is indiginous to everyone of us, at some time in our lives.
The general populous, who talk about general events, what makes the news etc., she considers average. How she defines average isn't clear though. If she is referring to a mean, then the average could vary widely, depending on what section of people worldwide she might have studied to get her opinion.
Great minds are not defined in any way either, except to being categorised as people who discuss ideas.
Two totally drunk,untutored men, sitting at the side of the road discussing how to open a bottle of wine without a corkscrew, in this generalised view of hers, would come under the header of discussing ideas, since she didn't specify which ideas, or on what level the discussion should take place.
I believe that what she said, appears to be just a snobbish remark, and not a quote of any value.
------ This thread is Archived ------
GingerBe: I think, like many quotes, this one generalises, and is a little vague as to the meaning.
My take on it would be, that she is referring to gossips, as her lowest form of intellectual/small minds. Gossips can be anyone, or everyone, since gossiping is indiginous to everyone of us, at some time in our lives.
The general populous, who talk about general events, what makes the news etc., she considers average. How she defines average isn't clear though. If she is referring to a mean, then the average could vary widely, depending on what section of people worldwide she might have studied to get her opinion.
Great minds are not defined in any way either, except to being categorised as people who discuss ideas.
Two totally drunk,untutored men, sitting at the side of the road discussing how to open a bottle of wine without a corkscrew, in this generalised view of hers, would come under the header of discussing ideas, since she didn't specify which ideas, or on what level the discussion should take place.
I believe that what she said, appears to be just a snobbish remark, and not a quote of any value.
My take on it would be, that she is referring to gossips, as her lowest form of intellectual/small minds. Gossips can be anyone, or everyone, since gossiping is indiginous to everyone of us, at some time in our lives.
The general populous, who talk about general events, what makes the news etc., she considers average. How she defines average isn't clear though. If she is referring to a mean, then the average could vary widely, depending on what section of people worldwide she might have studied to get her opinion.
Great minds are not defined in any way either, except to being categorised as people who discuss ideas.
Two totally drunk,untutored men, sitting at the side of the road discussing how to open a bottle of wine without a corkscrew, in this generalised view of hers, would come under the header of discussing ideas, since she didn't specify which ideas, or on what level the discussion should take place.
I believe that what she said, appears to be just a snobbish remark, and not a quote of any value.
Thanks for the thoughts on the topic, Gingerbee. I saw it a different way and think she had a low opinion for people who spoke ill of others. I think lauding someone wouldn't have been something she would have found low or small and like most pithy quotes, it was interesting and thought provoking. I suppose how one parses the quote would have a lot to do with how one perceives the intent and value, just as with most quotes.
Thanks for sharing your ideas, Gingerbee.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle:
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt
...
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt
...
Love this quote.
Brilliant.
gardenhackle:
...
This is brilliant insight and one of my favorite quotes. Great minds discuss ideas. They weigh thoughts, pros and cons, play devil's advocate and engage others with ideas, points of fact and conceptual dialogue.
The weakest minds invariably eschew the discussion of ideas and engage in discussion that is personal in nature, abandoning the "ideas" and talking about "people" straight away. "You are this" or "You are that", "You just this" and "You just that". These are all indicators of a small mind in a lost position, flailing away at people instead of ideas. An idea, proposition, thought or syllogism is not in any way measured, weighed or evaluated by remarking on their author. The intellect and even sanity of the author is utterly irrelevant and has no bearing on the veracity or value of the author's product. 24kt gold has exactly the same value whether found in a rubbish heap or bank vault and, likewise, pyrite is equally worthless whether found in a bank vault or rubbish heap. Where it's found or who possesses it is irrelevant in determination of value.
Disagreement or agreement on a topic and/or train of thought is not dependent upon or related to how much you like or dislike the person involved. And how much you like or dislike the person involved is not related to or dependent upon how much you agree with them. At least this is the way it is with great minds. With small minds, the ideas, topics and trains of thought are secondary and sometimes not considered at all. Small minds think in very simple terms and draw very simple conclusions and make very simple statements. Small minds generally exhibit a flawed logic that can be generalized thusly:
1. I disagree with what you said, therefore you suck --> go #2.
2. Since you suck, what you say is wrong and stupid --> go #3.
3. Since what you say is wrong and stupid, I disagree. --> go #1.
And so the circular logic of the small mind has closed, completing the loop of fractured thinking.
In discussion, great minds will concentrate on the merit, strengths and weaknesses of ideas, average minds will remark on events or happenings that may or may not be pertinent to the ideas and small minds will dwell on and deal in personal remarks.
...
...
This is brilliant insight and one of my favorite quotes. Great minds discuss ideas. They weigh thoughts, pros and cons, play devil's advocate and engage others with ideas, points of fact and conceptual dialogue.
The weakest minds invariably eschew the discussion of ideas and engage in discussion that is personal in nature, abandoning the "ideas" and talking about "people" straight away. "You are this" or "You are that", "You just this" and "You just that". These are all indicators of a small mind in a lost position, flailing away at people instead of ideas. An idea, proposition, thought or syllogism is not in any way measured, weighed or evaluated by remarking on their author. The intellect and even sanity of the author is utterly irrelevant and has no bearing on the veracity or value of the author's product. 24kt gold has exactly the same value whether found in a rubbish heap or bank vault and, likewise, pyrite is equally worthless whether found in a bank vault or rubbish heap. Where it's found or who possesses it is irrelevant in determination of value.
Disagreement or agreement on a topic and/or train of thought is not dependent upon or related to how much you like or dislike the person involved. And how much you like or dislike the person involved is not related to or dependent upon how much you agree with them. At least this is the way it is with great minds. With small minds, the ideas, topics and trains of thought are secondary and sometimes not considered at all. Small minds think in very simple terms and draw very simple conclusions and make very simple statements. Small minds generally exhibit a flawed logic that can be generalized thusly:
1. I disagree with what you said, therefore you suck --> go #2.
2. Since you suck, what you say is wrong and stupid --> go #3.
3. Since what you say is wrong and stupid, I disagree. --> go #1.
And so the circular logic of the small mind has closed, completing the loop of fractured thinking.
In discussion, great minds will concentrate on the merit, strengths and weaknesses of ideas, average minds will remark on events or happenings that may or may not be pertinent to the ideas and small minds will dwell on and deal in personal remarks.
...
Excellent points. Wholeheartedly agree.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: I agree. I also think the "size" of the mind isn't static or fixed and that the mind can grow in strength with exercise just as other parts of the body. I heard about some research three nights ago on the radio that suggested writing, math problems and debate all help stave off Alzheimer's and dementia by actively strengthening the mind and creating new neural pathways.
Don't want no new neural pathways have enough trouble with the old ones.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: Thanks for the thoughts on the topic, Gingerbee. I saw it a different way and think she had a low opinion for people who spoke ill of others. I think lauding someone wouldn't have been something she would have found low or small and like most pithy quotes, it was interesting and thought provoking. I suppose how one parses the quote would have a lot to do with how one perceives the intent and value, just as with most quotes.
Thanks for sharing your ideas, Gingerbee.
Thanks for sharing your ideas, Gingerbee.
Trying to perceive intent in quotes is playing a guessing game at best.
I think her quote is trying to categorise people (unfairly).
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Unions support Democrats!
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
your favorite topic?
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
Ladies
Democrats destroyed America
The weird and the random facts around the world
I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
s*xual skills
Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
1,429 Views
30 Comments
Created: Sep 2010
Last Viewed: Apr 22
Last Commented: Sep 2010
0 Likes
Related Forums
- Unions support Democrats!
- Would you hire this guy - for any job?
- your favorite topic?
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
- Ladies
- Democrats destroyed America
- The weird and the random facts around the world
- I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
- s*xual skills
- Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
This is brilliant insight and one of my favorite quotes. Great minds discuss ideas. They weigh thoughts, pros and cons, play devil's advocate and engage others with ideas, points of fact and conceptual dialogue.
The weakest minds invariably eschew the discussion of ideas and engage in discussion that is personal in nature, abandoning the "ideas" and talking about "people" straight away. "You are this" or "You are that", "You just this" and "You just that". These are all indicators of a small mind in a lost position, flailing away at people instead of ideas. An idea, proposition, thought or syllogism is not in any way measured, weighed or evaluated by remarking on their author. The intellect and even sanity of the author is utterly irrelevant and has no bearing on the veracity or value of the author's product. 24kt gold has exactly the same value whether found in a rubbish heap or bank vault and, likewise, pyrite is equally worthless whether found in a bank vault or rubbish heap. Where it's found or who possesses it is irrelevant in determination of value.
Disagreement or agreement on a topic and/or train of thought is not dependent upon or related to how much you like or dislike the person involved. And how much you like or dislike the person involved is not related to or dependent upon how much you agree with them. At least this is the way it is with great minds. With small minds, the ideas, topics and trains of thought are secondary and sometimes not considered at all. Small minds think in very simple terms and draw very simple conclusions and make very simple statements. Small minds generally exhibit a flawed logic that can be generalized thusly:
1. I disagree with what you said, therefore you suck --> go #2.
2. Since you suck, what you say is wrong and stupid --> go #3.
3. Since what you say is wrong and stupid, I disagree. --> go #1.
And so the circular logic of the small mind has closed, completing the loop of fractured thinking.
In discussion, great minds will concentrate on the merit, strengths and weaknesses of ideas, average minds will remark on events or happenings that may or may not be pertinent to the ideas and small minds will dwell on and deal in personal remarks.
What thoughts do you have to share on this topic and what category of thinking do they reflect; the idea, the event or the person?