POLL: New Forum Section?

Teheuti

28-03-2012, 04:47

Please indicate what you'd like to see. If I've missed important options then we can start a new poll.

ADDED: A new forum section, if there were to be one, would probably be added to "Tarot History & Iconography." Decisions are made by Solandia in consultation with the moderators. We are simply making the issues clear for everyone and coming up with our own recommendations. At least, that's how I understand it.

Possible titles for a new section (if you want one) can be suggested below.

Teheuti

28-03-2012, 06:20

Looking back on old posts I see that Debra started a thread on HR with a title I really like:

"Speculation: A Sandbox for Historical Imagination"

There are no pejoratives implied and it's playful. I think it would set the perfect tone.

Astraea

28-03-2012, 06:25

Laura Borealis

28-03-2012, 07:24

Thanks for setting up a poll, Teheuti.

I voted for the first option, but I have a small caveat.

You said, "No. Keep standards in His Res; speculation can be addressed in Talking Tarot"

I DO support keeping standards in Historical Research. Creating a separate forum under the heading of Tarot History and Iconography does not interfere with that.

Tarot History and Iconography is the umbrella forum:

Tarot History and Iconography
---Marseilles & Other Early Decks
---Rider-Waite-Smith
---Thoth Tarot
---Historical Research
---Kabbalah & Alphabets

I see the new Speculation forum as being a sixth sub-forum under T.H. & I.

Teheuti

28-03-2012, 07:48

Tarot History and Iconography is the umbrella forum:

Tarot History and Iconography
---Marseilles & Other Early Decks
---Rider-Waite-Smith
---Thoth Tarot
---Historical Research
---Kabbalah & Alphabets

I see the new Speculation forum as being a sixth sub-forum under T.H. & I.
I agree with you 100% (although I was leaving the specifics to a later determination). We could add to the list - between Historical Research and Kabbalah & Alphabets:

---Speculation: a Sandbox for Historical Imagination (or "Historical Speculation" for short?)
ADDED: or some other title.

Laura Borealis

28-03-2012, 08:02

I agree with you 100% (although I was leaving the specifics to a later determination). We could add to the list - between Historical Research and Kabbalah & Alphabets

---Speculation: a Sandbox for Historical Imagination (or "Historical Speculation" for short?)

I don't mean to come across as nit-picky, I just wanted to be clear about my thoughts on this :)

As for names, I like that one. Really anything that is clear about the scope of the forum is fine.

Stormdancer

28-03-2012, 08:49

LRichard

28-03-2012, 11:03

I voted for the 1st option, and I just LOVE this title. A playground :party:The playground/sandbox idea is cute, but I think it is not inclusive enough for topics which are quite serious, such as sociological, psychological, and philosophical speculation. Also, to some extent, even "Flights of Fancy" has connotations which might give the impression that serious topics are unwelcome.

Teheuti

28-03-2012, 11:19

The playground/sandbox idea is cute, but I think it is not inclusive enough for topics which are quite serious, such as sociological, psychological, and philosophical speculation. Also, to some extent, even "Flights of Fancy" has connotations which might give the impression that serious topics are unwelcome.
I understand your concern. You might either suggest a different title or we could recommend including your suggestions in the descriptive line underneath:
"Speculations: A Sandbox for Historical Imagination - including ideas that might also be considered sociological, psychological and philosophical."

LRichard

28-03-2012, 12:08

I understand your concern. You might either suggest a different title or we could recommend including your suggestions in the descriptive line underneath:
"Speculations: A Sandbox for Historical Imagination - including ideas that might also be considered sociological, psychological and philosophical."My post was just something to think about. After all, newcomers to the Tarot History and Iconography section will not necessarily be familiar with the issues which caused such a forum to be created, so they may not be able to infer the actual scope of the forum from a whimsical title, which otherwise would be perfectly clear to those of us who have followed the controversy.

Melanchollic

28-03-2012, 12:24

Titadrupah

28-03-2012, 14:05

Yygdrasilian

28-03-2012, 14:13

τὸ θεοφιλές

Not so very long ago I initiated a post entitled “The Hallowed Profane” as an earnest attempt to create a place in Aeclectic where members could speculate on “weird, but ‘true’ enigmas surrounding these ubiquitous cards.”

As some of you may recall, that particular thread became more of a heated argument over the right to argue ‘facts of history that can never be proven’ than an actual discussion of said enigmas. Thus, the Sandbox. To be honest, I’ve been loathe to contribute as the implication is pretty obvious and seemed a mockery of my initial intent.

"History may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes"

KariRoad

28-03-2012, 15:40

Hello, Teheuti

I voted an affirmative, and would like to add please, this POLL might also be posted in other, more active areas of the Aeclectic Community. Based simply on Posts and Views, it may be that some people might feel reluctant to "browse" some forum areas.

All are welcome, and so may be enthusiastically Welcomed.

The more the merrier!

:) KariRoad

Teheuti

28-03-2012, 17:15

I voted an affirmative, and would like to add please, this POLL might also be posted in other, more active areas of the Aeclectic Community.
I thought about that, but didn't want to be invasive. Plus, without familiarity with the debate or with Historical Research I'm not sure if this poll would make much sense.

I'd rather leave that decision up to the moderators - if they think it would be appropriate to post it elsewhere.

Huck

28-03-2012, 17:40

I thought about that, but didn't want to be invasive. Plus, without familiarity with the debate or with Historical Research I'm not sure if this poll would make much sense.

I'd rather leave that decision up to the moderators - if they think it would be appropriate to post it elsewhere.

Maybe, one should first request the opinions in the other historical forums.
Possibly one might think about an improvement of the poll first. Perhaps things are clearer, if there is some agreement on some or one name, or the selection of the name might be connected to the poll.

gregory

28-03-2012, 18:24

Speculation is not research!!
But it may lead to springboards for something new, serious and important.

Huck

28-03-2012, 19:10

I voted for

No. Keep standards in His Res; speculation can be addressed in Talking Tarot,

though I'd actually like to see much stricter standards. (There has been a bit too much 'Pink Slime' on the lunch plates 'round here recently. ;) )

I think a "speculation" section would work better under the general "Tarot" umbrella, separate from the rather general "Talking Tarot" section... but definitely not under the "Tarot History & Iconography" umbrella, nor as a sub-section of the "Historical Research" section. Speculation is not research!!

Well,
... a greater group of persons wishes to come a little bit closer to history. I personally enjoy this. That's good.
Tarot history research needs urgently some more public. As the new friends of Tarot history have a lot of revolutionary ideas, it might be okay, if they take their place not directly in the Historical Research forum, but have their place in the neighborhood. Perhaps they occasionally have the idea to request the existence of better information in given questions.

Speculation is - my humble opinion - a necessary tool inside Historical Research. It's not necessary, if there are enough common sources to clear a question. But it's very often, that information consists only of fragments and additionally the possibly spurious hints are often full of contradiction. Naturally you need some "speculation" to get any clue, how research might proceed in such a given situation.
Well ... one shouldn't forget, that one only speculates. Speculation leads only to possibilities and new research ideas, they are not facts. But without speculation ... this wouldn't really work in practice.
... :-) ... Good researchers need a 6th and 7th sense to get results. In my opinion they don't need a title or something like this, which in fact is only idle nonsense. But they need some mental discipline to keep their own speculations and facts at different sides. ... and a good memory is very helpful ... :-) .. and ALSO a neutral view on the own results. And occasionally the flexibility to abandon a loved theory, if the research has the result, that it is nonsense.

LRichard

28-03-2012, 19:11

But it may lead to springboards for something new, serious and important.Yes, indeed! Einstein's daydreams/conjectures about things like elevators being accelerated in outer space led to the Theory of Relativity, a new model of mass, space, and gravitation which he published as a scientific paper before there was empirical evidence that it was indeed more accurate than the Newtonian theory. This was in the realm of hard, exact science, which history is not.

gregory

28-03-2012, 19:43

Well,
... a greater group of persons wishes to come a little bit closer to history. I personally enjoy this. That's good.
Tarot history research needs urgently some more public. As the new friends of Tarot history have a lot of revolutionary ideas, it might be okay, if they take their place not directly in the Historical Research forum, but have their place in the neighborhood. Perhaps they occasionally have the idea to request the existence of better information in given questions.

We (if there is a "we here") are not NEW friends of tarot history; we have visited the forum a lot, but have learned not to post in it, as we get blasted. Maybe we have better information; you will never know, as we have also learned that if you don't happen to agree with it - you includes several people who do this ! - we will be told that "we have already established that" ...

This sounds rather "superior" to me. Sorry Huck - but it does. I am still wondering about your post to me the other day !

Well, just for the communicative 10% ... I never asked you, but what's your interest in Historical Research ?
What did you think it was ? What is anyone's interest in anything ? I was actually rather offended. Why SHOULDN'T I - or anyone else - be interested in the history of something we all here value ?.

closrapexa

28-03-2012, 19:44

I am not in favor of a new section. That being said, I am not against it, and if it is important enough for people I am willing to help, so I voted for the first option. :)

Ross G Caldwell

28-03-2012, 21:12

I voted "don't know, don't care". I'm a laissez faire kind of guy; I've never been good on committees. Let's just establish the rules, and start playing!

I thought the rules were either clearly stated or could be quickly picked up by most people (old internet rule - read a lot of the threads before posting in order to know the standards of the place you are in), but of course I was being optimistic and perhaps too generous.

It's not the rules most people object to anyway, it's "tone" (not nice enough, not enough sugar-coating) and the results (the esoteric Tarot does not exist before 1781) that bother so many who come to Tarot History to present their theories. It's actually rare that someone comes on with a sincere question, rather than false questions posed in provocative language, sarcasm or snide remarks (or frequently worse, actual insults).

Melanchollic

28-03-2012, 23:11

Well...

...Speculation is - my humble opinion - a necessary tool inside Historical Research...

Yes, I'm in full agreement. I wouldn't even mind it in the Historical Research section if it weren't for certain 'yahoos' who show up suddenly, gettin' all zen & jiggy widdit right from their first posting, baiting the reader with cryptic drivel and plenty of "Keep searching brother... All will be revealed" condescension.

Teheuti

29-03-2012, 04:38

I don't think it is the presence of speculation itself that is the real problem in Historical Research. Many ideas have been willingly explored based on speculation. (Could Pletho have influenced the creation of Tarot and might Sigismundo Malatesta have been involved?) Rather it is the failure of some speculators to understand that once a speculation is made then it is examined to see if any facts support it. Furthermore, if the facts don't then it is taken as a personal affront (and sometimes the personal gets mixed into it on both sides). An even bigger issue, to my mind, is the unwillingness to accept or learn about historical research methods and standards that are used to evaluate the likelihood of a speculation. True historical research cannot operate without them. To not use them fails the field of historical knowledge.

The Speculation section could examine possibilities for which there are no facts but persuasive reasons, with a lot of latitude given to the soundness of the reasons. Some things will seem more fictional or fanciful and some might becoming the basis for solid historical research. I hope we can also speculate on why certain ideas take hold and others don't.

The crowned one

29-03-2012, 04:43

Rather it is the failure of some speculators to understand that once a speculation is made then it is examined to see if any facts support it. Furthermore, if the facts don't then it is taken as a personal affront (and sometimes the personal gets mixed into it on both sides). An even bigger issue, to my mind, is the unwillingness to accept or learn about historical research methods and standards that are used to evaluate the likelihood of a speculation. True historical research cannot operate without them. To not use them fails the field of historical knowledge.

Yes, this says pretty much what I think. First reaction to a pet idea being shot down is defensive, not gratefulness for being shown the true path. ;)

Kosjitov

30-03-2012, 01:16

As someone who has a budding interest in tarot history, I confess that my role with the Historical section has merely been lurking. This is due in part to the high level of information presented and needing a certain amount of background to even begin to understand most of the conversations that are already in existence there. Please bear this in mind with the rest of my reply.

I appreciate the hardcore historians who are looking for empirical evidence regarding the history of tarot. While I may not be able to participate, as a viewer I need a clear view of what can be proved via documentation rather than pure speculation. Without clear definition, theory can be passed off as truth rather than conjecture and for my own personal studies it would behoove me to know where one begins and one ends- even if I have to follow a lengthy document and backtrack some of it as much as possible.

That being said, I am also a tarot reader and have to suspend some of my own disbelief to work with the cards. I appreciate and value free thought. We had our own explanations for how the world worked until we came up with scientific research to explain it. That being said, I *do* want to see a place where ideas are encouraged, speculated about, and possibly checked against, to be proven or thrown out as the community provides reasons why or why not something would be valid.

I don't see this happening under a HISTORICAL title. If you called it Scholarly Pursuits or something to that effect, theory and conjecture could still be welcomed. I can't see the historical section sacrificing their standards (and no, they shouldn't, it's what keeps it pristine) but at the same time I don't think there needs to be this mentality of "You can't prove it, it's useless" either. Some things about tarot may never be proven in our lifetimes but we can't just disregard it based off the premise that it can't be proven right this second.

Please keep the Historical section as is, but make a kiddie pool for those who want to see what ideas the rest of the community has to offer in speculation. Historians don't NEED to go out of their way to visit that other section and thereby won't be annoyed at items lacking proof stuffed on their nicely crafted lawn :)

Teheuti

30-03-2012, 03:06

Having hung out here for a long time, I have to say that most speculations are not treated harshly. If it's an old idea then someone usually directs them to earlier discussions and may summarise what was previously discovered, so we don't have to go over the same territory again and again and again. The person is asked if they have anything new to offer. Unfortunately, what they often offer is simply a line of reasoning with no supporting evidence.

If the material is outside the purview of anyone reading Historical Research at that time, then no discussion may ensue. That may seem rude, but it simply shows a lack of time or interest by others.

As I said before, most of the 'attitude' arises when someone is not satisfied by statements like, "If you don't have new evidence to present, then there is nothing to evaluate or explore." This is not a rude statement. It is a true one.

If someone insists that their reasoning is proof enough, then they are really pretty lucky that people here rarely demonstrate item-by-item how faulty their 'reasoning' is. In philosophy and science there are formal rules of logic that help demonstrate common errors in thinking that most people aren't aware of. Unless you sit down to really learn these rules (and I am not an expert) they don't make much sense at first. It can be pretty devastating when someone shows you these errors in thinking (if you are willing to get what they are saying).

I used to get furious when a woman in a study group I belong to would point out these errors, but, then we asked her to explain and teach us. She was a former university philosophy professor, lawyer and is now CEO of a scientific company with large government contracts. She kept her explanations light, but it made a huge difference, even if it was, at times, painful to our pet theories.

One of the problems is that some of the people here have so thoroughly accepted these rules of logic that anything else is, by formal definition, illogical or absurd. That is sometimes what is meant by use of the term 'absurd.' It may be more of a description than a nastily meant pejorative (or, to be fair, it's a little of both).

When you relax these rules of logic then the standards by which Historical Research functions disintegrate.

Teheuti

30-03-2012, 03:22

I *do* want to see a place where ideas are encouraged, speculated about, and possibly checked against, to be proven or thrown out as the community provides reasons why or why not something would be valid.

I don't see this happening under a HISTORICAL title. If you called it Scholarly Pursuits or something to that effect, theory and conjecture could still be welcomed.
Several of the sections under "History and Iconography" - like the Rider-Waite and Thoth sections - don't hold to absolute historical standards. I think they make good examples - with RWS a little more relaxed than Thoth. People speculate freely about the meaning of various symbols, etc., although, Crowley, Waite, Smith and Harris (among others) are invoked as primary resources and final arbiters, if applicable.

Alta

30-03-2012, 03:39

Solandia is preparing to make changes, more or less along the lines suggested.

I am not sure sure how long this will take, but reasonably soon.

Alta
Senior Moderator

Abrac

30-03-2012, 10:32

foolish

31-03-2012, 06:42

I don't think it is the presence of speculation itself that is the real problem in Historical Research. Many ideas have been willingly explored based on speculation.
I agree. And perhaps this reasoning will allow for the creation of this subcategory in the history section.

Rather it is the failure of some speculators to understand that once a speculation is made then it is examined to see if any facts support it. Furthermore, if the facts don't then it is taken as a personal affront (and sometimes the personal gets mixed into it on both sides). An even bigger issue, to my mind, is the unwillingness to accept or learn about historical research methods and standards that are used to evaluate the likelihood of a speculation. True historical research cannot operate without them.
But, isn't this the very reason we're talking about starting an entirely new section? It's been established that some ideas and speculations can't be substantiated with absolute evidence. So why continue to demand the same rules of historical research methods and standards that don't apply to this area of speculation? Can't we allow these ideas to remain as possibilities - without being shut down for not living up to higher standards of research? Of course, historians can comment on why they feel the idea doesn't live up to these expectations (hopefully in a civil manner), but if we demand evaluation by the same standards, then we really don't need a separate section.

The Speculation section could examine possibilities for which there are no facts but persuasive reasons, with a lot of latitude given to the soundness of the reasons.
The statement that all these ideas are speculations "for which there are no facts" sounds a bit condescending. I hope you didn't mean it that way. There is a difference between presenting an idea as if it were fact, vs. presenting FACTS surrounding an idea. Just because these facts don't prove the idea by themselves doesn't mean that the idea is not based upon some facts - however circumstantial or disconnected they may appear. The "soundness" of the ideas will probably determine the extent of the discussion in the forum.

I hope we can also speculate on why certain ideas take hold and others don't.
This may be one of the central contributions from the history section. Honest feedback, rational assessment and factual insights would likely be welcomed - if they're offered in a constructive way.

LRichard

31-03-2012, 09:43

I wouldn't mind seeing a subforum in Historical Research called "Theory and Speculation," with one criterion being that theories should at least be based on some kind of logic, even if there's no direct evidence. To me, a thread that's nothing but speculative flights of fancy would get boring very fast and I'm sure I wouldn't participate.While I think that some of the title suggestions were merely tongue-in-cheek, I agree that there needs to be some constraint on the posts, and that this should be reflected somehow in the forum title. If thoughtless flights of fancy were to become the norm, I, too, would not participate. There are clearly other forums for such posts.

foolish

31-03-2012, 12:10

While I think that some of the title suggestions were merely tongue-in-cheek, I agree that there needs to be some constraint on the posts, and that this should be reflected somehow in the forum title. If thoughtless flights of fancy were to become the norm, I, too, would not participate. There are clearly other forums for such posts.
Perhaps a subtitle could reflect the kind of threads that are appropriate for that area, or general expectations for posting. But I hope we can stay away from terms like "playground" and "sandbox," as they are suggestive of juvenile or frivolous ideas - the very thing the history section wants to discourage.

LRichard

31-03-2012, 12:39

Perhaps a subtitle could reflect the kind of threads that are appropriate for that area, or general expectations for posting. But I hope we can stay away from terms like "playground" and "sandbox," as they are suggestive of juvenile or frivolous ideas - the very thing the history section wants to discourage.Yes. Even if "playground" and "sandbox" were tongue-in-cheek responses to the intolerance of a few of the historical purists, I think they are inappropriate for a forum title because they can be misleading to someone who does not know the background of the controversy. It needs to have a serious title, one which clearly indicates the appropriate types of posts.

Yygdrasilian

31-03-2012, 17:55

The daughter of Memory who makes famous the otherwise obscure is "knowledge through inquiry" - a muse celebrating our past through the poetry of purifying prayers. While I doubt any of us will burst out in epic song any time soon, perhaps a suitable name for this new forum could draw upon more ancient meanings of the word: Historia

foolish

01-04-2012, 04:00

While I doubt any of us will burst out in epic song any time soon, perhaps a suitable name for this new forum could draw upon more ancient meanings of the word: Historia
Or, for those who prefer something on the lighter side (i.e. to differentiate it from the more serious historical reasearch), how about "History's Mysteries?" - perhaps with an explanitive subtitle. Nothing here to prove, but like a good mystery, a reasonable amount of "clues" are essential to create a good story.

Debra

01-04-2012, 06:45

I think everyone should be required to burst into epic song before posting in the new section.

:laugh:

vee

01-04-2012, 11:30

I think everyone should be required to burst into epic song before posting in the new section.

:laugh:

Well, this sold me, I voted for it.

I don't post in HR ever, but I do read it a lot and appreciate very much the efforts of the posters to keep things rigorous and up to snuff. I hope the creation of a new forum allows people to have the fun they want---and I'm sure I'll join in ;)--while maintaining the integrity of HR! :)

kwaw

02-04-2012, 05:01

I think everyone should be required to burst into epic song before posting in the new section.

:laugh:

All together now:

bye bye history
hello mystery
I think I wanna cry-i
bye bye my baby
bye bye-i

prudence

02-04-2012, 06:03

I don't see how removing the speculative type threads from Historical Research is going to harm Historical Research.

Laura Borealis

02-04-2012, 08:38

I don't see how removing the speculative type threads from Historical Research is going to harm Historical Research.

Agreed. One would think the serious historians would welcome the change. They won't even have to see the speculative threads unless they want to.

Yygdrasilian

05-04-2012, 16:30

Who decides what qualifies as "Historical Research" and what is merely speculative?

Does the "unbridgeable gap" between serious historians and occultists become an excuse to exclude certain viewpoints from discussion?

The danger, it seems, in creating this new forum lies in its' potential for censorship.
Not that avoiding certain conversations hasn't been obvious enough already.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The crowned one

05-04-2012, 16:56

Who decides what qualifies as "Historical Research" and what is merely speculative?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The poster.

Alta

05-04-2012, 21:13

Just an update, Solandia has been away for a while.

gregory

06-04-2012, 01:12

The poster.

I love you :love:

kwaw

06-04-2012, 01:26

Who decides what qualifies as "Historical Research" and what is merely speculative?

The poster.

I love you :love:##

= The Devil = the idol(ized) on the pedestal! (Iam thinking of the poster, not the crowned One! (That One is mere. . . infatuation.)

;)

gregory

06-04-2012, 01:40

##

= The Devil = the idol(ized) on the pedestal! (I am thinking of the poster, not the crowned One! (That One is mere. . . infatuation.)

;)

OK - I am infatuated with TCO. That's OK :) Though it may not be OK with him....

Teheuti

06-04-2012, 03:23

Who decides what qualifies as "Historical Research" and what is merely speculative?
Anyone can post to either. However, if the poster to HR can't point to any primary sources for consideration then I think various people might mention that they can see nothing to be researched, and therefore the topic might get more consideration on the speculative side. But, we'll have to see if it works or not. Likewise, as we regularly see, people come up with topics in which no one is knowledgeable or willing to look into them, and so the subject dies away anyway.

Teheuti

06-04-2012, 05:50

A recent article by Caroline Tully of the University of Melbourne is relevant to our discussion. The title is "Researching the Past is a Foreign Country: Cognitive Dissonance as a Response by Practitioner Pagans to Academic Research on the History of Pagan Religions" - available here: http://www.equinoxpub.com/POM/article/view/14018/11208

It deals directly with the conflict between the findings of academic research and Neopagan ideas about their own historical origins - which are often a mix of deliberately created myths and misconceptions spurred by unsubstantiated theories.

Cognitive Dissonance has gotten a lot of play as the human brain function that turns off or sidetracks our thinking when we hear a perspective that is antithetical to our beliefs. It takes the form of automatic rejection or refutation of that material and favors information that confirms one's biases. It's what happens when a Republican hears or reads a statement of fact by Democrats and vice-versa, such that neither can even hear, much less evaluate, what the other is saying.

One of the key works to which Tully refers is Ronald Hutton's The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft, which is a scholarly examination of the sources of Gerald Gardner's witchcraft.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Moon-History-Witchcraft/dp/0192854496/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333653751&sr=8-1
It is a masterful work that is fascinating reading, but it dispels a lot of fondly held myths.

Ben Whitmore then wrote a critique called Trials of the Moon: Reopening the Case for Historical Witchcraft. http://goodgame.org.nz/trialsofthemoon.html
Whitmore is not an historian, so, while some of his criticism seems to have merit, a lot of it is sloppy refutation without substance. Quite a few pagans find that Whitmore's perspective "feels good." Tully refers to criticisms of Whitmore about which he asks why he should be held to their scholarly standards.

Tully makes the point that "it is the methodologies of such research that need to be clarified [to non-academics]. When it comes to history and archaeology, not all ideas about the past are equal. . . . There are ways to distinguish plausible from implausible theories."

All three of the above works are discussed here:
http://the-pagan-perspective.com/2012/03/14/of-pagans-scholars-and-cognitive-dissonance/
The comments to this blog article are well-worth reading also.

The crowned one

06-04-2012, 06:12

It deals directly with the conflict between the findings of academic research and Neopagan ideas about their own historical origins - which are often a mix of deliberately created myths and misconceptions spurred by unsubstantiated theories.

Cognitive Dissonance has gotten a lot of play as the human brain function that turns off or sidetracks our thinking when we hear a perspective that is antithetical to our beliefs. It takes the form of automatic rejection or refutation of that material and favors information that confirms one's biases. It's what happens when a Republican hears or reads a statement of fact by Democrats and vice-versa, such that neither can even hear, much less evaluate, what the other is saying.

This is true, and worth trying to keep in mind. I see this with "conspiracy theorists" all the time, a narrowing of views to suite the idea, we get to a point where we filter and reject everything that does not include our beliefs, including old peers. Taking inference and unrelated events and creating causality is only one side of the same coin often.

I try to remember that idea's and beliefs are not intrinsic truths but more often then not anecdotal associations and corrolations of patterns we see fit, to fit our view. Keep a open mind, and remember ice cream sales go up proportionally to drownings, so ice cream causes drownings? No hot weather causes ice cream sales to go up, and more people to be in the water, I just correlated unrelated facts ;)

foolish

06-04-2012, 17:13

Cognitive Dissonance has gotten a lot of play as the human brain function that turns off or sidetracks our thinking when we hear a perspective that is antithetical to our beliefs. It takes the form of automatic rejection or refutation of that material and favors information that confirms one's biases.
And the thing is that this principle applies to everyone. Even the historians at HR are not immune to this mental liability. It's uncanny how scienctific research is so lavishly loaded with examples of how facts and evidence seem to support ones own theory, and how so-called experts, given the same data, can differ so drastically in their opinions. The habitual nature of the human mind is grounded in its predisposition for being right.

Melanchollic

06-04-2012, 17:44

It's uncanny how scienctific research is so lavishly loaded with examples of how facts and evidence seem to support ones own theory, and how so-called experts, given the same data, can differ so drastically in their opinions.

Yet they managed to break the sound barrier, and map the human genome. Funny thing that.
;)

Debra

06-04-2012, 17:52

Yeah, cognitive dissonance is back. Leon Festinger's original 1957 research presenting this theory of attitude change actually involved faulty mystical predictions: When Prophecy Fails is the name of the book. He studied a flying saucer cult that predicted the arrival of the aliens and what happened when the aliens didn't come.

The theory comes and goes in the popular press. It's not the only way to explain attitudes but it's intuitively appealing, easy to apply and mostly right.

There's other explanations of attitude change and persistence, including one focused on social identity (Bem), and more recently a theory based on use of core metaphors (Lakoff).

eta: A key to cutting through bias to truth is how the scientific/academic/scholarly/cultural community is structured--how people relate to each other, the nature of the group and how one gets into it, how legitimacy and rewards are conferred, etc. Cognitive dissonance theory doesn't consider these factors so it's quite incomplete.

Teheuti

06-04-2012, 18:15

There's other explanations of attitude change and persistence, including one focused on social identity (Bem), and more recently a theory based on use of core metaphors (Lakoff).
I don't know the Bem theory, but I love the metaphor work of George Lakoff.

It's not so much that one is right and another wrong. Cognitive Dissonance and Metaphors We Live By can both be functioning simultaneously. I experience cognitive dissonance in myself as a kind of brain shut off. I can actually feel it happening. With Lakoff I was struck by the fact that something so simple as the prepositional phrase "in front of" is conceptually different in different cultures. Americans see it as a thing being between us and the thing it is in front of. Other cultures see it as being on the far side of the thing it is in front of. When you get into analysis of how different political parties understand terms it gets really crazy.

foolish - of course historians experience cognitive dissonance. Professional skeptics have it big time. We are all human beings. I love it when I am able to catch myself in one of these assumptions and have a chance to break free of it - even if only for a moment. There's a real sense of freedom when I can do that - although, like everyone else, I fall back into my mental habits almost immediately.

foolish

07-04-2012, 03:04

Mary - you're a bright light of reason in here. It takes honesty and a healthy sense of Self to challenge ones own assumptions - which most emphatically defend as the truth.

Cognitive dissonance is often at the root of why we sometimes see a knee-jerk reaction to defend a particular theory, or dismiss another.

Rosanne

23-04-2012, 11:43

I have been away from Tarot Forums for a year, due to Life imitating Art.(More exact- Graffiti )

I was very impressed with this poll and poster's views.

It is very hard to post about ideas that have started with a speculation and the inability to back up the idea with hard facts right at the start. Other forums have areas that clearly define exploratory posts. Like ..... Unicorn Terrace ....Know'es and Suppos'es- these are clever..
In the Historical section it would seem that because of the rigor required, many do not go there for fear they will be stomped on. Regardless of what TeHeuti thinks..stomping upon happens. I have been a stomper, even with a smile and soft words. Others have had studs on their boots unfortunately (over the years).

Yes I would like a sub -forum for conjecture or at least the ability to put some sort of astrix at the end of the Post Title to indicate speculation.
The Muser's Pool ????

~Rosanne

Astraea

23-04-2012, 12:51

Hi Rosanne, it's nice to see you! :) I like The Muser's Pool suggestion.

Rosanne

23-04-2012, 13:27

Thank you for the nod Astrea!
A note of laughter about the subject..... Muse comes from the medieval Latin mus a snout/nose. For us sniffing about with an idea.

~Rosanne

Astraea

23-04-2012, 14:36

Muse comes from the medieval Latin mus a snout/nose. For us sniffing about with an idea.
Love it! :D

gregory

24-04-2012, 01:29

Thank you for the nod Astrea!
A note of laughter about the subject..... Muse comes from the medieval Latin mus a snout/nose. For us sniffing about with an idea.

~Rosanne

!!

Mus is also the Latin for MOUSE, I believe... :D

LRichard

24-04-2012, 15:11

Let's just forget about a new forum. After all this mess, I've totally lost interest. "Let the Wookie win."

gregory

24-04-2012, 18:51

Let's just forget about a new forum. After all this mess, I've totally lost interest. "Let the Wookie win."

I want Rosanne to win. I have wanted her to ever since she first came up with the idea. As she first presented it, it was a great idea. Since all the "discussion" (for want of a better word) it has come to be seen as inflammatory or something - but what Rosanne asked for so long ago was entirely reasonable. She (and many others, including me) had been modded in HR for not offering proof, and moved out of talking tarot for not talking decks many times. There needs to be somewhere between. The Twilight Land...

Laura Borealis

25-04-2012, 02:19

I am still all for it, myself. I don't care if it's in HR, or if the rules for TT were just relaxed to include history topics. I'd just like a place for speculative discussion.

Teheuti

25-04-2012, 05:08

I am still all for it, myself. I don't care if it's in HR, or if the rules for TT were just relaxed to include history topics. I'd just like a place for speculative discussion.
I totally agree. I thought Solandia was going to do something about this when she got back from her travels?

LRichard

25-04-2012, 05:09

I am still all for it, myself. I don't care if it's in HR, or if the rules for TT were just relaxed to include history topics. I'd just like a place for speculative discussion.There's always Talking Tarot, but there is a danger of guilt by association with all the amusing nonsense with which that forum is burdened.

Teheuti

25-04-2012, 05:13

There's always Talking Tarot, but there is a danger of guilt by association with all the amusing nonsense with which that forum is burdened.
Several of us have had our more historical or deck associated comments moved out of this section in the past.

gregory

25-04-2012, 05:13

I totally agree. I thought Solandia was going to do something about this when she got back from her travels?
I think all the arguing may have put her off. I wouldn't blame her.

There's always Talking Tarot, but there is a danger of guilt by association with all the amusing nonsense with which that forum is burdened.
It IS by definition more CARDSy...

Laura Borealis

25-04-2012, 05:14

I am still all for it, myself. I don't care if it's in HR, or if the rules for TT were just relaxed to include history topics. I'd just like a place for speculative discussion.

There's always Talking Tarot, but there is a danger of guilt by association with all the amusing nonsense with which that forum is burdened.

TT = Talking Tarot :) Sorry for abbreviating, I should have been more clear.

LRichard

25-04-2012, 05:29

TT = Talking Tarot :) Sorry for abbreviating, I should have been more clear.LOL! I realized that as soon as I posted.

LRichard

25-04-2012, 05:35

Several of us have had our more historical or deck associated comments moved out of this section in the past.I have had posts in HR modded (via PM) by non-moderators. That can be annoying too. I didn't know that about TT.

gregory

25-04-2012, 07:22

I have had posts in HR modded (via PM) by non-moderators. That can be annoying too. I didn't know that about TT.

Well, see, talking tarot isn't REALLY about the origins thereof. I can see that - it is about DECKS.... (I've been modded out of there for talking about the Cathars :D)

ALSO - knowses and supposes (as Rosy calls them - LOVE that !) can be very confusing to new members who are starting out and find them in among why has x deck got altered attributes etc... New members like that rarely venture into HR for a while...

LRichard

25-04-2012, 07:42

Well, see, talking tarot isn't REALLY about the origins thereof. I can see that - it is about DECKS.... (I've been modded out of there for talking about the Cathars :D)Isn't it against the AT rules to talk about ummmm.... moderation? }) Anyhow, maybe a new forum is needed after all. (Cathars are kewl. Wish they hadn't been quite so ascetic.)

gregory

25-04-2012, 07:52

I think a case like this isn't the same as complaining about mods ? They TOLD me why I couldn't post about that there - and they were correct - it didn't fit the TT forum guidelines.

Rosanne

25-04-2012, 11:46

Thanks for the support for such an old idea Gregs!!!

One of the reasons I would like a seperate twilight sub forum- is that in the main Tarot Historians are not readers. I know that is a wide sweeping statement....
I look at the card from two angles one as a reader, one as a person who is interested in reading the card and one who is interested in the History of the card or deck itself. Knowing some History of a deck enriches it's use, and meaning. The Thoth deck investigations are a clear example.

For example I believe that it is entirely possible that along with playing the game Bianca Visconti could well have played a fortune telling game...does he Love me? Will he return from War? Will my children do well? In the renaissance having your stars read was commonplace. So if I want to discuss this subject... where on earth would I place the Thread?
Not in Historical Tarot, not in Visconti or Older decks? Not in Talking Tarot? where?
So if I want to digress into a fanciful area there is no place to post.
I have had some supposedly mad ideas that I speculated on come to fact through discussion and sharing. So have others and I have learned from them. I hope Solandia will grant this request.
~Rosanne

Metafizzypop

25-04-2012, 12:21

So if I want to digress into a fanciful area there is no place to post.
I have had some supposedly mad ideas that I speculated on come to fact through discussion and sharing. So have others and I have learned from them. I hope Solandia will grant this request.
~Rosanne

I've had some offbeat ideas myself on tarot. I never knew where to post them, though. I'd like to see a new forum also, something devoted to theoretical ideas. I think it would be very creative and thought-provoking, and spiritual too.