Get it?

[Martin Farrent]

The need to "get it" is stressed by poor authors and posters (on archery boards and elsewhere) who really need to 'get' something themselves: that the onus of explaining something is on the person issuing the explanation.

The answer to the "get it" dilemna is a better or more universally comprehensible explanation - instead of the arrogant demand that one must struggle to comprehend the author's personal style.

Best,

Martin

[rhust]

You can't always explain something to someone in a way they can understand. Everyone is different. You can try, but sometimes they just dont "get it". :sorry:. Nothing wrong with that though.

[Martin Farrent]

Rhust,

I wasn't referring to anything in our current aiming/memory thread. The spark came from 'elsewhere' entirely. Really!!!

That said, no explanation that fails to reach its audience is sufficient. Either it's wrong, or the author can't find a way to express himself more comprehensibly. Invariably, any single explanation will fail for some readers - that's true. But it doesn't make the reader insufficient or incapable of understanding the issue behind the words. Simply, the reader and the words don't connect. If the words only reach very few readers, chances are that the author is totally wrong or a bad author. If they reach many, but not all, he's probably a passable author. But as soon as a person tells me to "get it", he becomes a bad author in my book - one admitting to defeat.

If there is reality behind an explanation, and it's not rocket science, almost anyone can understand it.... providing the explanation is sufficient for that person. If I can't find the right words for that person, that's all there is to it. There is no wonderful secret that I "get" and he doesn't, because of any talent discrepancies. Just words that don't work.

Best,

Martin

[Martin Farrent]

Hey, I'm getting PM's from people who think I mean them.

Well, I don't. Honestly. If you can PM me here, I don't mean you.

The people I was thinking of most don't post here. Some write books, and some don't write anything worth reading at all. Some write some good stuff, but also lots of mystical "get it" tripe, alas. But they are not here. Really!!!

And I'm really talking about archery discussions in general, too. And archery books. "Get it" is rampant in this hobby.

Best,

Martin

[rhust]

I wasn’t referring to the other post either. For people that are set in their ways sometimes they are not open minded enough to see the other person’s side. Why should anyone have to "make" someone understand the way they do things? Some people express themselves better than others. If I try to explain something as many ways as I can to someone, and they still don’t understand. I either didn’t do a good job of explaining, or no matter what I say they can not understand. Sometimes maybe it is a little of both. All we can do is try.

[Martin Farrent]

Sure, Rhust.

We simply can't find the right words for everyone. That's fair enough.

But ending a discussion in which I've unsuccessfully attempted to make myself understood with the ubiquitous "you don't get it" is slightly impolite, for one thing. If it's an issue of words not doing their job properly, "I haven't made myself plain" would be a better choice. More importantly, "get it" is an arrogant ending to a conversation. The term implies an "it" to be "got" (and that is often unproven and was usually the very topic of discussion).

Best,

Martin

[Pinelander]

The phrase.... "If I have to explain it, then you wouldn't understand it", is very similar in it's message.

I've been told that very thing, when I asked what love of God and Country had to do with a person's character based on the type of bow one uses.

A convenient way for someone to sidestep a meaningful explanation. But most importantly (and similar to the "get it" phrase), I think it provides the author a self-gratuitus way to let everyone know that he is at a level of knowledge/character that is far above that of mere mortals. BS and mystique is a sly way of keeping people guessing if the author really does know a dip's worth of anything. And then by the time they find out he doesn't, he's long gone. The smoke screen dissipates and reveals only burnt ashes of "know-it-all" incense behind.

[Papabull]

The "get it" factor is ubiquitous to the extreme in discussions involving politics, religion and, yep.... traditional archery, which often seems to be equal parts of both for some reason.

[Desert Archer]

I don't get it?

Dave

[James Wrenn]

Get what? :)

[van_fl]

I got it - but when I went to find it I forgot.:)
ahh where was it.

[Martin Farrent]

It's easy, Van. You both 'get it' and refuse to demand being 'got'. You explain things, instead of keeping secrets you have... or secrets you don't have.

When you die, the inscription will say something like:

"Here lies Van. We knew him well."

Instead of:

"Here lies X.
We got him not.
If he knew a thing,
He didn't say what."

The latter would make an excellent postcard, given a nice stone. But people won't go anywhere near it on rainy days, 'cos it will give them the shudders. So X will get wet and muddy all on his tod. I suppose that would be the ultimate vindication of a life shrouded in conceited mystique. But you will be survived by people shooting like you, whereas X will be survived by disciples who've dropped archery to take up tarot.

Best,

Martin

[Martin Farrent]

... mind you, Van. Getting it and then losing it is actually truuuuuly cool. It sounds as if you get so many its that you can afford to drop some. In certain quarters, certain lurkers will be green with envy. ;)

Best,

Martin

[Papabull]

You need to watch the movie "Semi-Tough", Martin. :D

You have to "get it". :lol:

[Larry Hatfield]

i remember on a music thread in the watering hole, mentioning i thought laurie anderson was the ultimate artist, but you had to see a live performance once to "get" her.
i'm now so ashamed of that statement.
abashed but unbowed,
larry

[Martin Farrent]

Hey Larry,

There's nothing wrong with "getting" when applied to emotions, taste etc. It's just a problematic and often arrogant term when applied to things that can be explained, often in numbers (when you really break them down).

There is, however, something wrong with "not getting" when talking of music. People who don't "get" the total redundancy of Joan Baez, Sally Oldfield or Britney need to "get" help. :)

Best,

Martin

[Jeff Durnell]

To various degrees, there are also those who 'refuse' to get it, regardless of how it's offered, for the sake of their argument and/or personal bias. The perpetually resistant are eventually catagorized as 'impossible' and ultimately left to entertain themselves.

[Papabull]

I see. What we have here, is a failure to communicate. :lol:

[blackwidowbowman]

I teach Police, Citizens, and my Marital Art students. If I fail to explain something to them, in a way that they might grasp it, I have failed as a teacher. It is then my responsibility to return to my roots and obtain the ability to reach them. That can not remove their responsibility to seek the information, but the greatest responsibility is on me as the teacher.

When we bring thing to others, such as things we want to share, we are setting ourselves up as teachers. Therefore if the point that we bring to share is not understood, not for the purpose of being something that is accepted, then that person has failed. There are many who know how to do something, a skill, knowledge or information. There are few who have the ability to give that information to others.......It is a higher calling, and one that is worth the effort for us all. It is similar to the type of thing we do everyday when we attempt to share our love for traditional archery.

It is not enough to say that if you don't understand it, you never will. Maybe with a little different approach, or words they could. Maybe if they could understand it, even if they didn't share our passion, they would not become part of the opposition. Just a thought. :2cents:

[Martin Farrent]

My thoughts exactly, Blackwidowbowman.

@Jeff: Yes, there are those that truly refuse to understand something obvious for curious reasons. But they are few and far between, and it's very easy to make the mistake of seeing too many of them. Perhaps others do understand, but do not agree. There is even the possibility of someone being objectively wrong, hence not understood by those who understand better. There is always the likelihood of someone not explaining things very well. And so on. The arrogance implied in "they don't get me" is often only redoubled in statements like "they refuse to understand." The attitude is symptomatic of those who think they have automatic access to the truth and the skills to explain it well - i.e. the conceited.

Best,

Martin

[Jeff Durnell]

Yes, luckily they are few, but unfortunately they're also the most vocal and argumentative. When they refuse to understand, or more accurately... refuse to let it be known that they understand and/or agree, it is indeed an action portrayed by the conceited. To such an egomaniacal biased argumentative, understanding or agreeing in any way, shape, or form seems akin to admitting they’re wrong…. and THAT ain’t gonna happen.

“The arrogance implied in "they don't get me" is often only redoubled in statements like "they refuse to understand."

I don’t believe so. I don’t believe you can simply roll it over into 'the arrogance is being doubled', I believe in the vast majority of such cases, arrogance is merely being acknowledged.

[Martin Farrent]

So Jeff, what you're saying is that people must acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, right? If so, I agree with you. It does, of course, apply both ways, and there is sometimes also a right. A person stubbornly issuing the same statement and another person stubbornly disagreeing with it (or not "getting" it) need not both be wrong. However, it is better for debate if both acknowledge that they could be wrong. Is this an acknowledgement I can take for granted from you in future? If so, does it mean you are now prepared to discuss your views in detail -beyond singular monologue or frequent one-liners - in order to test their merit and your powers of explanation in debate?

Best,

Martin

[Papabull]

Jeff, I think you might be extending your argument a bit far on this because what person in their right mind would engage in a debate knowing they were wrong? So, of course, it's natural for people arguing their position to believe wholeheartedly that they are, in fact, correct. Otherwise, there would be no argument. It's a sign of sanity, rather than conceit, to only argue points you feel are valid and can be succesfully supported.

If we think about it, I believe we might be able to agree that insisting we are right without being willing to put forth a good case for our position is what tends to reflect conceit and, perhaps, a tendency to eschew rational debate.

Politics and religion are both good illustrations and, not surprisingly, seem to both be very heavy influences in this "aiming" debate. Was the war in Iraq right or wrong? Are we better taxing the rich and giving to the poor or letting the economy naturally mange itself with little government intervention? Is there an afterlife or not? Is there a God or not? All these things get argued incessantly and quite vocally. Are all those arguing these things loudly and vocally conceited? Maybe just those who disagree with our own perspectives? Maybe the "other side" does understand our point of view and simply disagrees?

At any rate, the first person to resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks is invariably the person frustrated because his arguments aren't faring well in critical debate. The frequency and degree of the name-calling and ad homem attacks indicate how bad the losing debater perceives his arguments to be going.

So, everyone.... let's debate the topic and not the character or nature of the people involved in the discussion, shall we? A person's nature or character is irrelevant because their points are either valid and defensible or they are not, regardless of personal bias or personality conflicts.

[DAS]

In order to have any fruitful debate, you must have intellectual honesty. When one person says "the sky is blue" and the next says "it doesn't look blue to me", the basis for debate is gone. If one person says "the sky is blue" and the next says "It doesn't look blue to me, I'm color blind", then the discussion can evolve. A chance exists for both parties to gain insight from the debate. That's the difference between intellectual honesty and dishonesty. 90% of the "debates" that go south on these boards are for precisely that reason. As soon as I realize I've engaged someone like this, I'm done with the conversation. There is no point in continuing.

David

[Martin Farrent]

Of course, it's possible that people steadfastly disagreeing with a majority will be regarded as conceited and stubborn, because majority opinions often get confused with truth. But that's rather dependent on context and ought also to depend on the way one defends one's point of view.

Like: There are things one might say here that are majority opinions here. But if one goes elsewhere, they may be minority opinions. One might be regarded as a clever guy here and a conceited, stubborn monkey in the other place. Just for having the same opinion in both places. Go figure.

For me, a true sign of non-conceit is willingness to argue one's case, wherever one is and whether or not one is in the majority. One pays other people the respect of putting one's cards on the table and looking at theirs. That need not necessarily result in anyone changing his or her mind. But the possibility is there and the debate thus a constructive one.

And then there are one-liners intended to detonate like bombs. These are very often a sign of lacking respect and thus commonly fail to explode.

Best,

Martin

[Jeff Durnell]

Martin, no, I'm not saying that everyone must admit the possibility of being wrong. That's not realistic. Everyone won't. There are many that are arrogant and conceited in ways each of us described. I know too many that wouldn't, and some that haven't, on much more important issues than archery, right to their ends.

What I was trying to describe, DAS labeled well with 'intellectual dishonesty', and like him, when I realize that's what I'm faced with, I don't waste any further time attempting to converse.

[Papabull]

Jeff, intellectual dishonesty and/or gross stupidity are both discussion killers and there are people I won't engage in discussion at all. Of course, if I don't want to engage them in discussion, I don't drop one-liners for them or cheer on whoever is butting their head up against a brick wall with them, either. Ignoring them isn't to "show them" anything. It's just a practical measure to avoid an ugly interchange that is inevitable with the rare individuals who simply can't discuss things like adults. Here, if someone can't act like an adult, I just invite them to not post here anymore. Elsewhere, I just try to ignore them and eventually they get the same invitation there, too.

[Martin Farrent]

Jeff,

Admitting the possibility of being wrong isn't admitting that one is wrong. It's simply acknowledging that debate might lead to a result one doesn't expect (since one sanely thinks one is more probably right, as PB pointed out). It means being open to correction, should the case arise. Such openness is the foundation of fruitful discussion.

I can see David's point on intellectual dishonesty and think he's right in abandoning such situations. It doesn't happen to him very often here, from all I can tell. David is good at discerning between someone who is intellectually dishonest and someone who simply disagrees with him. David is not an arrogant person who thinks that disagreeing with him is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty. Such lack of conceit is actually rather typical of people with a sound understanding of the subject matter.

Best,

Martin

[Jeff Durnell]

I vehemently agree 100%!

[Martin Farrent]

Perhaps we can go a step further and determine what distinguishes honest from dishonest disagreement.

Honest disagreement might be if I were a traffic cop and you claimed to have been driving beneath the speed limit. Your speedometer genuinely told you that, but mine said something else. Assuming my speedometer is right, this is a simple case of someone sincerely believing he is doing one thing, when he is actually doing another. Assuming we cannot ascertain whether either of our speedometers are right, we are left with the (honest) disagreement.

In either case, a real-life cop would accuse you of lying, but he would be wrong. In both cases, both of us would be arguing from the point of view of the "bleeding obvious". Thus in both cases, we could easily tend to view the other as dishonest or stupid. In both cases, we would be regarding our own speedometer as the one to "get".

This might lead to a breakdown of communication even though no one is being dishonest or argumentative. Dishonesty would be if one of us were lying. As it is, we would only be accusing each other of dishonesty - but falsely, since both of us could rightfully claim honesty.

Of course, we might also check our speedometers against an objective gauge. We'd need to hit on the idea and agree on one first, however, and that's the difficulty and what these "get it" arguments are often about.

If you feel that you are referencing something totally subconsciously (to cite a popular example) and I say you can't, whatever you think, then we have such a case. Your honest perception is contradicted by my honestly held belief. There is no way forward unless we agree to clear up some terminology... e.g. what the 'subconscious' really means in this context and what science knows about it. Refusal to participate in this part of a debate - in which our instruments (words and assumed knowledge) are gauged and calibrated - is refusal to overcome the communication breakdown. It works via retreat to simple perception and is probably very useful in practice much of the time, but not a useful way of debating things. Nor is it very objective - or is the world flat?

Best,

Martin