Pararousia said:Have you ever noticed that when you put your cursor over the green points that a message pops up? What's up with that? Is it like a futune cookie???
That's usual, and actually, people do it far less often here than at other places. I just don't worry about it, and I must also admit to never leaving my name in the rare bad rep I give, but then I usually never leave my name in good reps either. I used to get one bad rep for every good rep I recieved, and I was one of the people with top rep for a while (at another forum)Pararousia said:Not only have folks given me bad rep points because they disagree with me, but they don't have the backbone to sign their name to it. That's really cowardly.
Interesting, the titles seem to be different here. At another forum, it says things like, 'Jack is a glorious beacon of light', or 'Jack is a name known to all'.Pararousia said:Have you ever noticed that when you put your cursor over the green points that a message pops up? What's up with that? Is it like a futune cookie???
Pararousia said:Have you ever noticed that when you put your cursor over the green points that a message pops up? What's up with that? Is it like a futune cookie???
Mycernius said:I have never felt the need to give bad rep. If I find the post offensive I will ignore it or try to find a valid discussion point with them. If they don't want engage in a decent discussion then they go into my "He's/she's an idiot" box and I will not continue to try to talk to them. If a post is well written and the views are well put forward, even if I do disagree with what is being said, I will give good rep. Unfortunaltely I forget about it sometimes and go days without posting any rep as my mind can be like a sieve.
Tsuyoiko said:I can't believe people would give negative rep just because they disagree with you. I have always understood that it was for if someone says something personally offensive or prejudiced. I have given positive rep to people I disagreed with before, if they make a clear point. I have never given negative rep, and I doubt I ever will - gotta think about karma!
My thoughts exactly. I would not give a bad rep to someone for stating their opinion on a particular subject.Kinsao said:Also I have never given negative rep. If I disagree with someone, that's no reason to bad rep them, especially if they made their point well, indeed like Tsuyoiko I sometimes gave them good rep in fact! The world is full of people who disagree with me!
If you want to see who is giving reputation points all you have to do is donate to Jref through Paypal. It is an added benefit for donators that surprised me. Any amount you could afford would be gladly accepted, and appreciated, I'm sure, as it costs money to keep a great site like this going. With so many members who participate on a regular basis, I'm surprised there aren't more.Pararousia said:Not only have folks given me bad rep points because they disagree with me, but they don't have the backbone to sign their name to it. That's really cowardly.
Their little boxes are red.lastmagi said:I wonder what those with a lot of bad rep points would get.
Not really as you could always disable the rep points so it just shows a gray square. This way if someone gives you a bad rep point it would be the same as receiving a PM from them and nobody would know.duff_o_josh said:rep points is just a way to try and control what we post on this forum. the people or person who leaves negative rep points because of a clash in beliefs is well...some words wont post because they will give me negative points
Mycernius said:Unfortunaltely I forget about it sometimes and go days without posting any rep as my mind can be like a sieve.
I don't know about that. Certainly, people like MikeCash and a few others are dead honest, and have no qualms about saying they disagree. They have a lot of good rep as well.NovaTeacher said:It seems like people who are honest on all topics don't have lots of green lights. That's cool.
Revenant said:I don't know about that. Certainly, people like MikeCash and a few others are dead honest, and have no qualms about saying they disagree. They have a lot of good rep as well.
duff_o_josh said:rep points is just a way to try and control what we post on this forum. the people or person who leaves negative rep points because of a clash in beliefs is well...some words wont post because they will give me negative points
From what I can gather it is a privilge you get as a donatordutch baka said:btw, who can see who gave them neg rep points? or is that only when you are a donator?
Trade it in for food or meal tickets ?Mikawa Ossan said:Getting good reputation is nice, but honestly, I don't think anyone posts just to get good reputation points. At least I hope not.
I mean, truly, what good do they do you anyway?
There's a misspelling in your title, but the content you wanted to convey is new to me, and was worth taking notice. Thanks for the pointer, Nova Teacher.NovaTeacher said:When you start letting the number of green lights next to your name control what you say, you're functioning at a lower level.
I guess I'll start giving my votes to people who have the balls to say what they think.
Josh,
I understand that YOUR point was made clearer by not finishing your statement.
Kohlberg's stages of moral development
were developed by Lawrence Kohlberg to explain the development of moral reasoning. He created it while at University of Chicago when becoming fascinated with children's reactions to moral dilemmas. He wrote his doctoral dissertation there in 1958, outlining what is now his stages of moral development.
Kohlberg's theory holds that moral reasoning, which he thought to be the basis for ethical behavior, has developmental stages. Building upon Jean Piaget's previous work, he concluded that there are six identifiable stages of moral development. Later his model was revised and reduced to five stages given there was a lack of responses in studies owning to a clear boundary of the last stage of moral development.
Stages
Kohlberg's stages were broken into 3 different levels, pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. According to his model it is not possible to regress backwards in stages. It is also not possible to 'jump' stages; each stage provides new perspective and is "more comprehensive, differentiated and integrated than its predecessors."
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
- 1. Obedience and punishment orientation
- 2. Self-interest orientation
Level 2 (Conventional)
- 3. Interpersonal accord and conformity (aka. The good boy/good girl attitude)
- 4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation (aka. Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
- 5. Social contract orientation
- 6. Universal ethical principles (aka. Principled conscience)
Pre-Conventional
(1-2) The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stage of moral development.
(1) Stage one, individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, they think that an action is morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished.
(2) Stage two espouses the what's in it for me position; right behavior being defined by what is in one's own best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further one's own interests, such as "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours." Concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect in stage two.
(3-4) Conventional
The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Persons who reason in a conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing these actions to social rules and expectations. The conventional level consists of stages three and four of moral development.
(3) In Stage three, individuals whose moral reasoning is in stage three seek approval from other people. They try to be a good boy or good girl having learned that there is inherent value in doing so. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships.
(4) For Stage four, it is important to obey the laws and social conventions because of its importance to maintaining society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for approval exhibited in stage three.
(5-6) Post-Conventional
The post-conventional level consists of stages five and six of moral development.
(5) In Stage five, persons have certain principles to which they may attach more value than laws, such as human rights or social justice. In this reasoning, actions are wrong if they violate these ethical principles. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than dictums, and must be changed when necessary (provided there is agreement). By this reasoning laws that do not promote general social welfare, should be changed. Democratic governments are ostensibly based on Stage five reasoning.
(6) In Stage six, moral reasoning is based on the use of abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. One way to do this is by imagining oneself in everyone else's shoes, imagining what they would decide if they were doing the same. While Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who use it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of Kohlberg's model.
Other
Kohlberg also observed that there is a stage 4½ or 4+ which is a transition from stage four to stage five. This stage is where people have become disaffected with the arbitrary nature of law and order reasoning and become moral relativists. This transition stage may result in either progress to stage five or in regression to stage four.
Kohlberg further speculated that a seventh stage may exist (Transcendental Morality) which would link religion with moral reasoning (See James Fowler's stages of faith).
Theoretical assumptions
The stages of Kohlberg's model refer to reasoning, not to actions or to people themselves. Kohlberg insists that the form of moral arguments is independent of the content of the arguments. According to Kohlberg, moral reasoning is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for moral action. Additionally, Piaget's stages of cognitive development are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the development of moral reasoning. It is important to remember that he posits justice as the a priori summum bonum (justice is assumed to be equal with moral virtue).
According to Kohlberg, a person who progresses to a higher stage of moral reasoning cannot skip stages. For example, a person cannot jump from being concerned mostly with peer opinions (stage three) to being a proponent of social contracts (stage five). However, when persons encounter a moral dilemma and find their current level of moral reasoning unsatisfactory, they will look to the next level. Discovery of the limitations of the current stage of thinking promotes moral development.
Criticism
One criticism of Kohlberg's theory is that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values. As a consequence of this, it may not adequately address the arguments of people who value other moral aspects of actions. For example, Carol Gilligan has argued that Kohlberg's theory is overly androcentric. His theory was the result of empirical research using only male participants.
Gilligan argued that Kohlberg's theory therefore did not adequately describe the concerns of women. She developed an alternative theory of moral reasoning that is based on the value of care. Although recent research has generally not found any gender differences in moral development, Gilligan's theory illustrates that theories on moral development do not need to focus on the value of justice.
Other psychologists have challenged the assumption that moral action is primarily reached by formal reasoning. For example, social intuitionists assume that people often make moral judgments without weighing concerns such as fairness, law, human rights and abstract ethical values. If this is true, the arguments that Kohlberg and other rationalist psychologists have analyzed are often no more than post-hoc rationalizations of intuitive decisions. This would mean that moral reasoning is less relevant to moral action than it seems.
NovaTeacher said:Josh,
I understand that YOUR point was made clearer by not finishing your statement.
This is true to some extent, although a lot of, if not more, members who have disabled their points take that approach as well. Just as many of the more aggressive and confrontational ones are not afraid of showing them off.NovaTeacher said:What I meant to say was,
If people have only a few green lights, I assume they speak their mind, direct and not scared of confrontation (or a troll).
I haven't been on this forum long but I can feel some differences.
I think maybe people who care about the green lights talk like those managers who want to be liked by everyone.
I personally don't see any difference between now and before the system began.On the other hand it does make people think and communicate their ideas in a more harmonious and understandable way.
It's very Japanese.
NovaTeacher said:What I meant to say was,
If people have only a few green lights, I assume they speak their mind, direct and not scared of confrontation (or a troll).
I haven't been on this forum long but I can feel some differences.
I think maybe people who care about the green lights talk like those managers who want to be liked by everyone.
On the other hand it does make people think and communicate their ideas in a more harmonious and understandable way.
It's very Japanese.