It seems to my eyes, Mike, that you deliberately chose to provoke the curators of @SteemSTEM for your own benefit. This is a group that gives their time and energy to promote STEM topics and to ensure that content written with that tag lives up to standards that include authenticity, accuracy, and education. Scientists, and non scientists alike, read SteemSTEM over other tags, such as Science, because they know the quality of the content will be high.
While your questions are valid when questioning in general what belongs inside STEM, on Steemit, SteemSTEM has built its own definition that revolves around research. There is a value given to laboratory work and research studies over personal experience and empirical observation. Is this the only definition, of course not, but it is probably the most widely desired for this one tag.
My own work oscillates between plant neurobiology, philosophy, social innovation, and biomimicry. As such, I also find myself using the SteemSTEM tag in specific instances, which I find correct given the I believe it is important to respect the community environment the curation team puts so much energy into supporting.
As you probably know better than I do, if you want to change something, it is best done from the inside out. Before you can expand the definitions of SteemSTEM, which it feels like you are pushing to do at all costs, have you thought about becoming an active part of the community? By integrating into what has been created at first, you can understand how and why the standards evolved. As an active member of the community, if you still feel like the standards are too narrow and it would be better for the community's development for them to be more broad, then can you make an argument for their expansion as a contributor.
Throwing around credentials and expecting someone to listen because of them doesn't work so well in community environments. There are so many here with credentials, and by putting yours on display, the effect is a feeling that you believe your credentials must be higher than those of the others. Not sure that is the effect you wanted. The best way to get people to read your posts is not to rely on the tag used, but instead to become and active contributor to the community through comments and upvotes on the content of others. This will give you visibility for your own work, regardless of the tag chosen.
Well, I do intend to tone down my style if I'll continue to play. I've already promised to conform once I was informed.
I understand and appreciate everything that you've written here, yvesoler, except for the beginning where you described your inference about my motives. What you said about that doesn't match my values, purposes or commitments, and I wonder what your purpose was in writing that.
The rest was clear, and it was consistent with everything else that I've learned to understand about this place.
I appreciate your participation.
Fair enough--I should not have inferred your motives, I apologize for that. Thank you for listening to the rest, in spite of the bag beginning.
I look forward to reading your thoughts. The sociology, philosophy, and psychology tags could use a little more energy and citations. Who knows, maybe you will go on to found a curation group for #higherorderthinking?
One suggestion, purely my own feelings which you are free to ignore (in reality, you are free to ignore everything I say): be a little more generous with your upvotes. If something captures your attention enough to reply, then part of building that community relationship is also upvoting to show your support of that person. Even if the original argument is flawed, an upvote could help show the person that you value them giving it the good 'ole "college try", while the reply itself could suggest a counter argument or correction. Just a thought. :)
Perfect. Thanks very much for your apology and for your advice.
I updated my farewell post to include my appreciation of your wisdom and kindness.
Well, I dropped a substantial article under education yesterday; I hope that you'll talk with me some more.
Thanks again for caring.
I saw it. I have not had a chance to finish reading it, as I have been caught up in a series of philosophical essays about the (possible) minds of plants.
If I can speak honestly... I do not always feel comfortable responding to your posts. I am trying my best to continue because I genuinely like the argumentation. I am not one to hold fast to my belief systems. Even things we once considered "truths" can change over time with new discoveries and layers of understanding. Truth is complex, not just because of the amount of permutations to an argument, but because each permutation is filtered through the experiences of the presenter and the receiver.
When I read your words, I get the uneasy feeling that no matter what I write, you will be able to morph it into the argument you want to make. On one side I admire it, as I do not have the skill to manipulate another's words in such a way. On the other hand, without the benefit of truly knowing you and seeing your body language, I get this feeling that what I understand in your words is not the message that lies behind them. As such, I feel like I am silently being teased, like a cat playing with a mouse. Even if the mouse thinks it can get away, the cat knows that he can let him run for a bit because he has the ability to recatch and devour him at will.
I don't see this as something necessarily directed AT me. But regardless of the motivation, it makes me double check every word I write in the hopes of not giving you any ammunition to use against me, something that becomes tedious after a while. Maybe as you said this is the curse of being extremely intelligent and educated? Maybe there are other psychological factors behind it? Or maybe I am just plain wrong and my feelings match in no way your experiences. Either way, for now, that is how I feel, and until I get over it, I will have a difficult time discussing the nuances of your well-studied arguments because I will fear that if I leave out a citation or do not correctly state my case, your response will be felt as an attack on my education and intelligence.
Hope this gives you a little window into why I find it hard to respond to your posts.
Beautiful. Thank you very much for sharing this. It's very clear.
You've provided terrific insight into people's reactions to me, and I'd like to discuss it with you, if you're willing. Since you brought it up, I infer that you will...
I'll take some time to think about it and get back to you. Meanwhile, would you explore your experience of avoidance and how it relates to our fears? They're common to all of us, and many people don't understand them very well...
I'm touched by your willingness to communicate. I appreciate it very much.
Most definitely willing to explore, but can we make it a two way street? I have laid my cards out on the table for you to see. I would love to hear from you your true feelings as you wrote your various messages and comments. I would be curious to see where intention and interpretation match.
Absolutely! Thank you for that invite.
We're in public, right? Do you want to keep it that way, or meet in private?
I've got a spot for that if you'd prefer. (New here, but learning...)
Either way's fine with me.
Meanwhile, the "truth is complex" part is important for me to refute! (Ouch!!!! Should I apologize??)
Aarrghh.
Anyway, please rethink that claim: In my perspective, 'truth' is extremely simple: it's black and white; binary; it's nominal. And that's the problem with it!
The world is complex; people are complex, and language is complex. That's why truth is an inadequate metric for understanding! That's why coherency is relevant to critical thinking and to argumentation and truth is not.
Is that clear enough yet, Yves;? I'm hopeful. There seems to be a breakthrough available here...maybe...what do you think?
And here we can agree to disagree, since I have a feeling we will not find a suitable meeting point. In the school of thought I study, there is no such thing as truth in the World of Form. Truth is always a crystal made of many different faces. Your personal truth can be simple, but contained within it is your personalized perception of reality, and the words used are merely agreed upon codes that can only tell one part of the story you wish to tell. The rest remains hidden behind layers of consciousness, unconsciousness, fear, education, culture, language, and so much more.
In the words of Falco Tarassaco, "Truth is Being, but to be Truth you must listen to yourself. Listening to yourself is to travel inward and overcome the appearances created by the self, from the character we have defined as personality, that is simultaneously an element of connection and repulsion of others. It is the skin that communicates. It is the skin that defends me from others, from those that are similar to myself. To the human race."[1]