The star&flag of ATS, mainly stars

I've noticed recently that the majority of ATS users only star content they agree with. I find this hilarious.

It seems that very few have ever read something from the opposite side of the fence and said to themselves, "Wow, that's a good point! I never looked at it like that!" I feel as though ATS as a whole lacks the open-mindedness it takes to truly deny ignorance.

This however is not just an ATS thing. It really comes down to humanity as a whole. We side with "our side"...almost always. The grass is almost never greener on the other side. People have slaughtered each other in wars, pogroms, genocides, inquisitions, crusades, and political actions for centuries and still kill each other over beliefs in ideologies, politics, philosophies, and religion. We really only appreciate and value the lives of other people who are "like us", whether it be race, religion, or world-view.

I believe this reddit user sums it up nicely

I've yet to meet someone (myself included) who isn't both open-minded and close-minded, depending on the subject and circumstance. Those terms mean little on their own, without contexts. Close-minded compared to what or whom?

Usually, when someone asks, "Why are you so close-minded?" he means, "Why won't you listen to my ideas?" or "Why aren't you as open-minded as X?" with X being some specific sort of people, such as educated folks who have studied Science.

As an example, let's examine some attitudes towards education: Bob considers himself open-minded on the subject, because he's been evaluating various textbooks rather than just accepting the traditional ones.

Mary considers him close-minded, because he refuses to consider the fact that textbooks are bad in general and schools would be better-off without them. According to her, textbooks should never be used, even in required classes.

Meanwhile, Alex thinks Mary is close-minded, because she's not open to the idea that there should be no requirements at all.
And Craig thinks they're all close-minded because they are operating under the assumption that schools should exist and aren't open to even consider abolishing them.

Most people who are "open minded" aren't open-minded to the idea that rape might good for people in some ways or that maybe we should consider bringing slavery back. They won't even consider it. If you told most people they were close-minded for not being open to murder or dictatorships, they'd be offended.

They consider themselves open-minded, and they are within the bounds of their arbitrary metric, which is probably something like "The ideas that 'reasonable people' are open to." Maybe they even enjoy pushing the boundaries of that metric, but only to some extent.
Once they reach a point of close-mindedness ("No I'm not willing to even consider killing my children as a solution to my financial problems"), they label it as something else. "It's not close-mindedness. It's simple, human decency!" or whatever.

This is because "close-minded" and "open-minded" are not just descriptive terms. They are moral judgements. Close-minded = bad and open-minded = good. People who are "close-minded" believe they are "open-minded" because almost no one wants to think of himself as bad. That creates cognitive dissonance, and the human brain is "wired" to avoid that.

Or "close-minded" is another way of saying "stupid" while "open-minded" means "smart." Again, no one wants to be stupid and everyone wants to be smart. So people will generally find a way to seem themselves in a positive light.

Open/close-minded usually exists within the context of a single discussion. For instance, an atheist might roll his eyes at the close-mindedness of Creationists. Then that same atheist might go home and tell his teenage son, "No you can't quit school and join a band! That is not even open for discussion!"

source


A2D

There have been many many discussion on stars and flags. If you don't like them, ignore them. It's not worth arguing about.

Yeah stars are for egomaniacs.
I hate em

I'll star and flag you bro, Hope you feel better

How can you tell who is starring what? How do you know that the people who are starring are mainly agreeing with the posts they star?

I see many (what I consider) unpopular opinions receive stars, I always assume that someone else finds them popular and vice versa. I also assumed that most of us starred any content that we read that we thought... "That's a good point", since that is the point.

I think some place more emphasis on stars than there needs to be. They aren't a commodity and they don't keep you warm at night.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
I've noticed recently that the majority of ATS users only star content they agree with.

You cannot say this, because you have no way of knowing which people have given stars to posts.
Your comment must be based on the minority of people who agree with the OP and say "I have given you a star".

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I completely agree that stars serve no purpose and are emphasized more than they need to be. However, it is quite apparent in particular threads who is starring what...as you will have "teams" and you can simply count how many stars appear for that "team" or the contrary "team".

It's almost as if they don't even care about the content being provided and only decide who has a valid point by the amount of stars they accumulate.

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I'll tell ya what, I don't have many of either but I'd be willing to part with them for say, 10 cents, make it 5. Deal?

Sometimes ill come across a big thread that I missed the start of and could for example be solving a mystery...
I'll just skip through the posts until I see one with many stars. There you will usually find the answer or a good theory on it without wasting time reading through nonsense posts..

So they do have postitive uses in my opinion...

Why would they star some thing they don't agree with?

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I star anything that I think makes a good point, whether I agree with it or not. Someone has made me stop and think therefore worth a star, its about the point and effort made that I star for, I do not star because I simply agree but then you can't tell that from a star so you don't know.

As Kanga said, you cannot possibly know!

I star for several reasons for eg: They made a good point. They put effort into their post.

What I think people do forget is to flag a thread when its considered important, that way more people will see it.

THIS important thread slipped by last night because of a lack of flags, and yet I would suggest it ought to be at the top of the main page!

a reply to: alienscot1

Do you feel that is the case for most users?

a reply to: VoidHawk

For the most part you're right, but in particular circumstances I can get a very accurate count. Also, I know every user here is a human, and I have studied human behavior enough to tell you that the majority of people would not "star" an opinion contrary to their own...regardless of how well stated or how well informed it may be.

A2D

originally posted by: VoidHawk
As Kanga said, you cannot possibly know!

I star for several reasons for eg: They made a good point. They put effort into their post.

Spend some time in the political forums and it becomes obvious. The most inane post is met with stars from those on their "side of the aisle". It's not content that is being starred, it's members.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
I've noticed recently that the majority of ATS users only star content they agree with. I find this hilarious.

It seems that very few have ever read something from the opposite side of the fence and said to themselves, "Wow, that's a good point! I never looked at it like that!" I feel as though ATS as a whole lacks the open-mindedness it takes to truly deny ignorance.

I partially agree. Let's look at religious topics for example, as I believe your concept mostly revolves around that above anything else.

On one hand you have a group who solely believes what they believe out of denying anything that disagrees with their beliefs. In fact, their believes literally say to reject new information that opposes their belief.

On the other hand you have a group who solely makes decisions based off of evidence and evidence alone. Considering the opposition requires faith (which is a belief, requiring a lack of evidence), then naturally, this side simply cannot agree with them because the opposing side cannot possible give evidence.

Both sides have complete opposite ways of deciphering what is reality and what isn't, and both are confused about the opposing side's way of coming to conclusions due to their mentality and ways of processing information.

However, what I do see, quite often, is when the side who relies on evidence honestly misjudges a specific topic (for instance on the specifications in the bible) and the religious side corrects that misconception with empirical evidence that shows how they were mistaken (eg: 'it really means this instead of the literal interpretation'), and the side that relies on evidence actually does say "Sorry, I was mistaken, I now understand, thanks for the help"

In which case, both sides seem to star that honest admitted defeat/misjudgement.

On the other hand, I have never seen the side that requires faith to judge reality ever admit when they are in the wrong, even on the most simplistic of topics, and the most hard evidence by a plethora of opposing individuals.

It all boils down to how people come to conclusions, evidence, or faith. One looks for answers, one already claims to have them and so must reject all new information.

Ironically, the individuals who profusely claim to be "the most open minded person" in a particular debate or topic, are usually the most closed minded out of everyone.

Either way, Closed-minded people are the issue, and we should all look for ways not to convert people to our own side, but to show how to think rationally, and with an open mind.

The world would be a better place if we all came into subjects with an honestly open mind.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I've always said most people don't star the post, they star the poster. There seems to be a lot of fanboys on this site, they see a poster with thousands of posts and stars and immediately star the post. There was even a member a while ago who stated that he usually ignores any poster that only has a few posts and just looks for the members who spend more time on here. How inane is that?

I try to be as open minded as I can, I have starred people that I can honestly say I don't like, because even people you usually disagree with can make a point

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I really don't know, it is difficult to tell. I can suspect that some users don't but as I said difficult to tell. Many people I have spoken with on here are of the same mind as myself where stars are concerned but we may be in the minority, who knows.

a reply to: Ghost147

Well said.

It does all boil down to the narrow-mindedness and egotistical nature of man. It's hard to say I was wrong. No one goes into a situation or argument trying to be wrong. We all want to be correct. I believe there's an old country song that says "That's my story and I'm stickin' to it." And unfortunately, that's how humans behave even when confronted face to face with proof or near-proof to the contrary.

A2D

originally posted by: VoidHawk
As Kanga said, you cannot possibly know!

I star for several reasons for eg: They made a good point. They put effort into their post.

What I think people do forget is to flag a thread when its considered important, that way more people will see it.

THIS important thread slipped by last night because of a lack of flags, and yet I would suggest it ought to be at the top of the main page!

We did it, good work.

On topic - I Flag and Star threads and posts that I consider makes sense and are important issues. I have flagged threads from members that I very rarely agree with and I have starred posts on any replies to my posts.

Does it really matter though?

It's a way of supporting our principles or acknowledging new information. It can also be used to appreciate a witty thread/post or a touching thread/post.