3 Kinds of People, One Big Problem

3 Kinds of People, One Big Problem

Hey fellow ATS members,

Recently I’ve been mulling around this idea for a thread, regarding the types of people I see today on message board sand in real life. The way they absorb and then use information interests me greatly. The way that they vocalize their opinions, or wait for somebody else to do it for them has also been a big part of it.

I figured with the new site up and running, maybe a nice long read would be a good start to a new format.

So, today I’m going to just really talk about my personal opinion of these kinds of people, and how the one you least expect, is probably the most dangerous of all.

The Talker

The talker is the guy or gal who knows a little bit about everything, and nothing about anything. They make declarative statements and generalizations where they do not apply. This kind of person serves the purpose of informing people about very complex issues, in a manner that is simple, yet incorrect most of the time.

An example of this kind of person is Alex Jones. Shock and awe are a big part of how these people operate and using buzz words and scary rhetoric are often the two things they use the most. They also use their opponent’s comments regarding this behavior, as proof that their information and or opinion is correct, because why would anybody argue with them so hard if it wasn’t?

The problem with the talker is they often fall within the “extremist” category when it comes to their politics or general views about things. They are often entrenched ideologically in one camp or another and any mention of change regarding their beliefs is seen as an attack on the group as a whole.

The Talker seeks to convert you to their line of thinking by any means necessary. It doesn’t matter if the subject matter is presented in a manner that is intellectually dishonest to the other side or the reader themselves, as long as the extremist view point is put forward.
The Talker is often politically active, but in the minority.

The Informant

The informant is the person who reads religiously. They consume information at a pace that most people simply do not have the time for, or can’t physically consume in the time they have to do so.
The informant is careful to always try and provide as much information, from both sides in order for you, the reader to make your own decision based on the facts. Because they do this, the informant often does not play on their own opinions and beliefs on the subject matter at hand, but other people’s analysis. The use of academic and scientific sources is common for the informant and they always warn, quite obviously when what they are providing is their own personal opinion, or belief, as to not muddy the waters between those, and the facts being presented.

The Informant is not likely to be active in politics or issues of note in the community or at large. They favor providing information and hoping that somebody else takes that, and creates change from it.

The Observer

The observer is the one without an opinion. The observer wants to be told what to think and how to act by those they have chosen to place on pedestals. The reasoning behind this is often different, but it usually has little to do with that person’s qualifications or good ideas. It’s usually because somebody told them that this person should be listened to.

This is not to say that they are sheep or stupid, or un-educated. The main reason for somebody becoming an observer is simply time management and social behavior. They simply do not have the time, or the interest or the circle of social connections that would encourage the discussion and research of ideas and information.

The Observer however absorbs information at a rate usually more impressive than the Informant. The problem is that they are usually paying attention to the Talker. And the information received from them is so trivial in most cases without further research, that it causes this very very huge problem.
The problem is that the Observer is the most active kind of person in politics or in other social venues. They don’t vocalize their opinions or their beliefs, but they sure do vote in droves. The vote and they make decisions in their lives, based on information, which is mostly from sources that are dubious, over simplified or simply wrong.

They talk amongst themselves in hushed tones and are very careful to do it away from Talkers or Informants. They are the most exclusive and separatist group of the 3 I am discussing.

Who are we?

Most of us here are Informants. Some of us here are Talkers, but hardly any of us are Observers. Those who lurk the forums, create an account but never post, these are the people who are making decisions in the world.

That’s why it’s important to remember that what you write here, and say in real life effects other people in ways that you may not understand. A passing comment to an Observer, can change their entire outlook on any given subject in most cases.

In a way, all of us fall into the 3 categories, depending on the subject matter at hand. We all believe we are experts in certain fields and we’ll act like Talkers when we do think so. When we are learning about something and wishing to share that information, we will act as Informants.

Yet when we want to just listen and absorb information from other Informants, more often than not, we end up being Observers, but our observations differ from the norm. We will argue and debate and somebody is going to be proven wrong in the end.

Observers live in the echo chamber and so do Talkers. We, the majority, the moderate, the Informative Observer as I like to call it, are then caught in the crossfire. Caught between those who yell alarming things from the rooftops and the people below who don’t bother to realize they just want attention, who subsequently listen to those people and make life worse for us all.

I guess the lesson here is be mindful of what you absorb, what you say and what you give to others.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Recently I’ve been mulling around this idea for a thread, regarding the types of people I see today on message board sand in real life.


Holy categorizations...


I have yet to run into a member of ATS that can be profiled in just one category.


All of us have a little of each one of those in us, and some us can't be categorized - which is a good thing, as who wants to interact with the norm..?


Just saw this: In a way, all of us fall into the 3 categories, depending on the subject matter at hand.

Agreed!

There should be another category - reading too fast and responding too quickly..!

reply to post by facelift


Which is why I mentioned that last blurp at the end, about who we are. As a community, not as the hit and run poster I'm describing in those other categories.

I have met plenty of ATS members, new and old, who fit those molds. Yes they are generalizations, that was the whole point. I admit my own bias. It was simple, personal observation and reflection that I wanted to share with my community here on ATS.

ETA: lol I just saw your edit

~Tenth

Well, at least we are past labels....

I mean, some of us...

ToTheTenthPower: ATS Profiler, extroidinair
spelling on that last, please.

I would like to know the breakdown, specifically, of the talker, observer, and otherwise as to their grammatical and punctuation habits, as this can tell a lot about people via linguistics, and the ways they seek to communicate their narratives, and replace your narrative (and opinion) with theirs....


Just kidding. Interesting thread, nonetheless.
I like your combination of "profiles," via the Observant Talker or whatever that category was. LOL. I'd use an emoticon, but they're a little scary to me, in this new ATS land....
Tetra50


explanation: they all look like expressions of a pumpkin head icon....while this iconagraphery may represent truth, I'd rather not know it so I can continue on my way, about my day, or night, as it were.....
excuse me, please, there's some sand over there I am headed towards in which to bury my head.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Well, I fancy myself as more of a "Conversationalist", at least that's why come to ATS, for conversation. Although, I admit that I can see myself falling in all your other categories, at certain times.

My threads are often "Talkers", but that how to the conversation started, here on ATS! Often, people need something to argue or defend, it seems, before they want to pipe in.

windword
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Well, I fancy myself as more of a "Conversationalist", at least that's why come to ATS, for conversation. Although, I admit that I can see myself falling in all your other categories, at certain times.

My thread are often "Talkers", but that how to the conversation started, here on ATS! Often, people need something to argue or defend, it seems, before they want to pipe in.

edit on 13-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Caution: You are being profiled as to your posting habits and overall take on the general consensus and intake and ouput of assimilated information.....

And here I thought I was just nuts. Now I'm being told I may actually fit into some sort of semi-normal group?

I truly appreciate your thread. I am not always successful, but I try to absorb as much as possible before I speak. My grandfather was a man who rarely spoke, but when he spoke, people listened.

As I continue to grow older, I try harder to follow his example.

R.I.P. Don Riggins

Might I suggest dividing the "observers" into two separate groups? Those that, as you seemed to suggest, mindlessly accept the opinions of the talkers as gospel truth due to lack of time or interest to do their own research, and those who lurk and don't talk much because they are still taking in all the different information and different arguments on both sides and take their time to decide what they think on certain issues.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


Your grandfather sounds like a great man.

A possible way of catagorizing. Those can probably be broken down into further sub-catagories.

I find I am capable of being any of these roles, depending upon circumstances and the subject, though I am most often an informant.

But I always consider that any and all exchanges I do on discussion forums are done for the audience- it is me and the other participants on a stage of sorts- that is why it is not at all necessary, in a debate, for one person to convince the other to change their mind.

I consider that the important part is for different angles of an issue or topic be presented, in as much detail as possible. Argumentation spurs more description to be revealed. The "goal" is for the observers to get a full array of information, the pros and cons; the contrasts and similtudes.

That is why I sometimes take part in debates on an issue taking a side that does not correspond to my own personal opinion , and do not appreciate when the opponents try to turn the debate into personal insults- it has nothing to do with either of us as people. It is a sport geared towards the exposure of information for the public, to inspire thought.

reply to post by Bluesma


Oh I completely agree that there are many other sub categories and that these generalizations above were just intended to discuss overall mentality found among groups of people.

I think all of us have fallen into one, or all of them at one point or another.
.
~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower

3 Kinds of People, One Big Problem

Where do the NSA agents sit then when they permanently debunk every thread that gets any where near the truth ?

Example: what ever the UFO looks like; its ALWAYS SWAMP GAS, ALWAAAAAYS !!!.

And if its spiritual, its ALWAYS SELF DELUSION.

Can programmed human bots be added to your list as well ?

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Hi Tenth! I just love this new wall. It's so much easier to follow people now. (haha, an observer following talkers?)

As for your subject matter, I recognize some truth in what you say, but I think it kind of erases the individuality and independence of many members too when everyone is classified like that. We can immediately conjure up the names of some members who fit into your categories, but I wonder if most of us really do?

As our individual membership progresses, perhaps we move through your categories rather than linger in one type? Since I didn't post all that much before the revamp, (1.1 posts/day average over 2. 5 years) I tended to lurk a lot and read. However it was the rare thread that I read all the way through. Repetitive and echo posts in a row that all say the same thing really make me yawn, yet I might be guilty of posting like that myself sometimes. Negative and insulting posts steer me away too.

On some days I read some talkers out of curiosity or boredom, but I would not fit well into any category of follower. I do try to impart info, but I am also an avid learner. I am principally on ATS for the stimulation my mind can get from some threads. Some threads get me researching throughout this vast web. A little shy by nature and even though I feel it's great training in communication to post threads, I can get unmercifully beat up in trying to communicate the message I want to give. (Ha! Where's your category for masochist?)