Learning only stops voluntarily, and strangely enough, some people opt to allow that. Defensiveness expressed through overly-complex discussion is a common trend here. The habit of masking even a small degree of ignorance with extra-educated ness abounds in the scientific community, not just herpetology, or biology, but, all science. All of it. It is unfortunate that many seem to like the debate more than the subject of his or her study, to the point that arguments become the best-covered part of his or her experience, hey? That misfortune almost convinced me out of science when I was in college - why pursue something in which many people I met couldn't, or wouldn't, meaningfully discuss anything (i.e., listen and consider in addition to speaking)? Then I woke up. Wait, that's a universal human condition and is found in all walks of life. Darn.

I think many people who have read my run-on sentences figure I'd fall into the above category I just denounced. They're wrong, for the simple reason, I don't wish to spend time on that. I do share here, but my main cause is applied selfishness - to take (the listen and consider parts). Sorry to embrace a vice. My taking goes for understanding monitor info and people's modes of thinking alike. Both can and do alter my perceptions.

The one thing I've not figured out is how debate (instead of potentially dually-educating discussions) became more interesting than the subjects for some people. Scientists and keepers alike can express this condition. I'm still thinking on that one, and probably will until the day I die since I'm not fanatically interested in human psychology. Some of the debates do add a flare, and some do expose useful info, but since exchanges of that nature are often shared by people who don't intend to learn anything or even fear doing so, they usually don't offer much learning opportunity for the readers, either.

I don't like to spend time on that. Fun for me is fun for you - watching the monitors. Or other reptiles, or animals in general, or staring into their spaces outdoors. There are people who debate and there are debaters. Which one do I sound like here? Funny, THIS is all theory and I certainly seem to be overemphasizing my take on it, but I'm referring to the monitor stuff here. My run-ons are a product of being didactic. I’m not the best summarizer, so my writing can come across as debating.

Another factor that hasn’t come up here yet is many keepers’ outright aversion to hard (often complex) science. I think this might be where the perception of your dislike for science comes from – it’s a means by which many keepers can identify with you. What you don’t believe (the pseudo-science) some other keepers don’t understand. The end product seems to be the same, but the message carried away by many is that, literature is inapplicable. Most people don’t have an ability to weigh literature for captive application potential. This isn’t surprising. Some of the subject matter that many texts approach is itself extremely complex, so, even the simplification provided by such lit will likely be only a little less complex. The cause of science is to make understanding possible, and the process of simplification is always relative.

So, back to that. Yes. I think so, too. Everything should start off simple, since the simple has already been proven possible. Why make beginning heads spin if they don’t have to? Those who don’t want heads to EVER spin can scream and grab a cross or a garlic clove and fling holy water whenever they see my screen name adjacent to a post. Those people don’t have to read what I write. And, it’s not my job to clarify my approach for them. Their common senses and perceptions are their own responsibilities. If they don’t intend to get what I’m discussing, they should not read it. An even bigger waste of time than abject debate is to read something drawn out (or run-onny or long-winded or however you’d describe the way I write) without intention of re-reading if need be, but rather to follow up with a post that says no fun or paralysis by analysis or whatever. Rookies feel confronted if addressed as beginners and people who can’t apply common sense to my wordy concepts would feel as though I were implying them stupid if I called them out on it.

Again, I don’t say stuff that differs from your views; I just take an alternate (explanatory) route. If my writing style naturally took the same route as yours, what sense in my taking the time to type posts would there be? Those who need a short’n’sweet road can simply aim for the FR-shaped bull’s-eyes. You’d think everyone could figure that out and proceed silently and happily, hey? Still, I hope others can make use of this exchange as have I.

[ Show Entire Thread ]