Composition time: What is better? Actions or ideas?

[The Backlash Cometh]

Interesting question that surfaced on the SATs and I wondered if it has anything to do with our current political situation.

So how would you answer it? What's better? Actions or ideas?

[AutumnMist]

1. I Think They Are Both Equal In Importance

Without one you wouldnt have the other in most cases. :) Cool question!

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. In general terms, I agree with you.

But I don't know if there is one answer more correct than the other. It all depends on how you back up your conclusion. To a child, actions are more important than ideas. People learn best by example, and so ideas mean absolutely nothing if the person who comes up with those ideas is a freakin hypocrite, or worse, an opportunist who expects you to follow, while they take advantage of all the loopholes.

If your intent is to change behavior, then actions are a more important motivating tool, than spouting off ideas like: Kinder and gentler nation, compassionate conservative, faith-based diarhea, Leave no child behind, Clean Air Act. All those Bush programs were great idea titles, but none of them ever lived up to their names, did they? Why? Because they were never meant to be acted upon.

[blogslut]

2. actions

without action, all ideas are just words

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Exactly.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Without ideas, action would lack anydirection or capacity to be corrected

It's not so easy. This is the supposed theory-practice split that people have wrestled with for millenia (Plato to NATO, in the Western tradition). The question is posed the way it is in order to prod people into thinking about their answers. It's not so easy to say "Action is better!" How would you conceive of any action whatever without thought, without concepts, without ideas, without words? Even imagining possible outcomes (a prerequisite for anything but reflex action) requires ideas, thoughts, concepts, and words. Yet at the same time, as you say, thoughts without corresponding actions are "just words." Some go further, and claim there is a confusion of terms, for thought is itself an ACTION, as is any ideation whatsoever. The two are inextricable. Asking which is better is in this sense a silly question if it is taken literally.

[blogslut]

8. yeah

That's why I hate those damned either/or questions. To me, they're just excercises in navel gazing.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Actions ARE better. Here's why:

At the core of what we are, we must accept that we are highly evolved animals, but animals just the same. The best way to determine someone's motivations, is not by what they say, but how they behave. Body language is the most primitive form of communication. But, we must be very tuned to the many nuances of behavior. Have you ever noticed how easy it is to pick up on someone's false kindness? How you can tell when someone is being nice to "get something from you." The words are false, but the manner is true.

I say this from growing up in a bilingual world. You learn to pick up on someone's actions to determine what they are communicating, when you can't discern what they are saying. This, however, may cause problems for you when you're growing up, because you learn to look at the body language more, than listen to the words. So there may be clashes with people who love drama in their life because they don't understand why you're so straight-forward, instead of play along with their charade of words.

(By the way, I'm being D.A.)

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. True and false are themselves concepts

And unknown, for the most part, to animals (barring natural camouflage and other like phenomena). The point is not whether words are a superior form of "reading" motivations than are actions. That's a different question altogether. But unless you had a grasp of a number of concepts (the true and the false, the difference between words and things/actions, the possibility of mis/reading, the concept of deception), the very operation you describe wouldn't even occur as an action. You need a set of concepts to ground such actions as "sniffing out deception." That said, I agree with you, and for the following reason: we are moved at some level by affective experience that doesn't reach the threshhold of thought. So, for example, it's well known in psychology that people "recognize" others by their gait long before they see their faces, when the other is approaching at a distance. We also know that few people can identify what it was that they recognized. The point here is that the gait of another triggers non-ideational "recognition" (and I bracket it becaus it's not even really cognition); it sets off an affective response. I would expect that the same is going on with respect to "body language" as you describe it: the response is pre-personal and pre-linguistic. It is a set of forces (actions) first and foremost. The problem there is that such responses must be cycled into a conceptual system in order for us to act on them at anything more than a reflex level, and this is precisely what happens. Even in your example, one requires an entire conceptual apparatus in order to make a judgment about a person, the act of making a judgment requires a set of evaluative criteria, themselves conceptual, etc. Perhaps there are a few exceptions, but, in general, humans are one of the only animals that use bait...

;-)

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Oh, but now you're lawyering the word, "actions."

First we must define what constitutes an action, and then, what constitutes an idea. If you are going to frame "action" as a reflex as brainless as an automatic response, then I can do the same with "idea," and tightly corral it with the term "ideology," and, thus, render it useless due to the usual pratfalls attributed to the pompous ideologues associated with it.

So, let's compromise. Let's talk about the effectiveness in changing behavior for the betterment of society or for the common good. Let's talk about "purpose." In a nutshell, my position is that actions with a purpose, are more effective in changing behavior, than ideas with a purpose. When it comes to standing up before a nation of 3.000.000.000, for example, the president who rules by example, is far more effective than one who rules with ideas. Bush, and even Hitler, only had success because they were preaching to the choir. Bush never was able to go outside his inside group, and in fact, he never tried. It would have required exhibiting BEHAVIOR, that is abhorrent to his constituents. So, his lack of actions, failed to convince anybody new that his purpose was good.

Or, we can cut all this bullshit and just say, the man talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Thus, actions (walking the walk) are better than ideas, (talking the talk.)

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. I'm not lawyering anything

Purposeful action requires a conceptual system: practice without theory is useless. The two work together. Now, if you want to talk about pure ideas without action as being bad, then you must also talk about pure action without ideas as being bad, and that's the point. You can't have it both ways. A "purposeful action" encompasses the fusion of idea (purpose) and action. You can't argue that actions are better than ideas on that basis, since any purposeful action is an action AND an idea: neither isolated, and both necessary.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. I reject your premise.

I see it very clearly that the question was asking which method is better in convincing people to change. That's how I interpret the word "better." Do you lead by example or do you tell people, "Do as I say, and not as I do." The action can have purpose, the action can even be the result of an idea. The point is, which way is BETTER at convincing people to change?

My position is, leading by example is far better than the "do as I say, and not as a I do" method. In fact, the latter method will eventually be counter-productive because people will eventually get cynical about the individual's intentions.

We are having two different arguments, altogether. I am arguing the one in which I'll win. Quite simple, really.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. I'm responding to the actual question

And your responding to "what you think you'll win."

Have fun with that.

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. That's your opinion. In fact, I know something you don't.

The question is, at best, paraphrased. Hearsay, to the least, badly worded would be more accurate. However, for debate purposes, there is no way to qualify what is meant by "better." Which is why the answer to the question is not as important as how you reached the conclusion.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. I can only address the question I see

Whatever inside information you have is irrelevant.

As far as your second claim goes, I agree. It is all about how you reach a conclusion. I set up my terms, worked through them, and reached the conclusion that they demanded.

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. And who said differently?

I suspect that is how they will grade it.

[achtung_circus]

3. See my sig.

Also known as putting your money where your mouth is.

[Igel]

7. I'd argue that it's a false choice,

and constitutes a fallacy. Action without thinking can run the gamut from harmful to helpful, but most frequently accomplishes nothing except doing something. Reagan's "Don't just do something, sit there!" isn't entirely without merit. Ideas without action are also pointless, and accounts for much of what was wrong with Dark Ages Christianity--and much Christianity, Islam, and the like today.

Consider Christian monks and Islamic scholars. Both made a lot of inventions; few of them did anybody any good at all--they were idle curiosities. Until the monks were forced to earn their own living, to turn to and help the communities they lived in. They started universities, and improved their hospitals. They were frequently motivated to apply their knowledge, and improved agriculture and food production, improved the economic base and culture. Orthodox monks had no such requirement; they did so if they were "called" to do so. They lived squalid existences, cut off from most of the public, even in the late 1800s, and frequently living on handouts. Islamic scholars also had no such requirement, they merely had to serve their emir and sponsor.

[Richard Steele]

13. False choice. nm

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. That would probably get you a 3 from a 6 point scale in

the SAT writing section.

(Though I would tend to agree with you.)

[Richard Steele]

18. Well, if it was the "writing section", I probably would have...

...EXPANDED upon that answer just a bit, Y'know?

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. Oh, yes, the filler. Most important in this case.

[porphyrian]

14. As with most things, it depends on the context.

Deciding that one is better in all cases is likely to be a stupid idea. However, the question should attract some interesting answers.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. I wish the SATs would post some of the more interesting answers

to the question. It would be very revealing to find out how our young ones respond.

[H2O Man]

20. Interesting question.

Action and ideas are as related as yellow and blue in the making of green.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Would make a good thesis.

Just looking over my kid's shoulders over the years, the writing section is very big on construction. They're looking for a thesis, then two or three paragraphs with each sentence having a main topic, followed by supporting sentences.

In fact, I tried to answer one once and failed miserably because I got too creative.

[JVS]

24. Action without ideas is more effective than ideas without action

At least with the first there is a chance that things will go right

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. Brilliant.