No, not intrinsically. But it's a clue.
I've mentioned a few times that i don't take people as seriously as they may wish to be taken (not necessarily by ME, but in general) if they can't communicate effectively. I have another post here which states, unambiguously, that i'm not likely to even consider input from people who can't form coherent sentences, and who can't even manage to spell the words that comprise the specific jargon of their own spiritual beliefs. Some criticize me for that perspective, and i accept that SOME of the criticism is valid. But in turn, i reject that it's ALL valid, and my position stands.
I make the occasional spelling error myself. i consistently spell the word 'consistent' with an 'a' instead of an 'e' unless i'm very attentive. I also make a LOT of typos, and due to decreasing visual acuity i don't catch all of them. I don't comb over every word in people's posts just so i can criticize them for spelling errors, as that's a petty way to ignore the content they have provided and that's NOT why i'm here. I'm sure that there's a typo or misspelled word in this post, as i have PURPOSELY NOT subject it to 100% scrutiny precisely so petty minded people can find tose errors and use it to dismiss THIS post. Anyone who NEEDS to mis the real point here should be given a convenient excuse to do so, IMO. However, minor issues aside, i think that my writing is generally coherent, and that's all i REALLy ask of anyone esle. BUT, when posts are so poorly written that i can't even parse what they are trying to convey, then yes, i do feel that's something the author should be aware of and correct across the board, and it seriously decreases my belief that they are likely to have anything to 'say' that's worth hearing.
Some people are excellent speakers, but don't write well. Others can write coherently but are too nervous to speak well when in front of an audience. But just as i wouldn't seek a career as a professional basketball player, i think that if you're going to presume to 'preach' or teach, then you need to be able to convey the messages of your sermons to the audience, and if you lack the communications skils to do so then i would THINK that you'd want to know that so you could correct it or choose a different path.
I know that not everyone has had the benefit of a good education. Fair enough. But speaking as a man who is PRIMARILY self taught, i consider that nothing but an excuse, and not a very good one. The library is free. Having been a volunteer myself for Project READ, i know that most large cities have charitable groups that will help people reach the point from which they can then be self-sufficient in further enhancing their store of internalized knowledge and their communication skills.
All the above is true, but it's really just a preamble to the real reason that *i* will continue to use this yardstick to guide me as to who i should listen to vs who is just so unlikely to have anything worth hearing that i'm NOT going to spend my time trying to parse the drivel they shovel out.
I'm happy to discuss any subject with any thinking, open minded person. I enjoy doing so. Frankly, i'd rather have a substantive discussion with an informed and articulate person with whom i disagree on a specific point than just partcipate in an echo chamber of things i already know/understand. Some people here seem to think that i've closed my ears and my mind to people with whom i disagree, but there's NO excuse for them leveling that charge against me, because my public behavior here proves conclusively that this is not the case. It's not that i am not interested in hearing disagreement, it's that i'm not interested in hearing poorly thought-out, unsubstantiated assertions in areas that i have already examined in detail and found faulty.
I don't need to hear Pascal's Wager again from anyone, as if they just thought it up. Anyone who thinks they are proposing something new when they throw that canard at me has actually proven 2 things to me already: (1) They are not themselves well informed on the topic or they would have already seen the MANY refutations of that proposition that have been provided by philosophers since it was first proposed, and therefore (2) they are not looking for the truth of the matter at hand, they are only interested in information/ideas which support their preheld views.
Since i don't believe in 'divine inspiration', i'm not interested in anything a person wants to tell me if their sole research on the matter has been sitting around thinking about it without doing any external investigation to see what other thinkers have said on the subject. Further, if the person ONLY reads things that agrees with her/his preconceived notions, that's a SURE sign of a closed mind, and ergo the odds are vanishingly small that this person has anything to say that will be of interest to me.
OTOH, a person who has taken the time to read MANY books on a subject from MANY perspectives doesn't just become better informed, he/she is VERY likely to also develop a more sophisticated understanding of the issue, and in the process also develope at leats a minimum level of writing skills simply by osmosis doing all that research. That person is not going to waste MY time proposing any assertions which the literature has already shown to be illogical or just plain stupid. The person who sends me yet another copy of "The Professor and the chalk" - as if it's a true story - to support some aspect of their beliefs leaves me NO doubt that he/she is COMPLETELY uninterested in facts, because it takes about 4 seconds online to know that's a fable.
There's always the possibility that a person has some mental defect that disallows them from assimilating the information they read, but even there... considering that communication skills are directly related to our ability to process data in a coherent and logical manner... if they have such a defect they have my sympathy, but their inherent inability to process data logically means they aren't someone from who i will expect rational thought.
There's a man here who writes well, and who has clearly taken it upon himself to expose himself to as many sides of theological issues as he can, i.e. our very own Michael Collins. I disagree with his conclusions, COMPLETELY in some areas, partially in others, and at times we will debate the associated issues for the amusement of the other members here. But no matter how far apart we are on our conclusions you will never see me have anything but praise for his intellect and his communication skills.
The idea that i reject the input of people with whom i disagree would be disproven to an HONEST critic simply by my ongoing public interactions with him, but he's NOT the only person here with whom i disagree but for whom i have respect both spiritually and intellectually. Today i saw a series of posts from another person associated with his ministry, Amanda, with whom i have NO common ground in these areas, but who demonstrated unambiguously that she's done some research into subjects that are crucial to her core beliefs and that the research caused her to change her position on a subject, and again that degree of intellectual rigor and willingness to CHANGE a view when the data warrants it earns my respect, and therefore my interest in reading anything else she may choose to share.
But i make NO apology for my lack of interest in hearing from the people who make it clear by their output that their INPUT has been severely, and purposefully, limited. My tme is precious to me. Listening to people simply mouth phrases that they don't even appear to fully understand themselves, or listening to them quoting things that have long been shown to be unsupported by facts is NOT a way i choose to spend it. I'm here to listen to the well thought out views of people with whom i disagree, in hopes of improving the overal accuracy of my own beliefs. Thinking, open-minded people who have different life experiences and have drawn different conclusions than myself are exactly the ones who have a chance to help me with that. Spirital children who simply parrot mindless drivel all the while DEMANDING to be respected for their ability to regurgitate garbage, not at all.
Does speling matter? Again, no, not intrinsically, but it IS a clue to the degree to which the person has researched and mastered the associated topic, and i won't ignore that clue just because that offends some people.
Thanks for reading. Have a great day.
