Summations Only

If you don't consider fetching coffee, carrying camera bags and so on work, then fair enough. Obviously not all arrangements involve any work at all, but some might 'Sure, I'll show you the ropes, as long as you carry my lenses around.' I'm not sure why you think that was necessary to repeat. I have never contested that practice is important, especially in something like photography. But there are some things you can't easily learn by practice, just as there are some things you can only learn through practice. Glad to see you reach this position. I knew you already held it, but your stated position was quite different earlier. Earlier when CS suggested following a photographer around:

quote:

---

You could follow around a photographer and get them coffee n'stuff without getting paid but get the invaluable experience of watching how they do their job and better your own performance so that you can end up getting paid to do it.

---

You scoffed and said

quote:

---

nobody's opinion of your photography skills is going to be improved by your "experience" of getting coffee for photographers.

---

So now you agree that there might be value in following a photographer around can you see that some people might consider there to be sufficient value to pay for it by being a coffee boy or lens caddy for a day. I believe I have argued this myself. Are you still under the impression somehow that I'm in disagreement? But nobody suggested that one gains experience as a photographer by following a photographer around in exchange for favours. That would be moronic and so easily demolished it seems barely worth the time. I think they call them strawmen don't they?What has instead been suggested is that there are things one can learn from a professional photographer. From watching how they organise their work, find locations all the way to asking them direct questions to fill specific knowledge gaps.As a random example, I don't know if this is actually the kind of advice a pro photographer would give:

quote:

---

Whatever you do - don't do a wedding until you've been doing this for a couple of years at least. If you screw up a wedding your client will rightly not take that silently, your reputation will suffer tremendously.

---

Now you could learn that through the experience of screwing up a wedding and ruining your own reputation. But I'm not sure that's a good way to go. I don't disagree with the source. The source says there is value in following a professional, in contrast to your derision of the notion earlier. It also says that practical experience is important, which is in harmony with both of our positions.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Your source doesn't refer to fetching coffee or carrying camera bags, so presenting it as corroboration for your position that you can learn photography by fetching coffee is a misrepresentation. They literally just mean follow a photographer around and watch him work - not to be his gopher. Because we're talking about sources of experience. That's the context. You presented, as a corroboration of your position that you can get experience as a photographer by fetching coffee for photographers, a source that you represented as saying that you can get experience by fetching coffee for photographers.But you misrepresented the source. It doesn't lend support to your position; it lends support to mine. The way you get experience as a photographer is to take pictures. You might pick up some tips by watching a photographer work. Neither of those things is going to happen when you're busy fetching coffee, answering phones, carrying gear. Now you're misrepresenting me and misrepresenting CS. As you can see in the material you quoted, CS referred to getting experience as a photographer by following one around and making Starbucks runs. See, it's right there in what you quoted:

quote:

---

You could follow around a photographer and get them coffee n'stuff without getting paid but get the invaluable experience of watching how they do their job and better your own performance so that you can end up getting paid to do it.

---

But no. You can't get experience that way. You can get tips. Tips aren't experience. If you want experience as a photographer, even your own source agrees that the only way to get it is to take pictures, like a photographer. Yes - CS did, as you quoted, and you agreed. That's the position you adopted and it's the position I've been arguing against. Even your own source supports my position in that regard.No surprise, of course, that you want to retreat from it, but the very least you could do would be to have the decency to say you've changed your mind. I promise, I don't keep track of these things - I'm not notching a battleaxe every time someone I'm talking to comes around to agree with me. Generally I forget about it as soon as it happens. But when people try to pull the fast one you're trying to pull now - "oops, I defended a position that's actually kind of dumb, now I'll just pretend like I was defending something else all along" - I bite in and I don't let go. I don't understand why people haven't yet learned that doing that with me is always a bad idea. It never works out well for them - they always wind up looking like idiots. You're about to. Why not just admit that the notion of getting experience by fetching coffee for photographers is actually kind of stupid? An additional misrepresentation. I never said there was no value. I said that you couldn't get work experience that way. That's the position you're now pretending you've always held. Why not just admit that you've changed your mind, and we can just drop the whole thing?

Let me just stop you there, because the way to address the unemployment of these 10 people is to have an economy that can support jobs for 110 people, not 100. Let's not pretend like that's impossible, because it's actually quite easy. But when I described a situation where "everybody takes their turn in unemployment", you told me that's exactly what you weren't proposing. But now you are proposing it. So we're back to my original question - why is anyone going to voluntarily "go into the unemployment queue"? Guess what happens when I'm at my job and it's my turn to go on unemployment - I'm not gonna. I'm going to stay at my position so that I can keep getting paid. And my company is going to want me to keep doing that because they've invested a lot of time and effort in training me to do my job, and it makes no sense to start over rom scratch with someone new just so someone else can earn a paycheck. I understood the rudiments of your point from the beginning, Mod. I've always understood that you were proposing a system where we cycle the employed through the unemployed "queue" so that everybody has a chance to work for a while. But when I asked you how you expected anybody who already has a job to agree to such a system, you told me I didn't understand it. But now you've come back with the exact system you said you weren't proposing.Like I said, I thought you had thought through the consequences of your position, and that we were on the same page. You're about to catch up with me, I think, but could you hurry it up a bit? But jobs don't come and go. If you have a job, you try to keep it. If a company hires someone, they try to keep them around. Employment is sticky. So if it just happens like gravity, Mod, where are all these long-term unemployed people coming from? How can you say that unemployment cycling is as inevitable and non-voluntary as gravity, and then turn around and claim that we need to set up a system to promote it? Why do we need to promote something that, according to you, you can't stop from happening?You're not making any sense because you're not thinking through your position. You're just adopting a pose of reflexive disagreement with anything I say.

Okay, so you make an absolute statement that you cannot get experience by working for free. I come up with an example of working for free and getting some experience. Now, you could try to use my example to falsify your own position, that is, is there any way that you could imagine my example as a way of working for free and getting experience (watching how a photographer sets up shots would be good xp for a newb). If you can, then your position is wrong. Or the other way, the way you actually do it, is to try to think of any way in which my example does not falsify your position (you cannot get photography xp while your busy getting coffee). You're not addressing it as something that challanges your position at all, you're avoiding that at all cost in exchange for something you can easily defeat in order to maintain your position in the debate.

quote:

---

Modulous in Message 74:

​

crashfrog writes:

​

To riff off of CS's example, below, nobody's opinion of your photography skills is going to be improved by your "experience" of getting coffee for photographers.

​

If you're a moron who spends their days with a photographer and who only participates in coffee errands, maybe.

​

But sensible people will observe setting up shots, trade tips for quick colour balancing, will ask questions about exposure settings and learning the justifications for each. They'll learn how to approach clients and drum up business, how to sell their work, what work sells quick, what work sells high.

---

Hmmm....

Mod has understood and expressed my position perfectly well. You have my position completely differently that what I intended it to be. I cannot believe that you are stupid enough to think that's what I was saying, so it honestly looks like dileberate misrepresentation. What I was trying to explain, was that you'd get the experience of watching how they do their job.Unpaid job = getting them coffee
Work experience = learning how to set up shotsIts not that difficult of a concept to grasp. You're not learning how to set up shots while your getting them coffee. You see, you go get the coffee, then you come back and watch them set up the shot. Of couse that's stupid. Its incredibly stupid. What makes you think I'm so retarded that I'd think that getting coffee makes you better at taking pictures? Give me a little bit of credit here.And nobody's trying to pull a fast one. Have you even considered the possibility that you misinterpreted what I said?This is just like that time you were accusing PD of changing her position when in fact all you did was misread something she said at the beginning of the thread and then the whole time you're pressing her into sticking to the thing that she never even said but you just thought she said it because you read her wrong. You're doing it again here to me and mod.

Sure. But only if the consequence of your example situation is that you get experience. I'm allowed to make an argument that someone in the situation you propose would not get experience, and that therefore your counterexample is a false example. That's not "spinning" anything, that's a direct response to the objection.I get to do that, CS. It's how you respond to counterexamples if, in fact, they don't actually counter your point. As yours did not.If I say that there has never been a female President of the United States, and you say "what about Abraham Lincoln", I get to defend my position by pointing out that, in fact, Abraham Lincoln was not a woman. You would say I was just "avoiding it as something that challenges my position", but the example of Abraham Lincoln doesn't challenge my position, you just think it does because you made a mistake and thought Abraham Lincoln was female (in this example, I know you don't really think that) and the way I'm addressing your objection is by correcting your mistake.That's a direct and completely valid way to address counterexamples to one's position. Why do you think it isn't? Yes, CS. That's how you defend a position. What about this is confusing to you? I'm in the business of defending my own ideas. It's your job to defend yours. It's not my job to use your examples to falsify my position. It's your job to use your examples to falsify my position. My job is to defend my position from your counterexamples. The way in which that is done is that I show you how you're mistaken in the applicability of your counterexample, that you're wrong about some aspect of fact, or wrong about what the example implies, in such a way that it dosen't, in fact, challenge my position at all.The way in which you defend against that attack is to show that you were not mistaken, or wrong on the facts, usually by reference to some third party authority that we've mutually agree is valid. But you've decided not to do that. You've decided to make spurious accusations that I'm doing something wrong by defending my position against your counterexamples. That's the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well." That's exactly how I'm addressing it as something that you assert challenges my position - by showing you that your counterexample is false, and that it doesn't, in fact, challenge my position. I'm not required to accept your counterexample as actually countering anything just because you say it does. It's up to you to make an convincing argument that you've presented a valid counterexample to my argument.Why do you think this is out of bounds, CS? I honestly don't understand. Do you think I'm the only one who does it? We're all doing it. Nobody considers this unusual.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I think your maligning Crash's character, that's certainly not the Crash that I know. He would never intentional misrepresent someone, never. In fact, many people have publicly stated they are often swayed by Crash. So there. Your way, WAYYYY off base CS, you should be ashamed of yourself. Please apologize.

I can only read your words, CS, not your intentions. If you find that your words do not accurately communicate what you intended, then by all means let's work together to help you more accurately communicate.But you didn't even try to do that. I'm forced to conclude that this is a rhetorical dodge, that you're attempting to change your position without admitting it now that you know that it's wrong.Why do people try to do that? Do they think we're not going to notice? Why not just admit that you were wrong? Ok, but the experience of watching someone take pictures is not "experience as a photographer." Nobody would hire you to take pictures at their wedding because you said "I've watched some of the best photographers in the business, I assure you." They'd think you were an idiot. Because that's the position you articulated, and when I told you it was completely retarded to say that getting coffee made you better at taking pictures, you argued with me and told me I was wrong. You told me, in fact, that it was out of bounds for me to disagree with your position that you could get better at taking pictures by getting coffee, because that was a counterexample to my larger position that you can get more valuable experience working for someone else for free than you could working for yourself by just doing it, and that I'm required to accept at face value anything you say is a counterexample. That's a summary of all your messages to me in this thread thus far.I don't understand why you would do that except in defense of the position that you can get experience as a photographer by getting coffee for photographers. Well, great, now you think it's retarded. So you changed your mind.Just say so. I'm not going to hold it against you. I hold against you that you're trying to change your mind and make me look like the bad guy. But that's not something that ever happened. What happened is that PD adopted one position, repeated it when I asked her to clarify, was completely unambiguous, and then decided that she needed to change her mind without anyone noticing. Then she opened a thread to lie about it.It's like how Dronester keep saying that he never said that Obama should close the US Embassy in Iraq, even though he repeated it at least six times. If it's a misunderstanding then why wouldn't PD or Dronester have immediately said "whoops, slow your roll there Crash, you misunderstood me. Let me clarify." If it's a genuine misunderstanding with you now why is this claim of misunderstanding only coming after I've made compelling arguments against your position? If I had actually misunderstood you, you would have noticed immediately.No, there was no misunderstanding, your own replies to my messages prove it. This is about you trying to change your mind after you've lost the debate, and make me out to be the bad guy in doing so. If I had actually misunderstood your position, or PD's, or Dronesters, they would have noticed and said so, immediately. I'm very clear about the positions to which I'm responding.

And as you've been repeatedly shown, you can get experience that way - like with Mod's example of being told not to shoot a wedding until you've been a photographer for a while. There is a value in following a professional around, the value? Experience.Mod has not changed his mind, it has stayed consistent. You're grasping at anything to discredit his position, but we can all read just fine.It's a simple question, can you gain experience by doing unpaid work, for example by following a photographer around or a film director around? The answer given here by Mod and CS is of course, yes you can.What's your answer? Seems to be no you can't - "I said that you couldn't get work experience that way".Which is just plain wrong. You can gain a lot of experience and most people in film and photography work as unpaid interns and helpers on sets to learn and gain experience.You're position is wrong, you can either accept that or continue to be a giant crashfrog about it.- Oni

If I'm really misunderstanding so many people, Dronester, then why do they only say so when they're losing the argument? Why don't they seem to notice I've "misunderstood" them in my first reply? I'm hardly secretive about what I think other people are saying. I'm very clear about it, in fact.You, PD, and now CS only come up with this "misunderstanding" excuse when you're losing the argument. That proves it's a dodge, and that I was correct in my understanding all along. Jar does it too, which is why it's so pointless to talk to him. Holmes used to be the master of it.

I have not changed my mind. You misinterpreted my position. Its clear that the audience can see it and that's good enough for me. I'm not going to waste my time trying to get you to admit it.

Oh my God, I just snorted cocacola through my nose and on to my computer screen. It is exquisitely painful, but damn, that is some jolly good stuff Crash! You are THE funniest person on the web.Oni, even though you are not getting paid for this experience, can you use some of this in your stand up act? It's gold Oni, GOLD!!!

That's a tip, that's not "experience." How would you put that on a resume?"Experience: A photographer told me not to shoot weddings until I had done more work." Get real, people would know you were an idiot. No, there's no experience! How are you people not getting that?"Experience: I followed a photographer around for a while." Nobody would think that you were experienced!This is experience: "Experience: Lead photographer for the Central Animal Shelter commemorative calendar. Two covers of Cat Fancy. Johnson-Rodruiguez wedding. Above-the-fold photographic feature in March 23rd edition of Sun-Tribune-Star." None of that happens when you get coffee. That's experience you get taking pictures. Experience is what you've done. Not what you've watched other people do.I can't understand how this isn't stupidly obvious.

Well, you're lying. If I'd really misinterpreted your position you would have said so, right away.