Edit: named changed because I think the old one created an immediate feeling of negativity that wasn't helping anything.
There's been a recurring theme in hatrack threads recently, and I'm not really sure how to effectively learn from it. In lots of threads, there are people who point say things like "that's a stupid idea," or some variant. And then there are people who feel insulted by that statement, because it implies that if the idea is stupid, they are also stupid for believing it.
I've seen (and participated in) many variations of that. Sometimes the stupidness/delusion of the person is deliberately spelled out, sometimes it just feels heavily implied. Sometimes that implication is intentional, sometimes not.
I don't think a metathread on the subject is possible without eventually naming names, but I'll not to for now. I know that this thread will be at greater-than-average risk for degeneration into useless namecalling. But my question is genuine, and I ask that anyone posting in this thread please do their absolute best to remain civil, because I care about the answer:
Can you say an idea is wrong with inherently implying that someone must be stupid/delusional/grossly-misinformed for believing it?
There are certainly times when the person believing something wrong may simply be misinformed about something. (or the person saying it's wrong may think they're misinformed). But in most of the instances where this has come up on Hatrack, there is easy access to the facts (we live on the internet, afterall), and if either side had been misinformed at the outset, within a few pages of debate that issue should be resolved, and you are left with people who have access to the same information and are interpreting it different ways.
When you reach that point, I think the difference between saying "that idea's stupid, only an idiot would think that" and "I still think that idea has some flaws," is a cosmetic difference. However nicely you dress it up, the bottom line is you think another person is wrong, and by extension, the way that think about things (at least that particular thing) must be a flawed way of thinking. Unless you really do subscribe to a relativistic value of ideas (in which case, um, I think you're wrong... but I'm not gonna address that unless someone actually takes me up on it).
That said, I DO think "cosmetics" are important. My actual point is not that the people saying "only a delusional person would believe that" are on equal footing with the people phrasing it in a less confrontational manner. Humans respond to emotional context, and if that context makes them less likely to be affected by your message, then you're not communicated as effectively as you could be. Everyone on the board (indeed, everyone, period) has a responsibility to do their best to communicate in a way that maximizes the quality of the discussion (which includes both truth value and enjoyment from said discussion).
At the same time, at least some responsibility falls on the people who feel that they are being insulted, to consider whether the subtext of their messages is really any different.
Thoughts? I've only recently started thinking about this with any seriousness, and I would not be surprised if I later learned I was ignoring information or using a flawed thought process to arrive at my conclusions.
[ July 13, 2010, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by LukeP (Member # 11656) on :
There are many stupid people with brilliant ideas and many brilliant people with stupid ideas.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
It's funny you should start this thread - I was just thinking about the same thing. I think it was Samprimary that said something along the lines of "stupid people who saw it because the ads were pretty" in the Last Airbender thread. I read that and thought, "The ads were really pretty..." and that that was at least partially the reason I had gone to see it (I also had watched the original version, so I was interested on that level too). I pondered whether or not I should feel insulted. Ultimately I decided not to because I'm pretty sure if I actually met Samp, he (or she I suppose... pretty sure he though) wouldn't think I was stupid. I would say that I am more sure of that than I am of him actually thinking that people who saw movies because the ads are pretty are stupid. I don't know either one for sure, but one is a generalization and one is specific, and I find generalizations are more often faulty than specifics.
I suppose my way of thinking comes from having a good deal of confidence in the fact that I am not stupid, delusional, or an idiot, and that given five minutes I can convince most people of that. Even if someone says, as seems to often be said or implied, that being a Christian or believing in God is stupid and people who do so are stupid, I'm still reasonably certain that someone who met me would not think me stupid, even if they disagreed with my religious beliefs and thought they were stupid. That may be a particularly bold claim, but there it is.
So yeah, I guess my way of thinking only works if you are quite confident, but so far I've found it to work pretty well.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
All I've got to say is this thread is pretty stupid. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
While “stupid” is seldom used here (and often results in a firestorm when it is used), other words stand in for “stupid” pretty frequently when used condescendingly. Some synonyms for “stupid” include “misguided,” “blind,” “misinformed,” and “quaint.” There are many others, employed from all the various trenches. Basically, when it is a dismissal of the person along with the idea, it is equivalent of calling that person stupid.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: ... Can you say an idea is wrong with inherently implying that someone must be stupid/delusional/grossly-misinformed for believing it?
Depends on the idea. I would also note that the three conditions are pretty different from each other with fairly different connotations. You can have well-informed delusional people, delusional people can actually be quite smart, and stupid people can be well-informed even if they don't understand fully.
It depends on the idea because I think that there are obviously ideas that are counter-intuitive such as the Monty-Hall problem in which case there is little stigma for believing in it. However, there are ideas like homoeopathy or scientology that I can find little excuse for except maybe in cases of indoctrination (which would be a variant of grossly-misinformed anyways).
In general, I think the threshold to "being insulted" is set too low here and more importantly, is quite inequitable.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:It's funny you should start this thread - I was just thinking about the same thing.
Heh. I hadn't even been thinking about that, but as I said, this has become a ubiquitous enough issue that I thought it warranted a metathread.
quote:Basically, when it is a dismissal of the person along with the idea, it is equivalent of calling that person stupid.
There are some times when I can see a clear cut difference between the two, but oftentimes it's harder to tell. I don't expect to get a clear answer here, but I would like to a) get a least a little better at distinguishing between the two, and b) get everyone to take a step back and consider whether they were actually being-insulting/being-insulted.
I'm wondering if it's possible to reference individual posts for purposes of analysis without crossing some TOS lines.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
There are some situations where the poster is deliberately calling someone stupid, whether it is veiled or frank. And there are many more times when the recipient of the criticism/refute/counterargument decides to take offense and elevate something said to the level of being called stupid. Too often people will take someone's disagreement with what they said as a personal affront and come back way too harshly themselves. Then the discussion gets a bit more heated than it needs to be. Can I reference the Toy Story 3 thread at present, or would that be a no-no?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Can I reference the Toy Story 3 thread at present, or would that be a no-no?
I don't really know. That was definitely part of what prompted this particular thread. I *think* it got relatively resolved by now, although I haven't gotten a reply to my last statement so I don't know for sure whether it went over the way I hoped it would.
I also don't know whether its resolution would mean its fair game for analysis, or if it means it's resolved and we shouldn't be dragging it out.
Regardless, I don't claim any particular authority over this subject as thread creator. Any authority I have on the "okay-ness" of bringing up other posts is merely that of a random person of average (by hatrack standards) intelligence.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I believe part of the problem stems from how integrated some beliefs are to people who hold them. If someone says, "A BLT is far superior to a Hot Pastrami sandwich", I don't have much invested in the outcome of that argument, so I don't feel bad about the suggestion that my taste in sandwiches is "wrong."
if I've spent the last 10 years writing a dozen vampire novels, and somene says that vampire novels are stupid, and nobody will ever read one again, a huge amount of my self-worth, future goals, personal happiness and invested time and emotion forces me to fight you on that, regardless of facts, intentions, or beliefs.
Any time the discussion turns to something that one or more poster has integrated into their sense of self-worth and wellbeing, there is going to be a fight.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<removed because we can't have nice things>
[ July 13, 2010, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Wow, that was a really interesting take on Pastwatch. And on Hatrack, by extension. And on me, by extension of that. I definitely enjoy the verbal jousting, whether I am on the receiving end of it or not.
Another of the recent posts that led me to create this thread was the "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" thread. There's a scene in the story where Ron describes the sport of Quidditch, and Harry (who in this alternate fanfiction universe is a hyper-nerdy-rationalist) tells Ron flat out that Quidditch is really stupid, implying of course that Ron is stupid for liking it.
There was a big argument in the thread about how much a jerk Harry is for telling Ron that. I didn't perceive it as very jerklike at all, because it's exactly the sort of thing I'd be okay with telling my friends or with them telling me. (It might make me mad, but it'd be a kind of anger that encourages a fun, competitive verbal "joust", which I would appreciate). But other people came to strongly dislike that version of Harry, because of his tendency to talk (and think) that sort of way.
I think there are very definitely people who come to Hatrack to joust, and there are people who come to Hatrack for other reasons and find the jousting to be something they "tolerate" rather than appreciate. (It sounds like you generally fall into the latter camp). I don't think it makes sense either to try and eliminate "jousting" culture nor to simply force it upon the people who don't like it. But I do think it is important for everyone to understand what's going on to frame their relationship to the conversation appropriately.
quote:Raymond, I've been really impressed with you today.
Thank you. Something I'd like to point out is that it was difficult for me to maintain that level of civility, not because I deliberately wanted to be mean, but because the style of sarcasm, or confrontational-seeming-ness (sp?) is my natural way of communicating. Which is often a bad thing, especially in work environments, and that's my problem and I need to work on it. But again, Hatrack is a place I come specifically so that I can be myself.
Which brings us to:
quote:That's when I bowed out, because it means the person I'm talking to wants me to either concur or admit fault. I am not interested in that kind of conversation.
The issue with this (and I have noticed you doing this a lot) is that you interpret a post as antagonistic (sometimes correctly, other times less so). And your response, rather than saying "I'm not interested in having a verbal skirmish," is instead "I do not want to have a conversation with you." Which generally reads as "I do not value you as a person worth talking to, period."
Which is exactly the sort of attitude that you cite for withdrawing from the conversation so abruptly in the first place. It shuts down communication and leaves bitterness where there was no particular reason to do so. Part of the reason I (and other people, I suspect) have had a hard time maintaining civility with you in the past is that it feels like you have a double standard. You are allowed to imply (and again I am trying to state this as matter of factly as I can) that people are crybabies for getting sobby at the end of Toy Story 3, yet I am not allowed to imply that not understanding our reasons for that is a failing on your part, not ours.
I think there are people on this board for whom you are certainly justified in saying "I have no interest to speak with you." Those are people who have demonstrated that they are unwilling or unable to have the kind of conversation you are interested in having, period, and they've demonstrated it over the course of several years. But in the past year, it seems like that line has become your first resort whenever a conversation doesn't go your way.
So... in conclusion, my actual, practical suggestions in this matter are:
a) before using that particular hammer, check that the conversation you're engaged in is, in fact, a nail. Maybe one person is trying to verbal joust with you and you don't feel like it. But it's possible that that person would be just as happy to have a non-verbal-joust-style conversation instead, if only you'd communicate that desire to them.
b) if it becomes clear that PersonB is not interested in having a non-joust conversation, rather than say "I am not interested in talking to you," clarify that what you mean is "I am not interested in having this particular conversation." I think doing so would have prevented a lot of particularly nasty conversations over the past year.
[ July 13, 2010, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Man, and it was going so well.
Raymond, I am not interested in getting a lecture from you on what you think I should be doing or behaving. I find it utterably rude and amazingly tone deaf. And I'm sorry that your response on getting some respect from me was to immediately abuse it. I am neither impressed nor interested. If I ever want an analysis of myself from you, I'll ask. Until then, I don't accept. Hold your breath.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Disappointing, but fair enough.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<removed>
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Was it necessary to remove your post on Pastwatch? I really did find that very insightful and interesting, independent of what conversation was going on around it. I don't see how it benefits anyone to remove it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I suspect we are having a different kind of conversation. The Pastwatch thing was a journal entry, and I posted it as a ...guesture of good will. Consider it my goat cheese dip with French bread that I bring to a potluck. If I leave the potluck because it turned out to actually be a self-styled intervention being filmed for YouTube, I'm taking my goat cheese dip with me.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
From an outsider looking in on the conversation, Raymond has some good points that everyone should take a look at. Where I disagree with him is that he should have spoken in broader terms rather than singling Katharina out. That was really not needed.
On the other hand, after he posted I saw an example of exactly what he was describing.
There is no winner here. To quote a guy that knows something about being on the receiving end of a personal attack: "Can't we all just get along? "
[ July 13, 2010, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm a bit torn about how I feel about my behavior here. I did not intend this thread to be specifically about katherina. I also specifically started with a mission objective of not doing, well, exactly what I did. But the recent events in this thread are a direct continuation of events in another thread, and if I had framed everything as a "well, in general I think it is a bad idea to do... <insert things that are exactly what happened a few hours ago in another thread>" I wouldn't be fooling anybody.
The "potluck turned out to be a self styled intervention" is actually a pretty good analogy. I did just spend 24 hours trying very hard to build up good will, with the intent to eventually be able to say my piece and have her be more likely to listen to me.
Katherina essentially came over to this thread at my invitation, but by the time I made that invitation... I honestly don't know what else she expected me to say. My "invitation" post clearly indicated that I wanted to talk about how she ended an earlier conversation. If the only thing I did wrong was referring to her by name... well, I'll remember that for the future, but I doubt it would have made much difference.
There's more I want to say, but I'll get to it later.
[ July 13, 2010, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I've been having a somewhat parallel thought I'd like to throw out. Which is that sometimes calling an opinion or even a person "stupid" or "crazy" is a kind of diplomacy.
Which sounds stupid (and/or crazy). But hear me out for a second.
Imagine if someone... say, envisions draining the Great Lakes to provide irrigation for Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. One response is to presume that the person fronting this idea hasn't considered the damage it would do to the remaining ecosystem of the area, the harm it would do to the people living adjacent to the Great Lakes, the ridiculous cost of such a project, and so on. The other would be to presume that the person had already considered these costs and decided that they didn't care about the damage it would do.
Now "stupid", when describing an idea, isn't terribly kind. Less so when describing a person, and I'd hasten to be clear that "smart" people believe "stupid" things all the time; whenever possible, one should try not to dismiss or seem to dismiss everything a person might say after that point rather than the single idea.
But even still, someone who has a "stupid" idea might see the reasons that idea is seen as such, and even a "stupid" person might merely be ignorant on a given subject and not somehow beyond worth or teaching. There is a certain optimism in that, however cockeyed or condescending it might be.
Whereas someone who has decided that they don't care about the harm and hurt their idea causes... At best, you get into questions of the ends justifying the means, relative cost/benefit analyses, zero-sum games, and so forth. At worst, words like "malicious", "callous", "immoral" and "evil" come into the picture, at which point "stupid" seems like a pretty good deal.
Quite frankly, ever since my Composition teacher tried to beat "I think" and "I feel" out of me, I've been campaigning for discussions to recognize that most opinions are just that, not unassailable realities that must be defended against all alternates, no matter how reasonable. Not all arguments are about things that can be factually verified, and there are few things less useful than either presuming to speak unimpeachably about how other people feel or presuming to speak for a majority that isn't necessarily manifest in order to cow the opposition (I think. I feel.)
I don't have easy solutions. I'm not going to pretend I have some great Magna Carta to prevent hurt feelings at Hatrack, or even that I'm a particular paragon of cool-headedness and even-handedness. (Again, I think you're making a much better effort at such, Raymond, and deserve congratulations.) But I wonder if it's too much to ask for disagreements beginning from a relatively benign "I disagree, here's why."
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm going to try and summarize a post katherina deleted, because I found it incredibly relevant to a lot of the discussion here. (I'm reminded of a line from Xenocide in which the father says "That's Demosthenes' idea." And the daughter says "but when I believe an idea, it becomes mine! You taught me that!"). I apologize (sincerely) for stealing back the goat cheese, but having had it pointed out to me I think it's essential to understanding the forum. (Granted, I my be alone in my "oh, that describes me PERFECTLY!" reaction, and totally wrong here. But I'm pretty sure this is accurate).
In the book Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus, nearly every conversation is framed as a contest of sorts, with a winner and loser. Columbus verbally jousts with the Spanish nobles. The Pastwatch professionals are constantly arguing with each other in a way that has clear victors. Even private conversations between lovers and friends are framed in this way. The "good guys" are the ones that win using intelligence, wit and civility. The "bad guys" are bullies.
This is an Orson Scott Card forum. Neither katherina nor I remember whether all of Card's books frame conversations in the same way, but I can think of some examples offhand in Ender's Game. So it's no surprise that in a forum dedicated to OSC attracts people who like to talk and debate the way OSC characters do. I certainly do.
Not everyone likes to talk that way. And there's plenty of other reasons you might be attracted to an OSC website. But there's a large enough contingent of people here who probably do enjoy it that it's not fair to deny them that, anymore than it's fair to expect the others to adopt more confrontational posting styles. Again, no easy answers, but being aware of the issue at least makes it easier to step back and recognize when a difference in communication styles is happening and decide how to respond.
@Sterling: I feel like I agree with all of your points, but I don't feel like they end up pointing towards "stupid and crazy can be diplomatic terms." I mean, yeah they're better than calling someone evil. In an objective sense. But I think whether you call someone evil or call someone stupid, the extent to which they shut down and ignore you is pretty much the same.
The only case where I might consider it useful is when someone is doing something incredibly harmful, and is merely oblivious to a particular set of consequences. In which case hammering home the magnitude of how harmful it is might warrant "stupid/crazy." In those cases I'm still not sure that's any better than "evil."
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
-- Of course, I was dreaming. ++ Then why didn't you say so? --Well, you seemed to be listening...for once...and, well, I got caught up in the way you looked at me when you were listening. ++I don't believe it. You're telling me it was all bullshit? --It wasn't bullshit, it was a dream and you were in it and that's what happened, I mean, it was true except just not real, the little shed and all the vines growing out of it and the way the door hung open and seemed to be waiting and I just told you what happened ++I was stuck --What? ++I got stuck in there. They grabbed at me and I couldn't get away... --What are you talking about? ++...I called you but you didn't come. You left me there... --The dream? That's not how it goes! We were making a garden! ++...all alone and then it happened... --The tulips and the petunias. ++...I picked up the spade and I hid in the leaves, the leaves were so big ond so sharp and I buried myself inside were the stem meets the branch and the buds were split open by tendrils that wrapped themsleves into my sinews, my strength, and I waited... --I said that you should be careful, you'll chop off your toes, you laughed and went into the shed to get your shoes. ++I waited for you to come in. --But they were in the house. ++I split your skull open. --The shed was overgrown and empty. ++Don't come in. --Stop it. ++Don't. --Stop it. ++Sleep.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I have no idea what to make of that.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: @Sterling: I feel like I agree with all of your points, but I don't feel like they end up pointing towards "stupid and crazy can be diplomatic terms." I mean, yeah they're better than calling someone evil. In an objective sense. But I think whether you call someone evil or call someone stupid, the extent to which they shut down and ignore you is pretty much the same.
"Diplomatic" may be overstating the case. I'm certainly not suggesting such a derrogatory term become a new standard for polite conversation. I only mean that we should recognize that, in some cases, use of such terms is a frustrated person struggling to give the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I believe part of the problem stems from how integrated some beliefs are to people who hold them. If someone says, "A BLT is far superior to a Hot Pastrami sandwich", I don't have much invested in the outcome of that argument, so I don't feel bad about the suggestion that my taste in sandwiches is "wrong."
if I've spent the last 10 years writing a dozen vampire novels, and somene says that vampire novels are stupid, and nobody will ever read one again, a huge amount of my self-worth, future goals, personal happiness and invested time and emotion forces me to fight you on that, regardless of facts, intentions, or beliefs.
Any time the discussion turns to something that one or more poster has integrated into their sense of self-worth and wellbeing, there is going to be a fight.
Which suggests that the things you believe as part of your identity, rather than due to such things as actual evidence, should be kept as few as possible. That way you're more open to learning. Which, incidentally, is one thing that frustrates me about theists; not only do they have this huge gaping piece of nonsense where rational beliefs ought to be, they've got that whole area covered with prickly identity-skin. Touch it and you get fireworks.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think some people make the *act of discussion* part of that prickly skin identity, so that any disagreement becomes a personal attack. That is pretty fragile for a self identity, if one has to be right all the time, but it makes it kind of silly, or masochistic, to then engage in heated discussions where you are certain to be argued with.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: When you reach that point, I think the difference between saying "that idea's stupid, only an idiot would think that" and "I still think that idea has some flaws," is a cosmetic difference. However nicely you dress it up, the bottom line is you think another person is wrong, and by extension, the way that think about things (at least that particular thing) must be a flawed way of thinking.
I strongly, strongly disagree with this. With the possible exception of something that is someone's deepest self-identity (and maybe even then), it should be perfectly possible to say that you think an idea is flawed, or even stupid (although tact is a nice thing), without actually attacking the individual.
It used to happen at Hatrack all the time, and occasionally it still does.
Of course, it is a two-sided street. If one person is carefully addressing the idea and not the speaker, said speaker must be willing to discuss the idea without taking it personally.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rivka is correct.
Intelligent people can be, and an often are, wrong. And two intelligent people can hold conflicting opinions without either of them being wrong.
If the above is not accepted, then civil conversation is simply not possible. Then every single conversation is a joust and a personal fight for self esteem because one's very identity is threatened. That's not conversation.
My point about bringing up the conversations in OSC novels is that it is a characteristic of his writing, but it is NOT an accurate portrayal of effective real world dynamics. The reason his heroes always win is NOT because they truly are the smartest or the most dexterous or even always have the best ideas - they win because the conversation is rigged from the start. Having real world - or even virtual world - conversations and hoping for them to go like OSC conversations is like jumping off a roof and hoping to fly.
As for your intensely personal comments above, I have two comments about them, on top of what I said before.
1. It is a perfect example of the goat cheese. You were trying to create a seminar situation and putting yourself in the instructor position. What I perhaps didn't make clear in the original goat cheese post is that such conversations when not in an educational or pleading setting (such as in school or like Columbus with the advisors), such a conversation outside of those appropriate settings is massively, intensely rude. It is literally antisocial. It's treating your peers like your subordinates, and behavior like that outside of an OSC novel does not produce results like those in an OSC novel. In Pastwatch, it led to the person being uber-respected and getting accolades. Outside of OSC books, it leads to being punched in the mouth in some situations and being dismissed as socially tone deaf at best in the rest.
It's really not okay. Doing it here doesn't make you an OSC-type hero. It makes you the guy walking around high school wearing Batman cape.
Those conversations were, I'm sure, never intended to be a model for real life conversations. I'm sure of it, or else OSC wouldn't be able to function.
2. Perceiving someone disagreeing with your ideas as equivalent to being told you are stupid means that when you disagree with someone else, you are saying they are stupid. Dude, not okay. And entirely unnecessary.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Raymond Arnold, I read your post as one person in a group saying, "I have noticed this problem. Here is how I see it. How do the rest of you see it? How can we make it better?" I thought it was a fairly humble post.
KoM and MightyCow, as you know, my faith is a big part of my identity. I am not sure how I come across but I don't feel particularly prickly or threatened or attacked beyond some frustration at having to repeat the same arguments over and over. That is less of a problem in conversations with atheists than it is with some of my fellow theists.
[ July 14, 2010, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I believe part of the problem stems from how integrated some beliefs are to people who hold them. If someone says, "A BLT is far superior to a Hot Pastrami sandwich", I don't have much invested in the outcome of that argument, so I don't feel bad about the suggestion that my taste in sandwiches is "wrong."
if I've spent the last 10 years writing a dozen vampire novels, and somene says that vampire novels are stupid, and nobody will ever read one again, a huge amount of my self-worth, future goals, personal happiness and invested time and emotion forces me to fight you on that, regardless of facts, intentions, or beliefs.
Any time the discussion turns to something that one or more poster has integrated into their sense of self-worth and wellbeing, there is going to be a fight.
Which suggests that the things you believe as part of your identity, rather than due to such things as actual evidence, should be kept as few as possible. That way you're more open to learning. Which, incidentally, is one thing that frustrates me about theists; not only do they have this huge gaping piece of nonsense where rational beliefs ought to be, they've got that whole area covered with prickly identity-skin. Touch it and you get fireworks.
It's not necessarily that you disagree with them. It's how you couch it. If you say something inflammatory, e.g. "this huge gaping piece of nonsense where rational beliefs ought to be," then yeah, you're bound to get a more prickly discussion. Interpersonal skills 101.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I've been mulling things over for the past day, working out areas where I think I was actively wrong (intelletually) and things where I merely communicated poorly. Also thinking about whether I did anything wrong (morally) and places where there simply was no good action to take. (I've yet to figure that part out). For now I've got a decent answer for rivka. It somewhat addresses issues katherina has brought up, but I'm not entirely clear whether we're still having a conversation or not and if we are it's a complicated one that I'm wary of leaping back into just now.
First, @rivka: I wasn't entirely happy with the words you quoted when I wrote it. I rewrote it a few times (along with the whole post). Eventually I gave up and just posted what I have. I'll attempt to clarify some things.
As far as my own beliefs go, the basic framework I'm working from is that it is not possible for two people to believe mutually exclusive things and them both be right. That doesn't mean one of them has to be an idiot, but it does mean one of them hasn't considered all the evidence, or is allowing emotion to cloud their decision making process, or something else.
I believe this strongly. I do not apologize for this.
"Stupid" is a word with strong negative connotations. It honestly doesn't even mean much beyond being an insult. So I'll try not to use it here. But my point, in my OP, is that when I think someone is wrong, especially someone who I know is fully aware of all the available evidence and arguments, then it is an inherent, corresponding, inescapable belief that with regards to that (percieved) wrong belief, that person is not thinking properly. I may be wrong (I do my best to remain open to this fact) but at the moment in which I consider myself right, I can't avoid that belief.
I do not attach value judgement of the person to that fact. Unless I see the person constantly using the same bad reasoning over and over again I don't write that person off as "stupid." (There are very few people on this board who meet that description, and I think there would be almost unanimous agreement on that).
But when I see someone who I know is intelligent making what I believe to be a very mistaken statement, in a moment of emotional stress I may think to myself "How can you be so stupid!?"
"Stupid," being an emotionally tainted variant of "unwilling or unable to think rationally on this subject."
Now, there are certain words ("Stupid" and "Idiot" being among them), that I DO apologize for thinking, let along typing, because merely thinking them brings negativity to the table. That's not because of the definition of the word, it's because of its history as an insult. So my point, way back in the OP, is that from a definitional standpoint, "You're wrong" and "You're being stupid" are essentially synonymous. One of them brings negativity to the table that doesn't need to be there. But that's what I meant.
The specific line rivka quoted, included "Only an idiot would believe that," doesn't really fall under the above category at all, since "only an idiot would..." immediately applies value judgment to the person. I apologize for that.
I think that there WILL likely be some people who disagree with one or more premises here, and honestly I AM fine with that, because as much as I do not think it's possible to have a debate in which two people are right about mutually exclusive things, it IS fine to live in a community with people who believe mutually exclusive beliefs, and recognize the areas in which (most of the time) we understand that there's nothing more to discuss.
I'm pausing for now to see whether this actually helped clarify anything for anybody.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:the basic framework I'm working from is that it is not possible for two people to believe mutually exclusive things and them both be right.
I disagree, fundamentally, with this premise. While I do believe that some things are absolute, those things are few and far between. I am also very sure that more than one conclusion can be drawn from the same set of facts. What conclusions are drawn are often shaped by what values and priorities the concluders are starting from.
The world simply isn't this black and white. Trying to impose black and whiteness on a mostly gray world will prove very frustrating.
----
This will most likely be taken badly, because you seem to equate "you're wrong about this" with "you're wrong" with "you're stupid." That's too bad, because I mean the first one, but not the second two.
And in order for this conversation to continue, if you start with the "someone is wrong" premise, the only place to go is to defend yourself so it isn't you. And then it will all degenerate again because it will turn into another jousting match instead of a conversation.
OSC, I am sure, never meant to convey that the only conversations possible are jousting match. And even if it were...what's the prize here? What are the rules? What does the blue ribbon mean? Does a jousting match mean anything at all if it can be won with an ad hominem?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM and MightyCow, as you know, my faith is a big part of my identity. I am not sure how I come across but I don't feel particularly prickly or threatened or attacked beyond some frustration at having to repeat the same arguments over and over. That is less of a problem in conversations with atheists than it is with some of my fellow theists.
As usual you are unusual among theists, in that you don't actually believe anything, you merely believe that you believe. (While this is not so uncommon, you have it to an unusually high degree.) You don't have actual faith as a part of your identity, you have the quotation "I am a person of faith" as part of your identity. I've noticed you get rather more defensive when I point this out.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
KoM, I would like to avoid this becoming a thread about religion. I realize that large chunks of the thread are going to be clearly most applicable to religious debate, I'd like to at least pretend we're talking about other things to avoid the baggage that a religious discussion brings.
We're talking about talking here, not talking about other things.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:the basic framework I'm working from is that it is not possible for two people to believe mutually exclusive things and them both be right.
I disagree, fundamentally, with this premise. While I do believe that some things are absolute, those things are few and far between. I am also very sure that more than one conclusion can be drawn from the same set of facts. What conclusions are drawn are often shaped by what values and priorities the concluders are starting from.
I completely and entirely agree with Katie on this. In fact, I think it is rather unfortunate that you are so convinced that the world is so black and white as all that.
And advise you to not go into the social sciences. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
(I edited in a final paragraph that doesn't change anything about the beliefs I just described, but does clarify my intentions with regard to the forum).
I will note that I DO believe in things that are not mutually contradictory, and there is more room to disagree on those things. But those things are usually either a) conglomerations of facts b) statements based purely on values that cannot be proved or disproved.
Two examples (please avoid getting into a debate about the issues themselves, I just wanted to clarify the sorts of things I was talking about)
Abortion (example of "unprovable axiom") - the fundamental dispute here is over the point at which human life gains inherent value. That is not something that can be proved. You can argue over various side effects that abortion causes or prevents, but ultimately you're comparing those side effects to the value of human life and there's no way to actually determine that.
Welfare (example of "conglomerate of facts") - You can say "Welfare is good!" and "Welfare is bad!" and "Welfare is a necessary evil!" and all be right, in a sense. But in those cases, what's really being said is that "handholding poor people teaches them to rely on government, which is bad," and "not providing a safety net leaves people vulnerable to the evils of capitalism, which is bad." As well as loads of other things, because economics is complicated and a lot of times even when there IS a right answer it's hard to know what it is because there's too much data to process.
In addition, Welfare arguments often include unprovable axioms such as "people have the right to earn as much money as they want without the government taking it away," and "governments have a responsibility to ensure the basic needs of their citizens are met."
So in these types of discussions, I agree with kat that there is no clearly right or wrong answer. I'd also like to note that in these types of discussions, I do my best NOT to commit to a "right" answer, rather I say "okay, this is what looks like it's probably true," and act accordingly.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I would also like to note that, while I realize I went off on a very different direction than Kat had hoped I would go with regards to the "verbal skirmishing" thing, this particular discussion is NOT an attempt on my part to "win" at convincing you that the world is a black and white world where someone always has to be wrong.
If there is any particular "win" condition to this thread for me, it is to arrive at better common ground in terms of what behavior is acceptable and what is not. The "wrong = intellectually unsound" issue is something I think it is important to discuss so that in future threads, people will be better able to understand why people said things that they said and avoid areas of taking offense when none was intended.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I just want to point oit the irony in insisting that the world is NOT black and white, and thus Raymond Arnold is categorically wrong and "[should] not go into the social sciences."
What's the blue ribbon for convincing RA he's wrong about this Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
On a totally unrelated topic... seriously people, you can call me Ray! Or Raymond! Or even Raym, if you so desire!
I suppose I have no one to blame but myself for this, but's always felt weird to me that people feel need to spell out my whole name. I use my full name on this forum because it was a place on the internet where I felt I should a) be representing myself as who I really am b) I shouldn't be doing anything I would be unwilling to associate with my name in the future. Not because I actually wanted people to spell out "Raymond Arnold" every single time. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I just want to point oit the irony in insisting that the world is NOT black and white, and thus Raymond Arnold is categorically wrong ...
+= 1
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ray, good to know. Some people are particular about it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*ponders registering Mr. Mucus or Dr. Mucus*
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: As far as my own beliefs go, the basic framework I'm working from is that it is not possible for two people to believe mutually exclusive things and them both be right. That doesn't mean one of them has to be an idiot, but it does mean one of them hasn't considered all the evidence, or is allowing emotion to cloud their decision making process, or something else.
I believe this strongly. I do not apologize for this.
They can certainly be completely "right" as long as the truths are subjective. Also, ideas that many people believe to be mutually exclusive are not always so. That being the case let me hit you up on this.
If you believe that what people "are" is more than just a big hunk of flesh than a lot of that "person" is in the information contained within them, however or whatever you want to call that. That being the case when you attack the ideas that a person holds, especially dear ideas you are quite literally attacking at the "soul" of a person.
People generally have a poor understanding of knowledge, belief, etc. Which is understandable as we teach very little about it in most of our educational curriculum. We, people, generally do a poor job of setting out certain definitions of words when we argue, with causes areas of ambiguity that are not really good for conversation. That and the fact that we are all communicating via a forum board can make things difficult a well. It can be hard at times to figure out when someone is being sarcastic in a playful manner or in an insulting way.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oh you couldn't write this for money:
at katharina:
quote:The issue with this (and I have noticed you doing this a lot) is that you interpret a post as antagonistic (sometimes correctly, other times less so). And your response, rather than saying "I'm not interested in having a verbal skirmish," is instead "I do not want to have a conversation with you." Which generally reads as "I do not value you as a person worth talking to, period." [/QB]
and then...
katharina:
quote: Raymond, I am not interested in getting a lecture from you on what you think I should be doing or behaving. I find it utterably rude and amazingly tone deaf. And I'm sorry that your response on getting some respect from me was to immediately abuse it. I am neither impressed nor interested.
Kat does this so much now she's like a fainting goat. All you have to do is mention her being wrong and you'll get your personalized dismissal of you as an authority on her, or on xyz, despite you knowing a fair bit about both. Meh. She's not someone I would characterized as "engaged with the feelings of others."
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I feel I can always be civil
I don't post in threads where I know that I won't be.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:They can certainly be completely "right" as long as the truths are subjective.
While my abortion/welfare post covers this to some degree, I think there's a useful anecdote from the Toy Story thread. I feel comfortable doing so since I'm about to illustrate a point where I was wrong - where I was, in some respects, behaving "stupidly."
There was an argument about whether a particular shot was about Woody or Andy. Katherina and myself were in agreement on this issue: the camera was on Andy, Andy was the character making a decision, Woody was currently an inanimate object who wasn't doing anything at the time. We cited these reasons and others as proof that at that particular moment in the film, Andy was the character that the film was caring about.
Someone else said "Um, no, it's Woody." After some discussion they clarified "I'm paying attention to Andy, but I only care about him because of Woody."
There was at least some point where I literally was thinking (probably posted "out loud", much to my chagrin) that the shot was clearly about Andy, and anyone who thought otherwise was wrong.
In this particular instance, I was wrong, because assigning truth value to the particular scene being "about" Andy or Woody is fairly meaningless. The scene itself is just an image, it is only "about" things in the minds of people, and different people can interpret it different ways. Some might argue that the statements "It's about Woody" and "It's about Andy" are both correct, because it's subjective. In a sense, I think that's true, BUT it is incredibly important to remember that subjective and objective truths are NOT the same thing, and conflating the two is intellectually dishonest. In any kind of objective sense, I was wrong to make that statement.
I subsequently modified my position to "The intention of the director was for most (defined as more than half) of our attention and empathy to be focused on Andy in that shot." Given my knowledge of cinematography, I'm about 95% sure that I'm right about that, and would be willing to bet up to $50 on it. This isn't subjective truth - it's something that we could conceivable call up the director and ask him (her?) about. It's still possible I'm wrong about it. But it's not something that is possible to be both right and wrong about. Either the director was deliberately focusing our attention and empathy on Andy or he wasn't.
I'm interested in continuing to debate this sort of thing if people have other points to bring to the table, because I DO think that verbal skirmishes are fun, period, as a recreational activity. But again, right now my main goal is to eliminate confusion about different mindsets.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Orincoro: Ha! Your obsession with me and desperate desire to score points is very telling about your values and priorities.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:Snort:
You have unveiled my secret passion!
:Swan dive:
Tool.
Eta: You know, it's not fair of me to pick on you. I do have a newfound understanding for people aging poorly. We ought to allow you to do it more gracefully.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you serious? Oh, this is just sad.
To be sure, it most certainly is not passion. It is a desire to dominate and control, which is very, very far away from tender feelings. But not far away at all from spectacularly nasty ones.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
Talking about subjective/objective and your director example, what if the director was okay with people putting their focus where they thought it was most important? I worked for someone who used to work for Disney and she said the Disney corporation was very good at putting a lot of things in their movies (I know, Toy Story 3 is Pixar, but I think it works this way still) so any person watching a movie (or going to their theme parks, etc.) would be able to watch it over and over again and get new views, insights, feelings out of it. So, what if the director was okay with creating a shot that became independent of him and can be interpreted many different ways. Some artists are like that (the ones that refuse to analyze their art once it has been created). Does this make sense?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Eta: You know, it's not fair of me to pick on you. I do have a newfound understanding for people aging poorly. We ought to allow you to do it more gracefully.
ugh
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
@happymann: I'm answering in the Toy Story 3 thread to avoid spoilers.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
In the interest of "Facilitating Communication," could Katharina and Orincoro stop addressing each other for the time being?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Not naming any names... but I would like to note as a general rule of thumb that deliberate, point blank insults are the sort of thing that is lowering the overall quality of the forum. Doing so in a thread where someone is desperately trying maintain a civil atmosphere is particularly less than cool.
There is another forum I go to where swearing and (at least good natured) insults are not merely tolerated but part of the overall culture. When I'm in the mood for that, I go there instead of here. At least I used to. Over the past year it's reached the point where it doesn't matter, but I don't think there's any particular reason for it HAS to stay that way. A wide variety of forum atmospheres is better than a single homogenous internet-wide 4chan.
(Edit: posted before JanitorBlade showed up, not sure if it matters)
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
Scene II
Gripped too tightly by the vines, the victim is unable swing the spade with any efficiency.
Boink!
--Ouch?! What are you doing?
Boink boink boink!
--Stop it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: In the interest of "Facilitating Communication," could Katharina and Orincoro stop addressing each other for the time being?
(JanitorBlade: Sorry Orincoro, I debated leaving your post up after responding to it, but it's not going to serve any positive purpose. If you feel wronged don't hesitate to PM me.)
[ July 15, 2010, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
seriously? Not helping.
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
Scene iii
++Man, it's dark in here. (vague swooshing noise can be heard) ++"Where are you!" (rustling leaves can be heard) ++Yoohoo, Honey, it's... BOINK!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: In the interest of "Facilitating Communication," could Katharina and Orincoro stop addressing each other for the time being?
(JB edit: Post Edited)
Whistled.
[ July 15, 2010, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Despite his parental role, I don't think JanitorBlade has the overriding ability to invite you to the birthday party.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i'm not referencing you directly i'm not referencing you directly you can't tell mom i'm not referencing you directly
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Orincoro: Thank you for not addressing katharina directly. Could you also please not talk about her either? TIA.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Kat, or anyone else - could you please talk more about the phenomenon of assuming the intructor role in a seminar-type discussion?
What you said resonated with me greatly, since I think I do it a lot in real life.
1) Is it wrong? I want to question whether or not it is rude. For instance, If I take that role, my friends may happily take the non-instructor role by engaging in a bit of humility. I don't intend to be condescending, and I know that I will facilitate discussion better than my peers. It definitely doesn't mean I have more to contribute, but, yea, I know that the conversation wouldn't have gotten off the ground without me. I think they know that too.
2)Assuming you're right and it IS wrong - I feel incredibly frustrated. I feel like I'm really good at facilitating certain types of conversation that other people aren't necessarily so good at. Some of the most intimate and meaningful conversations come out from places where only I am willing to step up.
What's the alternative? Is it that I conduct conversations with extreme sensitivity? (I'm grateful to Raymond for opening the forum for THIS conversation, because I learned a lot from this meta-analysis). Or do I stop altogether?
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Any time the discussion turns to something that one or more poster has integrated into their sense of self-worth and wellbeing, there is going to be a fight.
As someone with a naturally thin skin, I find that trying to integrate "I am a person who appreciates criticism of her ideas" as part of my identity helps. Then when someone attacks another part of my identity, I can't respond with kneejerk defensiveness without feeling like I'm attacking myself.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Looks like this conversation has mostly wound down. Which is all right, I guess. But I was hoping for a little more dialogue with rivka and/or kat and/or anyone else who feels similarly about the "multiple conflicting mutually exclusive truths" thing. Did my last post clarify anything? Do you find talking to a person who you know things that way that you disagree with inherently offensive or frustrating?
My last question for kat, Armoth pretty much asked: is there any way for one person to communicate to another: "You're doing something that I find harmful/annoying/hostility-inducing/whatever. Could you please stop?" that you don't consider rude?
(Armoth was asking specifically about the "lecturing" tone, but I've seen people attempt to say basically the same things in a variety of manners that seemed uniformly unappreciated.)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
One thing I've noticed is that, in general, a scientific worldview starts with a null assumption and requires evidence, while a religious worldview starts with very specific, often unassailable assumptions, and ignores or attempts to understand within that view any conflicting evidence.
So if people are accostomed to the idea that their beliefs are just right, because they are - end of story, it can cause a fundamental friction in discussions as one side tries to establish what is and is not, and the other side sticks to their guns and wonders when the wrong people will decide to agree.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I thinking dividing worldviews up into "scientific" and "religious" a) isn't necessarily realistic. b) bringing up religion and/or politics immediately starts turning people (of any given sect/worldview) away from thinking rationally and towards thinking in a more primitive "us vs them" state. You can train yourself away from this but the impulse is still there.
I do think there's interesting things to delve into exploring that dichotomy (or lack thereof) but in this particular thread I'm trying to find reasons for people to agree with each other, and framing things along opposing worldviews makes that harder, not easier.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Did my last post clarify anything?
Not really. I believe I understood the meat of your clarification from your earlier posts; I still disagree, and I rarely find it fruitful to continue at that point. And MC's deliberate misread and mis-statement of what was probably the least important bit of my post made me even less interested in continuing the conversation. (This, BTW, is actually a key aspect of the issue this topic is about: even if two people who are having a conversation are both doing so in good faith, sniping from bystanders can make that very difficult. I am as guilty of this offense as well.)
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Do you find talking to a person who you know things that way that you disagree with inherently offensive or frustrating?
Not necessarily, but it does tend to be limiting. And sometimes there are assumptions on one side -- or both -- that are quite frustrating.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: bringing up religion and/or politics immediately starts turning people (of any given sect/worldview) away from thinking rationally and towards thinking in a more primitive "us vs them" state. ...I'm trying to find reasons for people to agree with each other, and framing things along opposing worldviews makes that harder, not easier.
My point exactly. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
rivka: I'm sniping? I don't think my tone was any harsher than yours or Kat's criticisms.
Besides, it's funny when Ray says that it's not possible for two people to have different points and they both be right, and both you and Kat say, "Sorry, but you're not right."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: [qb] Kat, or anyone else - could you please talk more about the phenomenon of assuming the instructor role in a seminar-type discussion?
What you said resonated with me greatly, since I think I do it a lot in real life.
Seeing as it is an OSC board and his characters do this ALL THE TIME, I suspect most of us have done it or do it.
quote: 1) Is it wrong? I want to question whether or not it is rude. For instance, If I take that role, my friends may happily take the non-instructor role by engaging in a bit of humility. I don't intend to be condescending, and I know that I will facilitate discussion better than my peers. It definitely doesn't mean I have more to contribute, but, yea, I know that the conversation wouldn't have gotten off the ground without me. I think they know that too.
It isn't wrong, if you get consent. In other words, it is not a polite or respectful thing to do unless you have already been given that role from the people you are talking to.
So, it isn't wrong when that role has been given to you, but it is wrong/rude/condescending to assume that role without consent.
Your peer's right to be respected is more important than your desire to have the discussion go a certain, or even the outcome of the conversation. Because if you assume an instructor role and turn a conversation into a seminar against your peer's consent and they don't like it, they won't hear a word you are saying. Your co-opting the situation will be a thousand times louder than anything you're actually saying - and it should be. Whatever the words might be, the actions are disrespectful. Your authority in the conversation is gone.
quote:
2)Assuming you're right and it IS wrong - I feel incredibly frustrated. I feel like I'm really good at facilitating certain types of conversation that other people aren't necessarily so good at. Some of the most intimate and meaningful conversations come out from places where only I am willing to step up.
What's the alternative?
Obtain consent. "Can I ask you something?"; "Can I make a suggestion?"; "I have an opinion - do you want to hear it?" And then wait for an affirmative answer before going on. That way they know that your respect and esteem for them is greater than your desire to speak.
quote: Is it that I conduct conversations with extreme sensitivity? (I'm grateful to Raymond for opening the forum for THIS conversation, because I learned a lot from this meta-analysis). Or do I stop altogether?
Don't stop. Just don't presume. If you ask one of the above questions and it is a friendly conversation so far, 90% of people will say yes, and then the conversation is still respectful because you obtained consent before setting yourself in the superior knowledge role. The vast majority of the conversation you enjoy will still happen, and you won't alienate or disrespect anyone along the way. Your conversational partners will enjoy it just as much - almost certainly a greater percentage than do now, since calling people out on coopting a conversation is awkward and rarely done.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I think I'm socially savvy enough to have understood the point you were trying to make. I'm pretty sure I have consent most of the time, unless I'm hijacking, which I usually do when angry, and I already knew was bad.
But I'm talking about a feeling that I have that even though I've been given consent, I have this lingering insecurity that people think I m arrogant just because i am facilitating. And I feel like I'm facilitating better than others would. I just feel like I've been given a more leader-like mind and so I often steer conversations to address issues most people don't consider. I can read that sentence and notice the arrogance, but I also read the sentence and the truth of it resonates with me.
That's the "insecure" position I feel I am in. I mean, I guess there is no solution to it other than being ultra sensitive to the reactions of my friends, and to recognizing their superiority in their respective fields.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
While I wouldn't have worded it to myself in quite the same way, I honestly did think I had asked permission at the time I made the post that offended kat. My perception is perhaps biased because I knew what my motivations were the whole time, but what I started with in the Toy Story thread was:
quote: I really would like to open up a dialogue in which I can learn how to improve my posting habits, as well as point out things you have done that have been frustrating to me without you writing me off as a guy who isn't worth talking to. I've seen several people attempt to do this with you and you haven't seemed interested. I still feel that it is worth attempting but I really don't know how.
Later on I did say things that were a little more ambiguous. I can see how they come across as deceptive. But in the context of what I had already said, I thought was I clear.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You may have declared your intention. That is not at all the same thing as being granted consent. The more personal, pointed, and insulting your comments, the more sure you need to be that you are granted the permission to say them. Silence, or posting in the thread, is not consent.
If it's still a civil conversation, that is.
[ July 19, 2010, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I ended the part of the Toy Story thread asking permission to talk about issues in this thread. I realize that nowhere did you actually explicitly give me permission to do so, but I thought your showing up in this thread with what seemed to be an incredibly positive post was pretty clear confirmation that it was okay. As a general rule of thumb, I assume that if I've made my intentions clear, I've asked permission, and someone responds positively without also saying "No," it's okay to do whatever I've said I'm going to do.
I'm fine with modifying that rule for individual people if necessary, but I don't think its an unreasonable rule of thumb for my day to day interactions with most people. Especially if I'm trying really hard NOT to be insulting.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I believe you that you did not intend to be.
Please believe me that you were, in an enormous, condescending, unbelievably rude way, and my momentary kindness in responding was in no way permission for you to take those kinds of liberties and be that presumptuous. I'm a bit staggered that it was taken as such.
If you want to get that personal, you have to have either explicit permission or an incredibly personal relationship. You absolutely had neither. Your assumption that you did goes a long way to explain why I am rarely that kind.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I don't think making statements or suggestions about other people's posting styles or public behavior without permission is inherently rude. Hatrack historically has been a somewhat self-policing forum; pointing out potential problems with a person's post and making suggestions on what to do differently is a part of that.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Kat: You have the thinnest skin on Hatrack. It can be very frustrating to engage in conversation with you, because one never knows when you will take things unreasonably personally and construe relatively neutral comments as personal attacks beyond the pale.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Just because people criticize doesn't mean it's effective. Saying something is rude isn't saying that it's "against the law" but that it offended that person to the point where it's unlikely that any content will be heard because that person is offended.
Despite Kat's thin-skin, only she can decide when it's okay to criticize her and when it's not. She has made her parameters clear: when she invites us or when she is super close with us, that's when she is willing to listen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
And I'm pretty sure the forum as a whole would be fine with that if she didn't have the widest, wildest double standard possible between what she will accept as permissible to subject her to versus what she will subject others to at the drop of a hat.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I was thinking about whether commentary and criticism without permission is typically considered rude by society at large. It doesn't seem to me that this is the case.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I will say that I, personally, find unsolicited lecturers to be fantastically annoying. I find that I won't hear most of what they're saying, because I'll still be marveling at the fact that they are saying it at all. I'll be wondering at their motivation, and what they hoped to gain since the obvious one, my education or the education of a group of which I am a part, is no longer an option since we are all annoyed.
I remember one guy at a Christian gathering randomly talked about the history of Christmas traditions, and then how he wanted to be able to tell his future children and grandchildren all about how we got Christmas traditions, and wouldn't be quiet about them. He graciously repsonded to all questions about the subject material in a manner so horrible paternal that I soon asked him about Mistletoe hoping to shut him up. He actually answered. My only regret was that the pastor wasn't around to hear about that particular history.
On the other hand, one of my professors has been pretty close with me outside of class, and I enjoy his rambling. His quality of knowledge is no better than that of the previous friend I discussed, but his easy-going manner, his lack of a need of validations from me and anybody else in the room, all lead me to enjoy his ramblings.
In any case, I've digressed. I would say that, in response to Armoth, should you be even a tad bit aware of your surroundings, you should know whether or not your lecture or conversation facilitation is wanted. I won't say it's wrong in and of itself to lecture. But, if not wanted, it's a good way to ensure that people don't like you and you won't be heard.
I think a big part of it is when the lecturing is a putting in place of another person. I am above you in this way. I will now flaunt my personal experience with mental illness and school you in the way of mental hospitals. I will tell you how much more I know about this subject, even if it is a meaningless detail, just to assure you that my argument has an intrinsic weight to it that yours does not. I will lecture you because I have more life experience. In all of these cases, the lecture is not just a lecture; it is an attempt to lend credence to anything the speaker has to say about the discussion, period.
I'm not saying that Ray meant it in that way. But, having witnessed several lectures of the type I've described on this board, I will say that Katherina has probably witnessed or experienced enough of them to assume that Ray might have meant the same thing.
And sorry, if I'm misrepresenting anybody's ideas here. I do not know Katherina's reasons for dismissing Ray's lecture (And I do believe it was a lecture), or the validity or lackthereof of Ray's lecture. I'm speaking only of myself and my probably flawed view of events.
The end.
I'll probably edit later, for I feel that I've been fantastically inarticulate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I was thinking about whether commentary and criticism without permission is typically considered rude by society at large. It doesn't seem to me that this is the case.
Really? I think you should spend a week walking up to people - pick a variety: strangers, friends, coworkers, friends of friends, the bus driver, your boss - and giving them five-minute lectures on all the things you don't like about them. Report back and let us know how that goes. Be sure to include negative assessments of character, personality, and intelligence as the subjects of those unsolicited lectures.
I'm serious. I would LOVE to hear how that went. If possible, record them and post a .wav file. And possibly pictures of the bruises.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
But isn't it fair to be honest with people when they do something that truly bothers us or hurts our feelings? Or, in a discussion setting, something that makes interaction with them difficult or painful?
[Phrased as a question so as to be softer, and not because I'm setting a trap. It could be read as a statement as well.]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
My point was about asking for permission. I thought that being tactful was a given, but perhaps I should have made it clear.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Edit: Eh, I'm regretting this already. If anyone already saw it, I stand by it. But the only part that should really be in a public area is that I apologize for doing any of this in a public area, especially in a thread that began with me telling other people not to do exactly that.
[ July 19, 2010, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is no tactful way to give unsolicited, critical lectures that doesn't include asking permission.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Don't apologize, Raymond, you'll only make her angrier.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The message I edited included a no frills, two-sentence statement of the things I'm still angry about, and apologies for the things I genuinely regret. I actually intended to send it as a PM or e-mail or whatever, but kat's e-mail is blocked (rather understandably, I admit) and at this point I doubt it's worth it to either of us to go through the hoops necessary to do it privately. (And including a message like this that offered the option of jumping through those hoops seemed to overdramatize the thing in a way that was just silly).
At the time I decided to err on the side of just posting the damn thing so I would have to sit with it stewing around. And then I promptly started stewing over the irony of continuing to publicly talk about things that I was, among other things, apologizing for publicly talking about.
But having already done so... and having gotten started writing this meta-meta-discussion... on the off chance that kat is okay with me posting it publicly, I still have it typed. If kat (or anyone) does want to talk about anything privately, my e-mail is in my profile. I do promise to not send more than one e-mail, unless given express permission to do otherwise.
[ July 20, 2010, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
Ray, I'd suggest you break up that email address a bit. Or just mention it's in your profile.
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
(All in light.)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
{pancake albatross} wishing you were somehow here...
Again/Sunday b l oodySunday (wolverine happymeal)$
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
Raymoondikations is my, well, special feeld. Special kultivar.
Poor Komkatarina! Poor Raymoond! The one means "Yes(Please me!)." but says "No(t Yet)!" The other means "No(w)!" but says "Yes(terday)..."
The wound or the wonder? The one the other!
K-k-k-cumoonIcKate! Eye me nit. I me nit. I'm mean. It sniffles over there in the corner, wistfully, thinking of home.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Out of curiosity, if you had really bad body odor, would you rather be told about in a public setting by a casual acquaintance or remain blissful unaware?
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
It's funny that you should ask. Just yesterday, rising from the jacuzzi of my palatial hotel suite, admiring my physique in the floor to ceiling glass, sipping on my deftly prepared martini, I lifted my glass to toast myself and my accomplishments and noticed that the exquisitely coy martini hostess (whose talents as a mixologist were merely a shallow, sheltered bay on the stormy sea of sensuality that I soon hoped to be sailing into) crinkled her beautiful nose.
She saw me see her and smiled. I turned my head, buried my nose in my armpit and sniffed deeply. It's hard to describe the odour. I asked her to smell my other pit, and judging by her initial reluctance and then what can only be decribed as her watery-eyed 'a posteriori' and somewhat shallow assurances that all was "Beautiful. Really." I engaged my incredibly blue and penetrating eyes in a search for the Febreze.
Doubt is the bedfellow of distraction.
The nose is a profound truth teller.
Later that evening, whisked past security and boarding my Lear Jet for the coast, it occurred to me that one can rarely outrun one's own smell. I stuck my hand into my loosely buttoned Armani silk shirt and squeezed my fingers into the rippling muscle pocket we call an armpit. Slowly sliding these now impregnated digits beneath my noble nostrils while watching the city fall beneath my feet I inhaled deeply.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: {pancake albatross} wishing you were somehow here...
Again/Sunday b l oodySunday (wolverine happymeal)$
brilliant, i printed this up on a sticky note
WOLVERINE HAPPYMEAL
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by deerpark27: It's funny that you should ask. Just yesterday, rising from the jacuzzi of my palatial hotel suite, admiring my physique in the floor to ceiling glass, sipping on my deftly prepared martini, I lifted my glass to toast myself and my accomplishments and noticed that the exquisitely coy martini hostess (whose talents as a mixologist were merely a shallow, sheltered bay on the stormy sea of sensuality that I soon hoped to be sailing into) crinkled her beautiful nose.
She saw me see her and smiled. I turned my head, buried my nose in my armpit and sniffed deeply. It's hard to describe the odour. I asked her to smell my other pit, and judging by her initial reluctance and then what can only be decribed as her watery-eyed 'a posteriori' and somewhat shallow assurances that all was "Beautiful. Really." I engaged my incredibly blue and penetrating eyes in a search for the Febreze.
Doubt is the bedfellow of distraction.
The nose is a profound truth teller.
Later that evening, whisked past security and boarding my Lear Jet for the coast, it occurred to me that one can rarely outrun one's own smell. I stuck my hand into my loosely buttoned Armani silk shirt and squeezed my fingers into the rippling muscle pocket we call an armpit. Slowly sliding these now impregnated digits beneath my noble nostrils while watching the city fall beneath my feet I inhaled deeply.
Love it.
Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
Kuh-kuh-kuh-kuhmoonication! Aaaawwwwhooo-oo-oo!
I have often compared the early evening moon to the submerged bud of a water lily, both silently surfacing.
The first time I noticed the similarities, I was trying to think of something to say, floating in my canoe one summer's eve.
A light but persistent wind was pushing the boat down the anonymous lake, towards the dark shore.
I've lifted my head from the screen a moment to listen carefully to the scratching noises coming from beneath the sink. Mice.
"The mosquito-ridden shore," I jotted down into my notebook in the dying light. The loon cried out, signalling the transistion to dusk.
The mice have taken over the insides of things. I can smell them. They've become quite brazen, this new generation, rifling amongst all my things, in amongst the paints and brushes, attracted by some fatal compulsion to eat the cadmium yellows.
By then, I couldn't see well enough to write down my moon observation, that is, the comparison of moon to lily, their quiet reaching. I let the wind carry me down, down, down into the darkness of the furthest shore. I would paddle back when the wind died.
Once, as a child, I was playing hide and seek in the park at twilight. The countdown of the seeker became fainter and fainter, and I was well hidden and waited. I waited, but nobody came and that's when it happened. Looking up, I saw the stars stitching the sky, I heard someone calling my name, I saw the branches of the trees shatter the dusk into shards, broken ice on the blackest of lakes, and I fell into the water.
The mice are slowly poisoned by mainly Yellow, but they don't know it. They've even shown their children where it is and how to chew off the plastic cap to kill yourself. The mouse is its own trap. The little yellow noses mark their fate.
With a sigh the canoe vanishes, the makeshift studio blends back into the ticking clock and the moon into a pale yellow bud.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Out of curiosity, if you had really bad body odor, would you rather be told about in a public setting by a casual acquaintance or remain blissful unaware?
Or perhaps, "would having a problem with your conduct publically addressed be worse than being shut out for reasons that remained unknown?"
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Your obsession with me and desperate desire to score points is very telling about your values and priorities.