posted
It is possible to seek advice from people who haven't been overly critical of you in the past, particularly while another said discussion is still ongoing on a current thread.
I am not taking sides, I am simply saying that if you feel someone can't be impartial, it is not necessarily counterproductive to not consider their opinion of you, regardless of who you are.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do other posters find me abrasive, arrogant or prone to launching ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with me?
I think this is pretty much the basis of the big reality distortion field that can occur in a forum, especially one like this with a lot of regulars. If you just remember that, unlike IRL, you are *only* ever posting in response to something, unless you are posting a thread opener, in which case you are not, but are unlikely to argue any point in any particulars.
Now, the basis of all our interaction is responsive to other posts, on the basis of other posts and the people who make them, in the context of a discussion, and in the greater context of our experience on the forum, and *lastly* our experience in other aspects of our lives. That isn't always true, but it seems to mostly be true. So, the quality of your interactions is double-edged. You will necessarily be more opinionated, more one sided, more set in your opinions than if you were dealing with a real life relationship, because a real life relationship is more dynamic, more based on common experience (because you know each other), and fed by body language and facial expression.
It was something I noticed here that actually changed my outlook in real life interactions, and changed the way I thought of myself in either context. Someone called me arrogant, and I believe ignorant (in the sense of willful ignorance or narrow mindedness). I talked to a friend about it. To my complete surprise, this very close friend said that it was mostly true. W"hy are you still my friend then?" I ask, somewhat embarrassed. She says, "because you really are a good person." She told me that what she had initially perceived as arrogance and superiority has not exactly gone away, but along with it, her experience with me had deepened to the point that she had begun to appreciate other aspects of my personality. My ability to listen, my generosity and kindness, my intense curiosity and my idealistic nature were all things she really liked about me. The arrogance thing didn't factor for her once it was a known facet of my personality- the behavior was still there, but it was "less real," to the point that it wasn't an irritant, it was just the way I talked. She even pointed out that I probably used my initial interactions with people to establish who I actually liked, and who I knew I wouldn't enjoy spending time with. She said that there were people who didn't like me based on things that she knew not to be true- like the idea that I believed I was smarter than they were, when she knew that wasn't the case. This was very interesting, because it occurred to me that the people I actually liked most were the ones who I probably didn't hit it off with right away- and the people I absolutely disliked were the ones who took that initial reaction, and continued to react with that same facet of my personality forever- making me feel like I was stuck in a tango with them that would never transcend into actual mutual respect.
Good or bad, these things seem pretty true to me IRL. Now, on Hatrack, I don't know how these qualities tranfer at all. You are constantly making first impressions, changing impressions, you are dealing with a substantive history where people actually remember the exact things you have said to them, even if you don't remember. You also lack all manner of useful cues to signal a shift in your relationship with someone that *you* perceive, and maybe they don't agree. I suppose I shouldn't sit and spell out all the ways that communicating in written chunks is different from real-time dialogue, but the difference is there, and it's hugely significant- and we are increasingly likely to forget that fact from time to time, the more we post.
There isn't anyone, but *anyone* here that I don't think I could talk and relate to in person, and probably with good results. We are all here because of common interests, after all, so the divide between people is magnified, when in the greater scope of things, we would be classed together by any truly outside observer.
That was a great post Orincoro.
Recently, I've been paying more attention to how I come across when I post and have tried to be less aggressive than I've been in the past. Unfortunately, I have a bad habit of responding primarily to posts that I disagree with which I think may cause me to come across as rather negative.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was something I noticed here that actually changed my outlook in real life interactions, and changed the way I thought of myself in either context. Someone called me arrogant, and I believe ignorant (in the sense of willful ignorance or narrow mindedness). I talked to a friend about it. To my complete surprise, this very close friend said that it was mostly true. W"hy are you still my friend then?" I ask, somewhat embarrassed. She says, "because you really are a good person."
This brings up an interesting point. What is perceived as "confidence" and "arrogance" varies greatly between different subcultures. I'm an academic and confidence in what you say is an integral part of the the academic culture. I doubt anyone could get a PhD without having absolutely confidence that they no more than anyone in the world about their specialty and being able to respond confidently to challenges to their work.
There is also a fair amount of arrogance and bravado among academics, but confidence alone is far less likely to be perceived as arrogance in academia. In academia, I'm often told that I hurt myself by not expressing myself with sufficient confidence and I'm generally seen as one of the less arrogant people around, although I am definitely cable of ratcheting up the arrogance when its needed. Outside academia, I find that my accustomed level of confidence is very commonly perceived as arrogance.
IRL I've learned to adapt to different environments, at least to some degree and am less likely to be judged arrogant than I used to be. I've also found that once people get to know me, they generally adjust and are less likely to see me as arrogant. I suspect that there is a sort of double whammy affect here because I nearly always post in my academic voice and it is far more difficult for people to detect the subtle things that distinguish arrogance from confidence.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One more thought on the academic culture. In academia its pretty standard for people to counter arrogance with more arrogance. If you sense someone is condescending to you, you are even more condescending to them. I've seen some pretty brutal arrogance wars in academia.
I think that maybe how kat manages to push my buttons. She comes across as insufferably condescending at times and my academic training tells me the way to respond to that is to slap the perpetrator down, preferably with some witty sarcasm. But in academia it real is mostly a game, and if you land a come back well the response is more likely to be "touche'" than nasty name calling and vicious personal attacks.
In academia there is a pretty clear line between what constitutes attacking a persons ideas and what is attacking a person. That line isn't nearly so clear anywhere else.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Rabbit, I enjoy your longer posts. You occasionally post one liners saying things like ``this makes no sense." The sentiment is fine, but an additional explanatory sentence would be good so the original poster can clarify as needed.
I agree largely with this. I remember one post you made on a thread on homeschooling (it helped that we were on roughly the same side) where you broke down everything by proposition - it was extremely well-done, and, IMO, the thread sorta slowed to a halt there because none of the people on the other side were willing to argue when it was laid out in such terms.
I don't think you always read others' posts as carefully as you might - but I think that of most everyone. However, in your particular case, I think it's a bit more dangerous than most because you come to discussions with very strong assumptions/beliefs/understandings of how the world works. Those color your view, I believe, and sometimes make it difficult for you to fully understand others' arguments, since you're substituting one of your assumptions for a key one of theirs.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: One more thought on the academic culture. In academia its pretty standard for people to counter arrogance with more arrogance. If you sense someone is condescending to you, you are even more condescending to them. I've seen some pretty brutal arrogance wars in academia.
Hehe... I have some fantastic stories of my academic 'grandfather' as far as arrogance goes. One of the more amusing is the following: back in the 80s he (allegedly) initially refused an award including a cash prize equivalent to US$200000 when he was informed that he would be taxed on it by the donor country. Apparently some businessmen subsequently agreed to pay the tax for him.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have any problem with your posting style. I think you mostly come off as very matter of fact (not necessarily arrogant, just not full of warm fuzzies and rainbows), which is fine since most of the posts I read of yours are meant to be informative or as part of a persuasive argument you're putting forth.
I think with a few exceptions, most of the regulars on Hatrack fall within a normal range of civility, and all of us occasionally venture outside of that range with a snappy retort or comment in the heat of the moment, and most of the time we're called on it and back down or shut up. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but I think on average you fall into that same range.
I only occasionally worry about how I come off. I'm less worried that I'm being a jerk than I am about people thinking I'm unfriendly. Mostly I figure I've been here four years, and for better or worse, people's opinions of me are probably fairly well rooted by now, so I might as well just keep doing what I'm doing so long as it doesn't really bother anyone.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: One more thought on the academic culture. In academia its pretty standard for people to counter arrogance with more arrogance. If you sense someone is condescending to you, you are even more condescending to them. I've seen some pretty brutal arrogance wars in academia.
Hehe... I have some fantastic stories of my academic 'grandfather' as far as arrogance goes. One of the more amusing is the following: back in the 80s he (allegedly) initially refused an award including a cash prize equivalent to US$200000 when he was informed that he would be taxed on it by the donor country. Apparently some businessmen subsequently agreed to pay the tax for him.
Hmmm. I've never thought of the science department as an arrogant bunch. Now, philosophy, and to a lesser extent, English - there's plenty of arrogance to go around there. And I'll freely admit that being a philosophy major and participating in philosophy debate for three years ratcheted up my already innate tendency to be arrogant.
Economists are also incredibly arrogant, but I doubt few outside of the profession would recognize the signs. Well, probably other social scientists, since that's where economists tend to be most condescending. I ended up drinking the kool-aid in that department too.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I doubt anyone could get a PhD without having absolutely confidence that they no more than anyone in the world about their specialty and being able to respond confidently to challenges to their work.
Having worked with a lot of PhDs, I'd have to disagree with the "confidence that they know more than anyone in the world about their specialty" clause in your statement. In my experience there are some PhDs who set the doctorate as a goal specifically because they are insecure people, and they use "those three letters" as a shield particularly because they are afraid of having to respond confidently to challenges to their work. This is not to say that they can't defend themselves. They can, and do. But the subtext of insecurity is palpable in these people.
Please note that this is not by any means an indictment of PhDs on the whole, and I think that your statement has a great amount of validity, but there are definitely exceptions.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was thinking about posting and put it off, but I was going to make the point about academia. I am also a female scientist and the posts have never struck me as arrogant. I think in the field, that style is completely acceptable.
Most people think I don't have enough confidence. What they don't know is I just don't care anymore.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's too bad. I made a good point that might be helpful to you if you'd deign to listen.
I hereby nominate this post for Ironic Post of the Year.
Kat, you've never once, in the entire time I've been watching you post, admitted somebody might be right who was making a point contrary to your own. Not once. And I've been on this and other forums for years (hawkin on sake). I think one of the reasons you and Rabbit (and Mr Squicky, and Tom) butt heads so frequently is because you're both equally convinced of your ineffable rightness. The difference being that The Rabbit has a set of ideas that she is knowledgeable about, and within that set is almost dogmatic in her opinions. You, on the other hand, can be dogmatic about anything and everything you choose to discuss. Regardless of the validity of the point someone is making, if your mind is set against it there is no convincing you otherwise. I can only imagine your response if you had posted a similar thread and The Rabbit had tried to contribute in the same way you did. Of course, I have an extremely difficult time imagining you posting a thread along these lines, as it would imply an awareness of a need for change in your dealings with others that I honestly don't think you have.
I admire Rabbits ability to acknowledge a need for change, based on nothing more than a couple of contentious interactions that she could easily have written off as being your fault. Regardless of any claims of arrogance, it requires humility to be able to honestly solicit the opinions of others in an effort to improve ones ability to communicate. It’s a process I think you could greatly benefit from.
Unsolicited advice, which you are free to ignore, of course. But there is a common factor in every single major brouhaha that you’ve been involved in involving the exact same style of tit-for-tat nastiness over the years.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a terrible one to critique your style of posting; I'm usually just glad to have someone as eloquent as you arguing on (usually) the same side.
The only thing that comes to mind is a matter of style. Some people post the same kind of things with such inevitability that it almost becomes an in-joke. Others vary more, but always seem to come back to the same familiar nooks, quirks, and dead ends, in style or tactic if not in substance.
It's hard to forget what people have said in other topics when they have come into conflict with us, but I think many of us could stand to give people more second (and third) chances and not drag baggage along with us; to allow people to withdraw with some grace and not to beat them over the head when they re-emerge.
I realize in some cases that might be very, very hard.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's too bad. I made a good point that might be helpful to you if you'd deign to listen.
I hereby nominate this post for Ironic Post of the Year.
Kat, you've never once, in the entire time I've been watching you post, admitted somebody might be right who was making a point contrary to your own. Not once. And I've been on this and other forums for years (hawkin on sake). I think one of the reasons you and Rabbit (and Mr Squicky, and Tom) butt heads so frequently is because you're both equally convinced of your ineffable rightness. The difference being that The Rabbit has a set of ideas that she is knowledgeable about, and within that set is almost dogmatic in her opinions. You, on the other hand, can be dogmatic about anything and everything you choose to discuss. Regardless of the validity of the point someone is making, if your mind is set against it there is no convincing you otherwise. I can only imagine your response if you had posted a similar thread and The Rabbit had tried to contribute in the same way you did. Of course, I have an extremely difficult time imagining you posting a thread along these lines, as it would imply an awareness of a need for change in your dealings with others that I honestly don't think you have.
I admire Rabbits ability to acknowledge a need for change, based on nothing more than a couple of contentious interactions that she could easily have written off as being your fault. Regardless of any claims of arrogance, it requires humility to be able to honestly solicit the opinions of others in an effort to improve ones ability to communicate. It’s a process I think you could greatly benefit from.
Unsolicited advice, which you are free to ignore, of course. But there is a common factor in every single major brouhaha that you’ve been involved in involving the exact same style of tit-for-tat nastiness over the years.
It is my personal opinion that this post would have been better left unwritten.
Kat has been polite in this thread and didn't ask for your opinion on her posting style.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit: I'd say you sometimes come off as opinionated, but then, don't we all?
What I find curious is that when compared to some other posters, I suddenly find your posting innocent and refreshing, full of kindness and a simple joy that harkens back to the halcyon days of youth.
If you can entice them to post in all your discussions, you'll look like an angel in comparison Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, you always seem the soul of wisdom and perspective to me. You speak the truth with plainness. I don't see anything wrong with your posting style. But then, I'm a female liberal Mormon engineer and scientist, like yourself, so maybe it's not surprising we communicate well.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Kat has been polite in this thread and didn't ask for your opinion on her posting style.
The operative words being "in this thread", right? Kat's dug her own grave on this issue, IMO. And this is the internet - you don't have to ask for an opinion to be given one. If you give out information about yourself, it's in the public domain to be discussed.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Kat has been polite in this thread and didn't ask for your opinion on her posting style.
The operative words being "in this thread", right? Kat's dug her own grave on this issue, IMO. And this is the internet - you don't have to ask for an opinion to be given one. If you give out information about yourself, it's in the public domain to be discussed.
Please stop. Also, please don't put words in my mouth.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ela: It is my personal opinion that this post would have been better left unwritten.
Kat has been polite in this thread and didn't ask for your opinion on her posting style.
I can understand that. I debated its appropriatness in this thread, or anywhere else. It might have been more appropriate in a thread not started by The Rabbit for a specific purpose.
However, I felt the politeness exhibited by Kat in this thread was barbed, at best, and it didn't really prohibit me from posting my opinion on her handling of this situation in particular and situations similar to it. I also don't think opinions about other posters styles only belong in threads started by those posters soliciting such opinions. It's certainly not a standard hatrack seems to hold most to.
I acknowledge it's unsolicited nature, and don't really expect anything from it. It might be read, it might not. It's just something that pops into my head on a regular basis when reading Kats posts dealing with people she disagrees with. And since I dont hate Kat, quite the contrary actually, and think she might benefit from hearing a relatively "unbiased" opinion on how she comes off in altercations, I don't see it as inappropriate.
We all hear unsolicited advice from others all the time. Most of us have no problem giving unsolicited advice and opinions. Receiving such is another matter entirely.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Kat has been polite in this thread and didn't ask for your opinion on her posting style.
The operative words being "in this thread", right? Kat's dug her own grave on this issue, IMO. And this is the internet - you don't have to ask for an opinion to be given one. If you give out information about yourself, it's in the public domain to be discussed.
Please stop. Also, please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not putting words in your mouth - that's simply my take on the issue. And I don't know what you want me to "stop." I'm not being nasty - just offering my commentary on what is a simple fact of the Hatrack community. Kat is sometimes not polite, and she's often not polite to The Rabbit. I'm sometimes not polite either. *shrug*
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Rabbit, you sometimes come across (to me, anyway) as being uninterested in having a two-way discussion about some topics. Certainly not always, and to be fair, I can understand the frustration of having an argument in your area of expertise with someone who is not putting in the effort to educate themselves. But it also can be frustrating when someone just makes a statement and doesn't really explain why.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a way to politely suggest someone "deign" to do anything?
Edit regarding the whole abrasive posting issue: while I'm sure a few people here can attest I've been pretty deliberately abrasive in the past, I took someone's* post to heart and started stopping myself before posting and waiting 5 minutes, then coming back and reading again. It's stopped at least half of my forum posts, and I think both I and the forums I participate in are better off because of it.
*I think it was Noemon's, but I'm not sure. So much for close to heart, huh?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I've thought very carefully how to say this. I am leaving aside personal issues.
I think that when one is used to getting respect for what they have written when they are the expert and have been careful, it becomes natural to believe that what one writes is worthy of respect by default. I think that sometimes you are not careful when you write and you are not always the expert on the topics you talk about, but you still expect that same kind of treatment you get when you do and when you are.
The solution is to either be as careful with posts as with your professional activities, or else not to expect the same kind of reception to your posts as to your professional writing.
Since some people think I need to respond, I've thought very carefully about what you've said. I considered drafting a response but think Mr. Card said it better than I can.
quote:You already heard my feelings about this, and quoted them. Only pinheads get upset about informality online.
We make typos. Sometimes they're funny and we get teased about them. But this is conversation, NOT formal essay writing.
Because the standards are high here people naturally try to look respectable. That's a good thing, but one requiring neither enforcement nor encouragement.
At the same time, people here are (or should be) tolerant of those whose spelling skills are not well-developed, those for whom English is a second language, or those whose native English is a dialect or subset of English with different rules. From what I've seen, that tolerance is pretty well-developed and widespread, and I appreciate it. I'd hate to have anyone think that their lack of mastery of grammar rules disqualified them from taking part as full members of this community.
Especially since I generally find that the people who are most fussy about grammar rules are usually the very ones who have no idea what they're talking about - the ones who have embraced pinheaded, invented "rules" like not ending sentences with prepositions, etc. I've been a copy editor - and a very good one. I see EVERY grammar mistake. And I invariably find them in the writings of people who presume to criticize the grammar of others.
NOBODY speaks or writes without error. You get into a sentence and forgot how you began, so you end it differently (and ungrammatically). So what? In conversation, we forgive things like that all the time. All I was saying was, online postings are treated like a branch of oral conversation - we are informal. We tolerate error as long as sense is clear and the intention is communication.
Let none feel unwelcome because they do not measure up to some arbitrary ruleset on formal language usage! EVERYBODY speaks the grammar of their own dialect PERFECTLY. (And yes, I am deliberately using the plural possessive THEIR with the formerly singular but now felt-as-plural "everybody" because it's more convenient and is long established in common usage.)
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Let's open this discussion up to everyone!
Go ahead. Critique mah postin' style. Or lack thereof.
You post way too much, and way too little. That is to say, a huge number of posts with no substance. Probably your one-liners are intended to zing. In fact they go flrrt, with a weak flabby sound.
:nods:
Precisely. In fact, I specifically engineer my posts to be empty of meaning and altogether milquetoast.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai is correct. When I referred to being careful, I was not talking about your grammar and spelling.
You mentioned that you have received accolades for formal logic. I am sure that whatever you wrote in order to receive such was more carefully thought out than your posts. For instance, your response to my post. Since there was, at most, ambiguity as to what I was referring to, your post would have made more sense if you either responded to the different possibilities or else asked to clarify the ambiguity before jumping to the wrong conclusion that I was talking about grammar. It not only contained an erroneous interpretation of my point, but also a quoted insult on top of it. I suspect that you wanted to use the quote badly enough that you didn't stop to consider whether it was appropriate. In general, patterns like this means your posts do not have the accuracy and quality you think they do.
That's okay that you aren't careful - heaven knows posting shouldn't be so much work - but it does mean that outside honors are not an accurate reflection of the work you do here. It doesn't matter what you write elsewhere; here, you don't listen and don't respond like a rigorous academic, and therefore should not expect to be treated like one.
posted
The key point in Mr Card's post wasn't the bit about grammar and spelling, it was this line.
quote:But this is conversation, NOT formal essay writing.
And that point applies equally well to all aspects of the discussion, not just the grammar and spelling. If you apply the same standard to evaluating ideas thrown out in an informal conversation that you would to a professional published essay, you're a pinhead.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:you don't listen and don't respond like a rigorous academic, and therefore should not expect to be treated like one.
Actually, I respond exactly like an academic involved in an informal dinner conversation and the level of respect I expect is what I would get from my peers when in that situation.
I don't think you have demonstrated an ability to judge this.
[Edited because discretion is the better part of valor}
If you want people to listen to your constructive criticism, you have to earn their respect -- something you haven't done.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it is exciting to be able to call me a pinhead, but I think it is getting in the way of your point.
That's fine that you don't want to take the care necessary to make your posts as logical and consistent as your professional work, but that of course means that you can't expect to be treated like a professional or academic. If you want to be confident like you are in your work, then you have to back it up. If you don't want to spend the effort to back it up, then don't expect to be treated like an expert.
You can choose one or the other, but you can't have both. I don't mind arrogance when it is substantiated.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you want to be confident like you are in your work, then you have to back it up. If you don't want to spend the effort to back it up, then don't expect to be treated like an expert.
The Rabbit spends a remarkable amount of effort to back up her statements, certainly more than one would averagely expect to receive with such consistency on a medium such as an internet forum.
The issue is not that she's substantiated, since she most certainly is, but that you choose not to regard her as such.
Your criteria for making this dismissal is tenuous, at best.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lobo, I edited that out immediately after I posted it because I decided it was in very poor taste and bad manners. I hoped I was able to catch it before anyone read it. Please do me the favor of deleting it from your post as well.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
And this is the internet - you don't have to ask for an opinion to be given one. If you give out information about yourself, it's in the public domain to be discussed.
