svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Hi all!
It's not too uncommon to see people get into "arguments" on the forums, occasionally it makes great discussion, clears the air, and I absolutely love those threads. Sometimes a moderator has to step in.
That's what this post is about. As you probably guessed from the click-baity thread title it's not about "ignorant" people, it's about you. I'm by no means a conversational scientist or expert in the field (book link for more). But I do see a set of frequent patterns that if you avoided might help keep the conversation about the science rather than about the people.
YOU YOU YOU
In the above paragraph, I used the YOU word twice. Did your hackles rise at all? After all, isn't this post supposed to be about dealing with others?
Did I just subtly call you ignorant? If you felt/thought anything like that it means you're human. When humans hear something, they invariable spin a miny-story about why someone said what they did; often this is based on their own biases (e.g., if I question climate science it's because I'm denier). It's a caveman thing about whether we run or fight and we do it in an instant often without realizing it
First, realize there's nothing anyone can do about the other person. There is no proof or elegant argument that will convince a die-hard flat-earther that the earth is round. In fact, it's been proven that arguing with people just reinforces their beliefs. That is, every argument you make reinforces your beliefs too.
Real change comes from within. So, sorry to say the only tangible thing for you to work with is you.
What? Still reading this? Guess you are looking for intellectual thought-provoking discussions that achieve clarity and a true meeting of the minds? Or, just bored and want to see how this train-wreck of a post ends? Me too, so I better get crackin.
The rest of this post is a series of what I think are examples of conversational pitfalls. Hope it helps!
You2
Thread exchanges don't typically switch into the fast lane to moderator hell immediately. Usually, it takes a few back-and-forth exchanges and typically the only ones that don't see it are those arguing. Here's an email I recently got on one that shows what your fellow members are thinking about your hard-typed thought-provoking points of view:
Now here's a secret everyone knows about others, but rarely themselves. Not always, but many times it's the word "you" in a post that triggers the nuclear chain reaction leading to ArmaModeratorgeddon. The word "you" should almost never appear in any post. It's always worthwhile to scan your post for that word and get rid of it.
The reason for this is because using that word alters the context from the issue to the person.
Quoting Whole Posts
To frequently people quote whole posts rather than the one objectional thing when they respond. The problem with this is it's not always clear what that one thing is and is interpreted to invalidate the whole post rather than the little bit you meant. That means they must defend the entire position, and again there can be escalation.
Asking the other person to do something
The first type of this is obvious as makes work for the other person, they'll just resent it and say so, which can start an escalation.
The other type is often meant as gentle instructions such as "please don't say such things" either because it's dangerous or wrong. But that's akin to someone telling you what to say or think...it's never going to go over well. If it really is dangerous, just hit the report button.
As this is meant as FAQ thread it is closed for reply, but it you have an example of how things can go wrong and ways to avoid it email me and I'll add it in.
As I see things sending threads off the deep end I'll try to do likewise.
It's not too uncommon to see people get into "arguments" on the forums, occasionally it makes great discussion, clears the air, and I absolutely love those threads. Sometimes a moderator has to step in.
That's what this post is about. As you probably guessed from the click-baity thread title it's not about "ignorant" people, it's about you. I'm by no means a conversational scientist or expert in the field (book link for more). But I do see a set of frequent patterns that if you avoided might help keep the conversation about the science rather than about the people.
YOU YOU YOU
In the above paragraph, I used the YOU word twice. Did your hackles rise at all? After all, isn't this post supposed to be about dealing with others?
Did I just subtly call you ignorant? If you felt/thought anything like that it means you're human. When humans hear something, they invariable spin a miny-story about why someone said what they did; often this is based on their own biases (e.g., if I question climate science it's because I'm denier). It's a caveman thing about whether we run or fight and we do it in an instant often without realizing it
First, realize there's nothing anyone can do about the other person. There is no proof or elegant argument that will convince a die-hard flat-earther that the earth is round. In fact, it's been proven that arguing with people just reinforces their beliefs. That is, every argument you make reinforces your beliefs too.
Real change comes from within. So, sorry to say the only tangible thing for you to work with is you.
What? Still reading this? Guess you are looking for intellectual thought-provoking discussions that achieve clarity and a true meeting of the minds? Or, just bored and want to see how this train-wreck of a post ends? Me too, so I better get crackin.
The rest of this post is a series of what I think are examples of conversational pitfalls. Hope it helps!
You2
Thread exchanges don't typically switch into the fast lane to moderator hell immediately. Usually, it takes a few back-and-forth exchanges and typically the only ones that don't see it are those arguing. Here's an email I recently got on one that shows what your fellow members are thinking about your hard-typed thought-provoking points of view:
I read that train wreck thread when it was first posted. I considered posting with just, but decided to lurk and just laugh. That thread was a detriment to keyboard life cycles.
Now here's a secret everyone knows about others, but rarely themselves. Not always, but many times it's the word "you" in a post that triggers the nuclear chain reaction leading to ArmaModeratorgeddon. The word "you" should almost never appear in any post. It's always worthwhile to scan your post for that word and get rid of it.
The reason for this is because using that word alters the context from the issue to the person.
That's pretty innocent right? Nope. First off, you're telling them what to do, it has nothing to do with the issue. Changing it to "...from the diagram I see..." changes the context back to the issue and that you're stating your viewpoint. It only takes that one starting offense to give rise to the escalation....if you look...
Quoting Whole Posts
To frequently people quote whole posts rather than the one objectional thing when they respond. The problem with this is it's not always clear what that one thing is and is interpreted to invalidate the whole post rather than the little bit you meant. That means they must defend the entire position, and again there can be escalation.
Asking the other person to do something
The first type of this is obvious as makes work for the other person, they'll just resent it and say so, which can start an escalation.
The other type is often meant as gentle instructions such as "please don't say such things" either because it's dangerous or wrong. But that's akin to someone telling you what to say or think...it's never going to go over well. If it really is dangerous, just hit the report button.
As an expert in the field with over 40 years experience… That's like the government saying we're here to help you. It's a red cape to a bull. They're already arguing because they know they're right...it's just icing on the cake prove you wrong. This total disdain isn't new as some think, this quote from Asimov shown to the right is from the late '70s I think. It's also not strictly American, I've seen similar disdain from other countries. Of course, hard to tell if it's just the individuals or culture of the country. For example, if we all judged a country by kindness of the poster alone there are several I find myself wanting to visit. |
Arguing Arguing on the forums can be a form of conceit. Everyone feels entitled to their opinion and too often it gets stated regardless of believability or authenticity. This in an age with rampant fake news. Even things we believe to be universal truths aren't always what we think they are. So what should you do when the other person is stating something patently wrong? I think the best we can do is cite the reference we believe to be true. We already know there's little chance to convince them. As a learning site, the purpose of your dialog should be to instill clarity for the readers of the thread that come afterward. You can warn them about the consequences, but you can't keep them from burning their place down. |
As this is meant as FAQ thread it is closed for reply, but it you have an example of how things can go wrong and ways to avoid it email me and I'll add it in.
As I see things sending threads off the deep end I'll try to do likewise.
Last edited: