Forums > Social Discussion > Jumping to conclusions vs. asking for clarification

It seems to me that all internet discussions seem to have a similar flaw. Since there are only a finite number of words within a post, people will tend to put words in them that are not there. I'm finding a bit of an epidemic recently in both bulletin boards as well as email conversations.

I'm not talking of any particular moments, people, or situations. It just seems that people are more interested in throwing knockout punches than understanding who or what they're fighting.

People tend to react emotionally (as is being discussed in Ben's thread) but also, people are reacting to nonexistent assumptions.

It seems that all too often, a statement like:
"I like apples."

Is being met with:
"What's wrong with oranges?"
or
"You have no proof that apples are any better than any other fruit unless you can site proven research posted elsewhere on the internet."
or
"My grandmother died 13 months after eating an apple you [censored]."
or
"Since apples are the only thing you like you must live in a very lonely hollow world."
or
"You are brainwashed by the apple industry and I pity your ignorance of the way things really work."
or
"Your constant fascist anti-pear propaganda makes you worse than Hitler."
{OK, I'm exaggerating a bit... but I think some of these may sound more familiar than we'd like to admit. }

Rather than:
"How do you feel about oranges?"
"What makes you like apples?"
"I've never really liked apples, can you explain what context you've enjoyed apples the most so that I may understand?"

If there is a grey area, people tend to fill it in with whatever fills their personal or political agenda rather than asking followup questions to clarify the grey. It's way easier to ask a simple clarifying question than spending pages attacking only to find that you never really understood the person's point in the first place.

The most dangerous and irresponsible words to add to someone ELSE'S argument are words like "always" "never" "worst" "best" if they were not originally there. It's not only annoying, it's unethical.

And it's certainly rude and infuriating to purposely change someone else's argument just to prove your own. Obviously, misunderstandings will occur, but when they do, it's best to clarify first rather than just punch your way out. If I find someone's argument interesting but unclear in the future, I'll try to get clarification from them before jumping to conclusions.

I hope that others will do the same.

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Written by: NYC
"You have no proof that apples are any better than any other fruit unless you can site proven research posted elsewhere on the internet."

This one is technically true, but I suppose it would be more valid if the initial statement was something like "apples are better than oranges". Which is obviously blatently untrue since oranges are clearly a superier fruit in all respects.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Banana's are clearly better.

And they are more fun to spell

Spoiling Christmas for small children since 2003.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Property of Fine_Rabid_Dog

Personally I think endles threads about 'i like apples' are dull. I don't really mind if you like apples or not! Go tell someone in real life if you like apples.

If you're starting a discussion as to whether apples are good, bad, ugly, sweet, whether people like them or not, or whatever then that's fine. But posting something that you do not want to be discussed, and then complaining when people interpret it and discuss it is a bit foolish.

NYC - this is not personally aimed at you I am just entering my thoughts and the topic happened to be started by you

Geologists do it in the dirt................

Property of Fine_Rabid_Dog

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

[Edit: Yeah, this was in response to FNF's also.]



I think there are times at which observations are appropriate.



And there are times when various aspects of a discussion can be looked at.



Not everything that can be discussed should be discussed until one single right is resolved. Some things are just interesting to note in discussion. Not everything is a problem to be solved, some things are just experiences to be shared. Actually, we're actually doing a nice role reversal on male/female interactions.



(Oops... that's a nice point for someone else to derail this... um nevermind!)



When people say something like "I find piano soothing" and are met with... "So what you're saying is that everyone who..." it can become overwhelming.

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Yep - I can totally see that and agree entirely that constantly looking for a confrontation is indeed very tiresome.

But surely if you write "I find piano soothing" on a public internet message board some people are going to respond with "I don't" some will respond with "why" and some with the reactionary "so what you're saying.........". Some people are not as reasonable as others. If they were there would never be irrational arguments! (An ideal world I know.........)

Incidentally, and this is to you NYC, and I know it us a mucho big can of worms to be opening, but here goes anyway - *gulp*.....

........How is saying "I like apples" and being met with the response "so you're saying that all other fruit are inferior" different from "I like person X" and being met with "so what you're saying is that everyone else isn't likable" other than the fact that apples (as far as we know) cannot read this? (if that is the reason you percieve a difference then I do accept it btw....)

*runs away quickly pausing to hug NYC*

Geologists do it in the dirt................

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

No more division of communication please! If you see people reacting in a way you do not like it is possible to just ignore it.

Geologists do it in the dirt................

pm on its way NYC
(well, within a day or so, so no baited breath in the Big Orange, please)

R

Holistic Spinner (I hope)

Written by: fluffy napalm fairy

No more division of communication please! If you see people reacting in a way you do not like it is possible to just ignore it.



It's also possible to not ignore it and comment on it instead

(and this has often lead to greater understanding and basically made HOP a better place IMO).

By 'division of communication' do you mean the split of 'social' into 'discussion' and 'chat'?

If so, I have to say that I didn't see that as a 'division', quite the opposite in fact. The board was divided because of some people getting annoyed by what they saw as serious threads being hijacked by silly, and sometimes cliquey, comments.

So I see it as a successful solution to a division.

Do some people still feel that splitting the board was a bad idea?

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

No. I do not feel it was/is a bad idea! I just think that if people do not understand that 'social discussion' is for serious discussions and that 'social chat' is for friendly chatter then further partitioning is not going to solve that. If people are 'corrupting' serious threads with banter then as a participent in the original discussion you have two options - a) spend time and energy attempting to make it clearer to the 'offender' that their input is perhaps not in the 'right' vain, or b) skip over it as it is not a useful contribution.



(words with '....' have them simply as they are the most easily understood - I understand they are emmotive words and don't mean to call people who are innocently misunderstanding the current 'division' of the board as offenders etc....)

Geologists do it in the dirt................

Geologists do it in the dirt................

There are alot of interesting points made here.
I agree, NYC, that conditionals must apply (no "always", "never", etc)

I have also noticed a tendancy that when someone does ask a question for clarification two things have happened, not always, which create more tension...

1. The person who posted "I like apples." goes on the defense and says "They are good for you, do I need another reason? Why do you need to know?" and a heated discourse occurs

OR

2. "Why do you like apples?" gets responded to with "What more do I need to say? Why can't you understand what I wrote? I like apples. Let me say it one more time..I like apples. Why are you attacking me because I put up an opinion?" No clarity or real answer is offered.

Over the years I have seen both sides degrade into this.
I have learned to share an opinion and then back out of alot of conversations. I agree with both FNF and OWD. I think that there are times when ignoring something (or more to the point, someone) is best and there are times when I feel that diplomacy and changes in perspective reasoning must be tried.
But then there are some times where I swear there is a wall between the two sides. Very often I *have* seen questions asked, and all too often, completely ignored and a repetitious response offered with no clarity or even examples.

It is a two way street that I do not believe can be solely the responsibility of those responding. Yes, sometimes people react to things they read into statements, holy cow do they, I agree.
And sometimes we do not present something as simply as we feel we do. That is the joy and the bane of the written medium, *everything* is up to interpretation, and those interpretations are based on personal experience and current emotional perspective.

We are emotional creatures and therefore we are prone, especially in a medium which grants such anonymity and security in that knowledge, to react as such. In making a statement which will cause emotion, we need to then expect people to respond accordingly, which can get confusing and even irrational. Very often I find that the posters do not anticipate adverse reactions, and debates are often created out of a feeling of shock and a lack of concise wording, as well as the perceived need to be defensive instead of explanatory, of which it is difficult, I feel, to do both at the same time.

Honestly, I agree OWD. I think splitting the bb was one of the best things HoP has done. I do not think splitting it further will benefit anyone and simply add confusion however.

Just my thoughts.

Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK

Written by: fluffy napalm fairy

........How is saying "I like apples" and being met with the response "so you're saying that all other fruit are inferior" different from "I like person X" and being met with "so what you're saying is that everyone else isn't likable" other than the fact that apples (as far as we know) cannot read this?



I agree completely. I'd never criticize anyone for posting things or people that they liked for that reason alone. I never have and I never would because I don't believe that there's anything wrong with it.

Perhaps conclusions were jumped to without clarification being established.

I also strongly agree with the idea of making a post more clear as to who certain posts refer to. I think that less scrupulous people will intentionally provoke without clarity so that they can deny, cut and run.

I certainly have misinterpreted innocent remarks as attacks, and have been hit with deliberate attacks disguised as innocent remarks (by some who have later acknowleged it).

Perhaps twisting someone else's words is just as malicious as PURPOSELY being vague in a malicious manner.

And I do think that splitting the board Chat/Discussion was the best thing since ballchain.

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Ball chain is overrated

What an interesting thread... I must say I enjoyed reading all posts and it got me thinking some more...

When i joined the cancer center to volunteer as a massage therapist 90% of my training was about teaching us that we are generally poor listeners and give us pointers about how to better listen... one of them is to indeed not jump to conclusions, ask for clarifications, to not interrupt all the time, to not always try to come up with a solution, but rather with more questions sometimes, to listen fully and not start thinking already of your reply before you have finished reading/listening,...

I remember also when i joined Hop (4 years ago OH my god), Adam Rice really taught me a lot about being careful when you post to always remember that the online factor adds just more chances to have misunderstandings and that anything posted comes ccross multiplied by 10 in intensity...

and also... some people push our buttons, often it is a good time to pause and look inside to check how we are today... is this post shaking me because i have had a bad day in which case maybe i should go for a walk and then participate into the discussion later ... or write my post, then sleep on it and see how it seems tomorrow...

also... ask my friend to read the post and see what they read/ understand in it just to doubl check i am not projecting...

Mindf you this coming from me is just what i tell myself all the time because i am so passionate , opinionated and at the same time I tend to sometimes avoid heated conflicted discussions because i do not want to hurt or get hurt or be irrational, sometimes missing on a good discussion ...

I like how you NYC or Domfor example can participate in a discussion and be quite strongly opinionated but at the same time remain objective most of the time and capable of not letting it get to you...

I guess in the end to me, It is all about remaining opened and kind to others and humble about our opinions and the fact that the world has a whole rainbow to offer...

shine on
cass

PS: get offline NYC i am going to clal you now

"I want brown bread... no, that is diesel oil..."
"So I was raised in Europe, where History comes from ..."
"NON !!! La Plume de mon oncle n est pas Bingibangibungi !!!"

Call... not clal...

what is clal anyway ?

"I want brown bread... no, that is diesel oil..."
"So I was raised in Europe, where History comes from ..."
"NON !!! La Plume de mon oncle n est pas Bingibangibungi !!!"

ture na sig

Probably thinking about apples instead.



As in 'Whatever you do, don't think about apples!'.



I can think of more interesting things to use as poi, although having something to eat whilst performing has it's merits.



I can't think of any other fruit that are as immediately edible whilst poi.



A lot of other fruit need to be peeled to be edible, and are more likely to fall off in that state, like oranges and bananas, or are too small to continue with a performance after that first sneaky bite.



And putting apples on the end of a staff conveniently cores them too

You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Written by:
I guess in the end to me, It is all about remaining opened and kind to others and humble about our opinions and the fact that the world has a whole rainbow to offer...





This means so much The world does have a whole rainbow to offer and sometimes the colours are not going to be ones you like but that's ok too

Good thread (and I love apples almost as much as strawberries......)

Geologists do it in the dirt................

Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows

In an interesting aside, I've noticed advertisers here in the US using the twisting word tactics that we've been talking about.

"Product X says that they work the best but OUR product is the best selling product in America."

Perhaps because that statement sells more product than "Even though product X does work the best more people are fooled into buying our product and you should be too!"

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Yes NYC and others, some of us plead guilty to having an opinion, and participating in the lively exchange of ideas and views on topics which are often spiced with light teasing, repartee and other banter that makes for a lively and interesting discussion



great advice cass

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

the way we communicate ideas is a very complex matter.



"i like apples" by itself creates no negative connotations but with more context, it could very easily be turned into a suggestive comment.



if you are interested in this in general, its worth having a read up on nlp ('neuro-linguistic programming' i think).



it shows how the words we choose to say something at a particular time/to a particular person can have a very large effect on how it is perceived by the reader/listener.



Written by: fluffy napalm fairy


Incidentally, and this is to you NYC, and I know it us a mucho big can of worms to be opening, but here goes anyway - *gulp*.....



........How is saying "I like apples" and being met with the response "so you're saying that all other fruit are inferior" different from "I like person X" and being met with "so what you're saying is that everyone else isn't likable" other than the fact that apples (as far as we know) cannot read this? (if that is the reason you percieve a difference then I do accept it btw....)





i would say there is little difference other than the one you posted there fairy.



but i think it is less the individual comment and more how and when those comments are given that can create a feeling of exclusion.



if someone starts a thread titled "the official tasty fruit thread" and it quickly emerges that only the citrus fruits, with their supple, sun-ripened flesh, and their tight, brightly coloured skin were being listed, then it could very well be seen by as exclusionary to apples.



similarly, if someone starts a thread called "beautiful apples" where everyone lists what kind of apples they like the most and no red apple is ever mentioned it creates the suggestion of exclusion.



"i like apples" says very little.

"out of all the fruit, i like apples best" has a suggestion of ranking.



the difference here is the creation of a set before the statement which makes it a statement of preference rather than an independent statement.





on the general point of the thread, i think discussions online often become very convoluted and as such, it can become hard to pin down someone's main point.



but challenging an extrapolation of another person's argument is not only annoying to both the person you are arguing with and the people following the discussion, it is a complete waste of time.



i think that concise arguments that only clarify or elaborate on your own opinions should be what posters in the social discussion should endeavour to maintain.





this is not the easiest thing in the world to do however, otherwise everyone would want to be a politician





cole. x

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Hold on. Does that mean that I shouldn't (ideally) take a part of what you are saying and voice my opinions about it? It will get very confusing as to which part of the discussion posts relate to without extrapolation of parts other people's arguments/views.

I'm confused - I've read it a few times and still think I may have mis-interpreted what you are saying? help?

Written by:
similarly, if someone starts a thread called "beautiful apples" where everyone lists what kind of apples they like the most and no red apple is ever mentioned it creates the suggestion of exclusion.



I don't think this is the case. Bearing in mind that we are just a group of random people (which we all must remember), all it suggests is that nobody who has yet contributed has liked red apples most, or that they had forgotten about red apples.

Is that the sort of extrapolation that you are aiming to avoid? For without it how can there be a discussion?

Additionally, I still think that we would also do well to remember that we do not all have equal levels of reasoning, rationality and awareness. That's just life

Geologists do it in the dirt................