Forums > Social Discussion > Jumping to conclusions vs. asking for clarification
Login/Join to ParticipateNYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
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.
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.]
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
i think it's partly due to the fact that people don't always read the entire thread/post before writing the reply (like I just did), so often completely miss the point
i think it's partly due to the fact that people don't always read the entire thread/post before writing the reply (like I just did), so often completely miss the point
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Written by: NYCThis 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.
"You have no proof that apples are any better than any other fruit unless you can site proven research posted elsewhere on the internet."
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
old hand
725 posts
Location: Chester, UK
725 posts
Location: Chester, UK
Posted:
Banana's are clearly better.
And they are more fun to spell
Banana's are clearly better.
And they are more fun to spell
Spoiling Christmas for small children since 2003.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
My granddad used to be a fruit distributer in Leith so my whole family was brought up with an intimate knowledge about fruits. Bananas are indeed better than apples but not as nice as oranges in my opinion.
My granddad used to be a fruit distributer in Leith so my whole family was brought up with an intimate knowledge about fruits. Bananas are indeed better than apples but not as nice as oranges in my opinion.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Sparkely arty Mormon rainbow fairy
933 posts
Location: infront of you, United Kingdom
Sparkely arty Mormon rainbow fairy
933 posts
Location: infront of you, United Kingdom
Posted:
Mangos are tropical and juicy, clearly the better fruit.
Mangos are tropical and juicy, clearly the better fruit.
Property of Fine_Rabid_Dog
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
bananas are more versitile, you can eat them without getting your hands sticky. Plus they're better in sundaes
bananas are more versitile, you can eat them without getting your hands sticky. Plus they're better in sundaes
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
Posted:
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
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................ 
BRONZE Member
Sparkely arty Mormon rainbow fairy
933 posts
Location: infront of you, United Kingdom
Sparkely arty Mormon rainbow fairy
933 posts
Location: infront of you, United Kingdom
Posted:
But they taste so borring, Mangos are packed with flavor
Written by: flid
bananas are more versitile, you can eat them without getting your hands sticky. Plus they're better in sundaes
But they taste so borring, Mangos are packed with flavor
Property of Fine_Rabid_Dog
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I was just experimenting with the new concept of 'informed debate' using the apple statement used NYC provided as an example as well as suggesting that the statement-
"You have no proof that apples are any better than any other fruit unless you can site proven research posted elsewhere on the internet."
-was in fact technically correct. I don't think we are going to get a full blown fruit debate going here (but if you want one please start a new thread ASAP) but rather a nice piece of light hearted posting.
edit:This reply is in response to Fluffy Napalm Fairy's post, darn the high speed of posting.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1116192557)
I was just experimenting with the new concept of 'informed debate' using the apple statement used NYC provided as an example as well as suggesting that the statement-
"You have no proof that apples are any better than any other fruit unless you can site proven research posted elsewhere on the internet."
-was in fact technically correct. I don't think we are going to get a full blown fruit debate going here (but if you want one please start a new thread ASAP) but rather a nice piece of light hearted posting.
edit:This reply is in response to Fluffy Napalm Fairy's post, darn the high speed of posting.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1116192557)
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
[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.
EDITED_BY: NYC (1116192947)
[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.
EDITED_BY: NYC (1116192947)
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
Posted:
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*
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................
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I feel your frustration NYC, having seen a fair few of your posts being replied to by people who clearly have added their own assumptions to what you've said, and then replied to those.
Absolutely.
In many of the recent threads on safety issues we can see a very common response to posts that condine safety measures being answered with something like 'it's impossible to be 100% safe' when the original poster has never in any way suggested that they ever thought it was.
The thing is that 'social discussion' is for serious discussion and some of the requirements for that are-
* reading the posts before replying
* in doing so, giving some credit for intelligence to the poster you're replying to- most of the regular posters here are fairly intelligent, and I personally find it a little insulting when someone replies to a point I've made by interpreting it in such a way as to suggest I'm an idiot (an example being replying to my suggestion that, in a given scenario, it's good to minimise risk, by pointing out that risk cannot be eliminated 100%- as if I was so stupid as to not realise this).
* ideally, reading the whole thread before getting involved (I understand that this is not always practical in a long thread, hence 'ideally', but, in the case of a 1 or 2 page thread, it's not too much to ask).
---------------
I've also noticed that we're getting a few refugees from 'chat' in here who seem to either be a bit critical of what they see as a lack of humour, or who insist on posting attempts at humour that would be more at home in chat.
I get the feeling that they're looking for some kind of middle ground ie they find 'discussion' a bit too serious, yet they still come here, perhaps suggesting that they're starting to find the high level of inanity in 'chat' a bit dull?
Perhaps we need a third 'social' board for semi-serious discussion?
I feel your frustration NYC, having seen a fair few of your posts being replied to by people who clearly have added their own assumptions to what you've said, and then replied to those.
Written by: NYC
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.
Absolutely.
In many of the recent threads on safety issues we can see a very common response to posts that condine safety measures being answered with something like 'it's impossible to be 100% safe' when the original poster has never in any way suggested that they ever thought it was.
The thing is that 'social discussion' is for serious discussion and some of the requirements for that are-
* reading the posts before replying
* in doing so, giving some credit for intelligence to the poster you're replying to- most of the regular posters here are fairly intelligent, and I personally find it a little insulting when someone replies to a point I've made by interpreting it in such a way as to suggest I'm an idiot (an example being replying to my suggestion that, in a given scenario, it's good to minimise risk, by pointing out that risk cannot be eliminated 100%- as if I was so stupid as to not realise this).
* ideally, reading the whole thread before getting involved (I understand that this is not always practical in a long thread, hence 'ideally', but, in the case of a 1 or 2 page thread, it's not too much to ask).
---------------
I've also noticed that we're getting a few refugees from 'chat' in here who seem to either be a bit critical of what they see as a lack of humour, or who insist on posting attempts at humour that would be more at home in chat.
I get the feeling that they're looking for some kind of middle ground ie they find 'discussion' a bit too serious, yet they still come here, perhaps suggesting that they're starting to find the high level of inanity in 'chat' a bit dull?
Perhaps we need a third 'social' board for semi-serious discussion?
"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!
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
Posted:
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.
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................
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
pm on its way NYC
(well, within a day or so, so no baited breath in the Big Orange, please)
R
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)
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
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?
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!
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
Posted:
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....)
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................
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
Posted:
'division' - again - was not used as a negative emmotive word. Simply that the board was divided (in the fundamentaly and generally understood sense of the word) into more than one social section. I hope that is clearer.
'division' - again - was not used as a negative emmotive word. Simply that the board was divided (in the fundamentaly and generally understood sense of the word) into more than one social section. I hope that is clearer.
Geologists do it in the dirt................
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
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.
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
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
I agree completely with what NYC, OWD, and Pele have said.
I would also like to add that I think sometimes people takes posts as being a personal attack against them...i.e. person B replies to something person A said. Person B just meant it as a comment or addition to the discussion, but person A took the post as a personnal attack on them.
I have seen this happen on several occassions, and was wondering if there was a good way about making the post more clear?
I agree completely with what NYC, OWD, and Pele have said.
I would also like to add that I think sometimes people takes posts as being a personal attack against them...i.e. person B replies to something person A said. Person B just meant it as a comment or addition to the discussion, but person A took the post as a personnal attack on them.
I have seen this happen on several occassions, and was wondering if there was a good way about making the post more clear?
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
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.
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.]
Froggie ... Ribbit !!!
4,224 posts
Location: Back in Paris... for now !
4,224 posts
Location: Back in Paris... for now !
Posted:
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
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 !!!"
Froggie ... Ribbit !!!
4,224 posts
Location: Back in Paris... for now !
4,224 posts
Location: Back in Paris... for now !
Posted:
Call... not clal...
what is clal anyway ?
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 !!!"
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
why has everyone stopped talking about apples?
why has everyone stopped talking about apples?
ture na sig
SILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
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
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.
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
Posted:
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......)
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................
BRONZE Member
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
Posted:
so many good points i don't think i could add to them. i love a good debate and it annoys me when you get people out there who are just out to cause arguments, so all i do is ignor them. not very enlighting i know but it works.
so many good points i don't think i could add to them. i love a good debate and it annoys me when you get people out there who are just out to cause arguments, so all i do is ignor them. not very enlighting i know but it works.
Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
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!"
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.]
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
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
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
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
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.
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
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
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
3,638 posts
Location: Brum / Dorset / Fairy Land
Posted:
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?
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
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................
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [jumping conclusion * v * asking clarification] we found the following existing topics.
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com