How (not) to discuss

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: I think the OP was trying to set forth some guidelines for more productive and less acrimonious discussions on here. Like prog these are just guidelines and not hard and fast rules where you will be sent to progarchives jail if you disobey one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood

Edited by Lewian - October 29 2023 at 18:17

Lewian wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood

siLLy puPPy wrote: Awwww. I was hoping you were trying to tell us the secrets to the universe and the ingredients of Hostess cupcakes in code. I am sooooooooo disappointed

Psychedelic Paul wrote: progaardvark wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: Awwww. I was hoping you were trying to tell us the secrets to the universe and the ingredients of Hostess cupcakes in code. I am sooooooooo disappointed  Before Gorman Thomas had a beard, napkins were ionic and made out of peat bog. Sal Bando will bring you your airplane wheels. Thanks for the interview. I was disappointed to read that your "gibberish" doesn't contain a secret hidden code after spending hours trying to decipher it.

OK, I know that I don't always cover myself in glory regarding discussion behaviour, but anyway I can't get around the fact that here a guy who told me to f... off and called my a liar in PMs suggests a set of discussion rules starting with with "Be polite" (there's more irony than was visible to the naked eye just looking at this thread). Of course he will say I started it (you can check in the Waters Time Redux thread; on top of that I had sent an admittedly not totally nice PM complaining about having been misinterpreted based on very thin information that he had as I didn't want to continue with OT in that thread), but still...

Looking at my inbox and how the Ukraine discussion went, I do wonder whether here somebody just wants to *portray* himself as genuinely interested in open and constructive exchange - whether this really is his agenda I'm not so sure. I certainly wouldn't expect somebody who has this interest to tell people who come up with thoughts that question his reasoning to f... off.

Now I may be wrong about this; Mike's interest in how (not) to discuss (even when it comes to open and constructive exchange rather than manipulating people into believing something) may be genuine indeed, and at least part of the rules may be an admonition to himself and involve some self reflection. But by and large it doesn't really sound like that, does it? Mike starts by being aware that apparently some people have a problem with him in these discussions, but don't expect him to say sorry or "I was wrong" about anything. Rather another way to read the rules is that he tries to tell others how they get him wrong. He calls these "tips" that he apparently feels qualified to give other people (admittedly using imperative mood in such tips isn't a big issue so I stop going on about this). Well. I guess it may be a mix of both and ultimately I can't tell, but it rubs me up the wrong way. Which is a pity because the thread topic itself is interesting and worthwhile.

So I will add some not necessarily coherent thoughts to this anyway.

(1) A major principle of mine is that we can't convince other people; people can only convince themselves.

(2) This in particular means that if there's any "winner" in open and constructive exchange, it is the person who is able to change their own views. This is a proper achievement of that person, not of the person whose position (or rather parts of it) is adopted, although this person may have helped, to some extent. I've got to say I am often not good at changing my views in discussions. I'm not proud of it. (I do acknowledge at this point arguments and "evidence" Mike and others have presented to underline points of view I don't hold; I do learn from this.)

(3) There is no objective threshold for "insulting" and "becoming personal" in discussions. Something that may not be intended as insult can be seen as insult; potentially something may have been stated as insult unconsciously even if the person who said it was not consciously aware of it. Also even without any bad intentions (conscious or unconscious) on one side there can be good reasons to perceive something as insult on the other side (for example because of cultural differences). Also arguing against an opinion held by somebody else can very easily involve personal attack, potentially in a rather subtle and often unconscious manner. People who have no personal involvement may not normally be the best qualified people to discuss something, but people who are personally involved may react in a personal manner.

(4) Instead of telling others "don't insult, don't become personal, don't take offense", I'd like to ask myself, "what has happened here?" and "how could what I have done have led to another person feeling insulted or personally attacked?" - if I didn't intend it, there is something to learn for me.

Easy Money wrote: F the rules. FREE SPEECH!!!

Lewian wrote: OK, I know that I don't always cover myself in glory regarding discussion behaviour, but anyway I can't get around the fact that here a guy who told me to f... off and called my a liar in PMs suggests a set of discussion rules starting with with "Be polite" (there's more irony than was visible to the naked eye just looking at this thread). Of course he will say I started it (you can check in the Waters Time Redux thread; on top of that I had sent an admittedly not totally nice PM complaining about having been misinterpreted based on very thin information that he had as I didn't want to continue with OT in that thread), but still...