Thread: An echo chamber of like-minded individuals Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030527
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There is a fairly common dynamic within communities, both in real life and those who post on internet discussion forums. That is, the community develops around some central core ideas, with high quality discussion and interactions between people who, though diverse, often have a lot of shared understanding of the way things are.
Then, that community is disturbed by someone coming in from outside who has views that are significantly different from the central core ideas, views that are challenging and uncomfortable. Reactions then vary, in a manner that IMO says more about the community than the newcomer.
In some cases the newcomer is rapidly ejected from the community - either through official sanction, or simple lack of welcome from the members of that community. Several people here have experienced that online, joining discussion sites where the moderators pounce on the first suggestion that you may not accept the party line - politely suggesting that the Bible may not be literally true on some point, or that the worship songs of [insert newest fashionable song-writer] have no theological depth. Or, where members launch into a tirade of personal attacks for daring to suggest that they are wrong (often resulting in a lot of work for leaders troubled by the actions of part of their community).
Sometimes after a rocky start the newcomer sticks around the community, always on the edge, known by all as "that guy with really odd views on ..."
In most cases, we end up observing communities of more-or-less like-minded people who happily talk to each other. But react against other-minded individuals who cross their path. Does it have to be thus? Can't things run along a different, better, path?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
[Oh, and just to add. This is Purgatory, so although we may all think of particular individuals it would be much better if we don't end up talking about particular, named individuals.]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I think that unless disturbed by someone with radically different views, we settle into mediocrity. It doesn't mean that we must agree with them, but it forces us to rethink our own views and to reframe our arguments.
I also think that people with radically different views may deliberately choose places to air them where they will make an impact. They don't necessarily want to be embraced, but they do usually want to be heard.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
I think it's tough to see past your own prejudices and in-group norms.
That said, context matters. If you say "X is dangerous nonsense." (where X is some political idea) in some general space you may well get disagreement but not necessarily anything more.
If you say "X is dangerous nonsense and a betrayal of true socialism." and you do so on a forum of Labour supporters, many of whom consider themselves thoroughly socialist... well you'll get a tougher reaction.
I think acknowledging that you speak from an outsider position can go a long way. Claiming to speak from the heart of the group identity when you're taking a minority opinion in the group will not go down well.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I don't like echo chambers, as I've said before.
But in the case of certain individuals--
There are those who come from way out in left field as far as the community goes, and that's fine. But there are also those who deliberately show up with the intention of trolling the community. It can be hard to tell the difference, and I try not to jump to conclusions--but when someone shows every indication of being a troll (as opposed to an honest disagree-er), IMHO it's not surprising when the community decides to roast him/her.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I am going to presume " trolling" is going to include disrepectful or rude behavior along the way-- the troll is acting against stated values and etiquette of the group in question.
Of course, addressing that in a fashion that instructs the new person how things work makes perfect sense. If, however, the people doing the criticizing are acting out behavior that conflicts with the values and etiquette they claim to be defending, that makes no sense.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
The cognitive dissonance arising from a recognition that my viewpoint is wrong, or even not the only possible POVis always uncomfortable. It is likely to trigger some level of fight or flight reaction. That may be exacerbated by logically unrelated factors, like how some other person whose views I value has responded to the same issue.
However, I think much depends on how the different POV is put forward. (Although some views may be hot button topics for particular communities.) In general an eirenic approach, and a willingness to accept that I might be wrong is more likely to gain me a hearing than some kind of pronouncement from on high, or "here I am with the newest, most up to date, and obviously right answer".
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Yes, and we get pulled up on it by hosts when we do. Which is meet, right and salutary.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
The cognitive dissonance arising from a recognition that my viewpoint is wrong, or even not the only possible POVis always uncomfortable. It is likely to trigger some level of fight or flight reaction. That may be exacerbated by logically unrelated factors, like how some other person whose views I value has responded to the same issue.
Exactly right. Then add the fairly predictable result of when five or six people who all agree with each other are all experiencing this situation together.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Rereading our various written guidelines and explanations, as one does as a host, I was recently reminded that at the top of the board here it says quote:
All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged
The onus is on the outliers to stand being challenged; the onus on the regulars is to continue to make the outliers welcome however divergent their views may be from the aggregate.
It's a bit like church really.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I have to say that you'd only describe this website as being full of like-minded individuals if the individuals you had in mind are those who enjoy having intense rows about their differences. In almost every other way this community is about as divergent as it is possible to get.
A new person here with a wild view is highly unlikely to be ejected or experience a lack of welcome simply because they have a wild view. About the only time they'll actually be ejected is if they behave in a way that is disruptive.
And so it is in the rest of life. A person who joins a tennis club with an unorthodox back-hand and wild views on second serves isn't likely to be ejected. A person who joins a tennis club with the intention of banning tennis and making everyone play lawn bowls is. The difference between the latter and the former is that the latter lacks even a basic amount of respect for the underlying rules of the thing they've joined.
In a church context, as we've discussed many times, there are many different people in many different churches who have bent various rules and norms to breaking point. But someone coming in and doing something - superficially similar - gets short shrift.
I remember as a child being in a church service when a man burst in from the back, run up the pulpit steps and began to rant. Two elders lifted him by the arms and carried him out of the building. Similar things have happened at different times to George Fox, Peter Tatchell, John Wesley and others, of course.
The same person saying the same thing from an acknowledged position of respect within the community might not have resulted in such a rapid ejection.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have to say that you'd only describe this website as being full of like-minded individuals if the individuals you had in mind are those who enjoy having intense rows about their differences. In almost every other way this community is about as divergent as it is possible to get.
I don't think anyone has explicitly applied that description to this website here, and we do indeed offer quite a broad range.
Nevertheless, I think most of us have a lot of shared points of reference. We are all English-speakers for one thing, and concentrated in a fairly small number of geographical areas.
More broadly, our search engines direct our searches on the basis of past preferences, and exploring bits of the web that we don't usually visit can be very challenging in terms of overcoming cultural differences.
One of the things I enjoy about my life at present is the opportunities it gives me to interact with a really broad spread of people, cultures and social backgrounds, as I fulfil a variety of roles.
In doing so I'm repeatedly struck by how hard it is for one particular social subset to imagine life outside their usual world. Even within the translation community, there are virtually watertight barriers between various approaches to the job.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In a church context, as we've discussed many times, there are many different people in many different churches who have bent various rules and norms to breaking point. But someone coming in and doing something - superficially similar - gets short shrift.
Is this not a function of human organizations generally? - for instance, political parties. It's certainly also true of anyone trying to change a commonly-held academic consensus (e.g. as when Fred Hoyle was trying to propound the "Big Bang" theory of the universe to an astronomical community that was wedded to "Steady State"). Here the difficulty lies in sorting out the "innovation and worth further discussion" with the "simply bonkers".
Of course, there are some organisations which are much more tolerant of well-argued divergent views than others ... it may have something to do with how secure its members feel within themselves, or how well they feel they can argue their own position.
Personally I feel it is good for a church to incorporate a healthy dialectic as that helps people to think. But there are many - at many different points on the Evangelical/Liberal spectrum - which have unconsciously adopted a "party line" on theology or culture and simply freeze out anyone who differs. It's unhealthy (and, I believe, unChristian).
[ 30. September 2016, 08:21: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Nevertheless, I think most of us have a lot of shared points of reference. We are all English-speakers for one thing, and concentrated in a fairly small number of geographical areas.
Yes, that's quite right too. Which is really interesting to try to explain exactly what we mean by like-minded and divergent.
quote:
More broadly, our search engines direct our searches on the basis of past preferences, and exploring bits of the web that we don't usually visit can be very challenging in terms of overcoming cultural differences.
Oh yes, that's absolutely true.
quote:
One of the things I enjoy about my life at present is the opportunities it gives me to interact with a really broad spread of people, cultures and social backgrounds, as I fulfil a variety of roles.
In doing so I'm repeatedly struck by how hard it is for one particular social subset to imagine life outside their usual world. Even within the translation community, there are virtually watertight barriers between various approaches to the job.
Thanks yes, that's an important contribution. It is absolutely true that there are invisible lines and norms which help to organise our lives that we are not aware of.
I should therefore revise my previous characterisation of this website as being full of people with wild divergent views whilst simultaneously being very similar.
Interesting, I'd not thought of it like that before.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Is this not a function of human organizations generally? - for instance, political parties. It's certainly also true of anyone trying to change a commonly-held academic consensus (e.g. as when Fred Hoyle was trying to propound the "Big Bang" theory of the universe to an astronomical community that was wedded to "Steady State"). Here the difficulty lies in sorting out the "innovation and worth further discussion" with the "simply bonkers".
I'd like to believe it is a bit different in science because the emphasis there is on having enough evidence to persuade the consensus of your peers that a different explanation is correct.
Of course, reaching scientific consensus isn't as simple as that given that it includes other factors such as human nature.
Whereas for a church or political party it isn't so much about fact as much as belief and ideology.
quote:
Personally I feel it is good for a church to incorporate a healthy dialectic as that helps people to think. But there are many - at many different points on the Evangelical/Liberal spectrum - which have unconsciously adopted a "party line" on theology or culture and simply freeze out anyone who differs. It's unhealthy (and, I believe, unChristian).
I think it is almost impossible to have a religious view without it becoming a "party line" - at least in the current reality of "consumer" religion where we can all pick-and-choose from a wide variety of available options.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Another distinction is the one between people (like just about everyone here) for whom the internet in some shape or form is pretty much a brain extension, and those who barely use it at all.
If you spend a lot of time online, it becomes hard to remember the latter category exists, but it does, and is far larger in my view than people in the former category might imagine.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Not on line much recently (I'm suffering from an infected impacted wisdom tooth), but when it comes to this discussion, I'd like to share a quote from the "Dune" series.
quote:
If you put away from you those who seek to tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections
.
The problem, as a counselling supervisor once put it to me, is that friends tend to collude. It takes a very good friend to confront, to put a valued relationship at risk. At best, we often soft-pedal.
I recently had some exchanges on a DH issue (where the great majority opinion here is radical) on a different discussion forum (where the great majority opinion is conservative). Found it hard to believe the vitriol I stirred up. But it was kind of stimulating as well. Reminded me of another choice quote; Mark Knophler, from "Brothers in Arms".
quote:
We have just one world
But we live in different ones
There is a lot to be said for providing an environment within which the occupants of the different thought worlds feel it is worth their while to collide.
Back to my painkillers and antibiotics ...
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I have been very concerned that the US Presidential Election thread is so pro-Clinton. Not one person (except temporarily myself when I got bored) openly declared that they support Trump and became a regular poster. The one person who posts frequently against Clinton explicitly does not support Trump.
I'm prepared to accept that supporting Trump if you are outside the United States is just impossible, but surely we have some politically engaged American shipmates who can mount a defence of his candidacy.
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on
:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
It's certainly also true of anyone trying to change a commonly-held academic consensus (e.g. as when Fred Hoyle was trying to propound the "Big Bang" theory of the universe to an astronomical community that was wedded to "Steady State").
Point of information: Fred Hoyle in fact propounded the continuous origin of matter, in opposition to the Big Bang theory. He sets his theory out in his book "Frontiers of Astronomy".
Which does not invalidate the point you are making, but just for the record…….
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...react against other-minded individuals who cross their path. Does it have to be thus? Can't things run along a different, better, path?
It need not be thus and other paths are available, but each conversation has (at least) two drivers, either of whom may run it along the better path or a worse.
People have beliefs, some of them deeply held and deeply personal, so many naturally find it discomforting to hear their views challenged. Most people, though, realize that such discomfort is not necessarily a bad thing. I like to have my views challenged; a good old row makes me consider my opinions and attitudes - perhaps from a different angle - better to understand why I was right in the first place or why I was wrong and should change my mind.
Generally, those who come into conversations on the Ship with a surprise tackle from the wing are welcomed; there is a scrum and the conversational ball moves on. It strikes me, though, that the welcome can quickly evaporate based on content and intention.
Content based on "A is wrong/stupid/immoral and if you believe it you, too, are wrong/stupid/immoral" is both poor debate and downright rudeness. It's not worthy of a welcome. It's dust to be shaken from one's sandals. (Personally, I'm immediately switched straight off when smugly told that I believe the wrong thing because "you don't understand/you don't know the truth". It's ignorant, arrogant and presumptuous.)
Intention? The intention of debate is, funnily enough, to debate. There is little warmth of welcome for those who stride into a conversation with the intention only of using the debate as a soapbox from which to yell their own opinion. It strikes me that (as an example straight off the top of my head...) if one's contribution to a conversation is a text that one has written previously and published in (countless) other places, one signals an intention to soapbox. There is no intention to engage or to rethink. One clearly intends only to convert. That, too, is both poor debate and downright rudeness.
If, moreover, one starts a conversation solely with the express intention of publishing that same prepared text, one is not only debating poorly and being rude; one is also being deceptive. People are, I find, less inclined to take a conversation along a "different, better path" if they feel that their fellow traveller is being deceitful and manipulative.
The Ship's Eighth Commandment is, I believe, there for a reason.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Point of information: Fred Hoyle in fact propounded the continuous origin of matter, in opposition to the Big Bang theory. He sets his theory out in his book "Frontiers of Astronomy".
Oh, well ....
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is a fairly common dynamic within communities, both in real life and those who post on internet discussion forums. That is, the community develops around some central core ideas, with high quality discussion and interactions between people who, though diverse, often have a lot of shared understanding of the way things are.
I wonder whether the ‘common dynamic’ is more a case of a love of discussion and communication with others who enjoy the activity, rather than a common belief! People join and leave groups for all sorts of reasons and often quite unexpectedly different from what one thinks is the case.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
Scientist, cosmologist Prof. Brian Cox makes some really interesting points about people being labelled and segregated according to their beliefs rather than engaging with one another i.e. the echo chamber effect. Also if you listen hard enough some relevant points about science's inability to offer all the answers, maybe relevant for someone on this thread . As a minimum Brian Cox offers a great model of respectful interaction and consideration of the big questions.
Prof. Brian Cox at Leeds Diocesan Conference
"meaning is something scientists alone are not able to construct..."
[ 30. September 2016, 13:17: Message edited by: Evangeline ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is a fairly common dynamic within communities, both in real life and those who post on internet discussion forums. That is, the community develops around some central core ideas, with high quality discussion and interactions between people who, though diverse, often have a lot of shared understanding of the way things are.
I wonder whether the ‘common dynamic’ is more a case of a love of discussion and communication with others who enjoy the activity, rather than a common belief!
Maybe it's a common belief in the value and importance of discussion and communication with others.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Evangeline
I'm afraid the you tube link doesn't work on my computer - and I've just had IE updated to 11 this very morning. I'll try and find it some other way, as the Prof is one of the best communicators around, isn't he. quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Maybe it's a common belief in the value and importance of discussion and communication with others.
Yes, I agree.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Scientist, cosmologist Prof. Brian Cox makes some really interesting points about people being labelled and segregated according to their beliefs rather than engaging with one another i.e. the echo chamber effect. Also if you listen hard enough some relevant points about science's inability to offer all the answers, maybe relevant for someone on this thread . As a minimum Brian Cox offers a great model of respectful interaction and consideration of the big questions.
Prof. Brian Cox at Leeds Diocesan Conference
"meaning is something scientists alone are not able to construct..."
Thoughtful stuff from Cox, smashing the image of the hard-line atheist scientist, shouting that love is just the movement of neurons! A kind of reaching out by him.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thoughtful stuff from Cox, smashing the image of the hard-line atheist scientist, shouting that love is just the movement of neurons! A kind of reaching out by him.
Are you acquainted with many atheists who think in that rigid, unfeeling way about emotions such as love? Would you say that the quality and strength of believers’ feelings of and about love are somehow greater than those of non-believers I wonder?
Hosts: If this is too much of a tangent, please delete.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
We don't delete posts except in extreme circumstances. But yes it is a tangent too far, and I'm glad you realised.
/hosting
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thoughtful stuff from Cox, smashing the image of the hard-line atheist scientist, shouting that love is just the movement of neurons! A kind of reaching out by him.
Are you acquainted with many atheists who think in that rigid, unfeeling way about emotions such as love? Would you say that the quality and strength of believers’ feelings of and about love are somehow greater than those of non-believers I wonder?
Hosts: If this is too much of a tangent, please delete.
Well, that was the point of my word 'image'. It's a caricature, isn't it? There may be atheists who say that love is simply the movement of neurons, but I don't know any. Some of the verificationists may have argued this, such as Ayer, but I'm not all that sure, since their arguments tended to self-implode.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Quetzalcoatl, I'll assume that was a cross-post with my host post above. If you or SusanDoris want to continue this tangent, please start another thread.
/hosting
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thoughtful stuff from Cox, smashing the image of the hard-line atheist scientist, shouting that love is just the movement of neurons! A kind of reaching out by him.
Personally, I can't stand him - but it is interesting to hear him talk warmly about speaking at an Anglican church event. I wonder whether this warmth was due to a reception of being generally open to his schtick and on his own terms. I mean, if you are in a room with a world-renowned cosmologist (or however it is that Cox describes himself today), there isn't very likely to be much conflict - even if he thinks your religious beliefs are totally crackers.
I doubt it would have been so warm if the discussion had been about the ethics of (for example) spending large amounts of money on space science in a world of hunger. But then I guess (understandably, of course) Cox wouldn't accept an invitation to attend a seminar on that topic.
Hmm.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
He may well think that religion is totally crackers, but I think he has enough PR sense not to say that. In fact, his statement that 'it's naive to say there is no God' became quite famous, but then so did his use of his fridge to disprove the afterlife.
I am guessing that he doesn't want to be known as a hard-line anti-theist, or in fact, an anti-theist at all.
A voter for the co-existence of religion and science, I suppose.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
[ADMIN]
Mr. Cheesy and quetzalcoatl, both of you posted more than a half hour after Eutychus asked for the tangent to stop. There was no way it could be a crosspost. The topic of this thread is stated in the OP, please return to it.
General reminder: it pays to slow down and read carefully if something that looks like [hosting] [/hosting] pops up in your vision while you are skimming a thread.
Kelly Alves
Admin
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Kelly, I wasn't discussing the SusanDoris tangent, I was discussing whether Prof Cox was - in some way - talking on a subject that the audience was calmly receptive to rather than another topic they were not.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I thought that Cox is absolutely germane to the OP. He seems to be trying to break out from one perceived ghetto to another. However.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
You also know where to discuss a Hosting issue!
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
You also know where to discuss a Hosting issue!
In rereading the above, I realize I got the wrong idea about what Euty was calling a tangent. So, carry on about Cox. Sorry.
I'll repeat what I said about taking Host/ Admin challenges to the Styx, though.
[Admin claws sheathed.]
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
Susan Doris
Thank-you for the interesting post about your computer situation.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I saw what you did there.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I saw what you did there.
Well, over the years, I have seen this sentence on forums, but unless something very obvious is in the words, I fail completely to see anysubtle meaning! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
So, just for a change, I think I'll ask if you could please explain!! I would point out that my note to evangeline was simply a fact!
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Evangeline is imitating your posting style to suggest that you avoided answering the actual point made and provided extraneous information instead as a distraction.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Evangeline is imitating your posting style to suggest that you avoided answering the actual point made and provided extraneous information instead as a distraction.
thank you. I'm afraid that doing things just to distract is a bit too complicated for me! I just respon to posts as best I can.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
I have tried the link again and it just comes up with a blank space where the video should be.
I have also tried googling 'Prof Brian Cox at Leeds diocesan Conference and it came up with something about 'get your tickets'...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well that's weird because if I google that exact phrase the video is the second result down. And your post above is the tenth down.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Susan Doris, I googled "you tube brian cox leeds diocesan" in my browser, and that brought it up for me. Also some people have obviously had trouble with IE 11 and video playback. This link might help: https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/kb/2532294
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Susan Doris, I googled "you tube brian cox leeds diocesan" in my browser, and that brought it up for me. Also some people have obviously had trouble with IE 11 and video playback. This link might help: https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/kb/2532294
Ah, thank you very much. I'll ask my next-door neighbour if she would come and have a look to see if she can help. My software can be a bit of a problem too.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
To return to the OP.
I enjoy the fact that people on the Ship are all interested in discussing attitudes to the Christian faith from often widely disparate standpoints, but normally without rancour.
It is interesting to read the passionately held beliefs of people whose faith position is miles away from mine, and to try to understand what they reveal about their journey, but without arguing if the topic is pretty well meaningless to me.
It is stimulating to be among everyone from the doctrinally orthodox to theological progressives like myself to those who’ve given up on formal church commitment but still enjoy the discussion; having a few thoughtful atheists on the Ship makes us examine our own convictions.
I’m not worried if I'm rubbished for quoting someone like Crossan, because I live among people who respect the Westar theologians and take their lead from them.
Actually, our board of nomination seem to be having a problem finding a new minister among the traditionalists our denomination is turning out. Our congregation as a whole doesn’t argue about minutiae of doctrine, being more concerned, as Robin Meyers put it, to stop worshiping Christ and start following Jesus.
May all who post here rest in the presence of the spirit of God.
GG
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
My thoughts on theology are wishy-washy, half baked and slightly whacky these days. Folks on the Ship put up with me and reply kindly and politely. I wouldn't be able to find an echo chamber if I tried, here or anywhere else!
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I'd like to pick up on what I think is the most fundamental point of the OP. This is more than a collection of individuals, or at least it is at its best. It's a community - one which encompasses a great many types of people and most shades of opinion on most issues - but it's not just a discussion board on which people are welcome to broadcast without listening.
I must admit that I've been guilty of overlooking this at times, and have found that it doesn't work. One has to demonstrate a certain amount of interest in the welfare of the vessel before its population will engage. As it is by nature a discursive craft, one does primarily by demonstrating that one is listening to what is being said and willing to debate with shipmates.
ETA: reading OP for comprehension first helps improve quality of posts.
[ 02. October 2016, 14:48: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My thoughts on theology are wishy-washy, half baked and slightly whacky these days. Folks on the Ship put up with me and reply kindly and politely. I wouldn't be able to find an echo chamber if I tried, here or anywhere else!
I'm not so sure.
All your posts resonate with me.
GG
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In most cases, we end up observing communities of more-or-less like-minded people who happily talk to each other. But react against other-minded individuals who cross their path. Does it have to be thus? Can't things run along a different, better, path?
Good OP, kind of like self review. I have noticed that ultra conservative Christians tend to push off fairly quickly and that there is a core political and religious temperature which is left liberal leaning. I personally enjoy the interactions but it can get pretty boring when everyone agrees for instance that Brexit was crazy or Trump is a dangerous lunatic. But the play aspect of the ship and the community support aspect is bloody brilliant.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Eutychus
All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged
That's fine as a statement of the ship's official position but I don't think it's an accurate description of how Purgatory works in practice.
I don't agree at all with Mr Cheesy that a person with a wild view won't experience a lack of welcome, I'd say they are quite likely to be called to hell and given a good kicking.
That's not to say that a person cannot avoid such a fate. But there's a huge double standard. A person posting from a popular point of view has a wide variety of posting styles open to them from polite reasoned argument to wild unsubstantiated ranting, whereas a person posting from an unpopular point of view has to do so in a mild unchallenging style, or have a thick skin and not mind the abuse they are going to get.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
This debate has so far discussed the theoreticals rather than the specifics of this or any other forum. The venue for criticisms applying to the Ship in particular is the Styx.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
But there's a huge double standard. A person posting from a popular point of view has a wide variety of posting styles open to them from polite reasoned argument to wild unsubstantiated ranting, whereas a person posting from an unpopular point of view has to do so in a mild unchallenging style, or have a thick skin and not mind the abuse they are going to get.
I think there's some inevitability about a "double standard". If most people accept some basically common ideas then they can cut a lot of corners in their argument. On most Christian sites no one would need to justify why they consider what the Bible says to be important with every post, but someone who wants to use other sources (eg: Book of Mormon or the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg) is likely to have to spend a considerable amount of time to justify why others there should consider their views. Going through the gauntlet of having to justify core assumptions before you can get to discuss what you really want to talk about isn't something everyone wants to do.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
I would like to clarify that I did not mean any criticism of they way the ship of fools is run or hosted. Certainly the hosts allow posting from popular and unpopular points of view equally.
I was referring to how accepting or otherwise the ship as a community of posters is, but my apologies if that is not appropriate for this topic.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I think the thinking is that we are trying to stay with the general here; the topic is broader than the Ship or indeed the Internet.
There's nothing wrong with raising Ship-specific issues, but they belong in the Styx rather than here - and are not confined to challenges to Hosts & Admins!
Of course, there's nothing wrong either with taking the general discussion here and applying it, in the privacy of our own minds, to our behaviour here.
[ 04. October 2016, 09:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
"The organism always punishes the deviant."
It's the nature of social organisms to expel, neutralize or marginalize the irritant.
Having spent most of my life as the social irritant, it's my observation that no, there is no other way to go about it.
I observe that people dislike discomfort. They dislike feeling challenged, even if no direct challenge has been offered. Not everybody is looking for a new and better way of seeing life and operating within it. They are most of all looking for appreciation and affirmation of their state of being.
Most are quite content to operate within the paradigm that provides them with the greatest sense of "normal" or "success"(whatever that may be), and which shields them from the greatest amount of discomfort.
I've observed that a cognitive disconnect must reach a critical mass of agony before one is ready to surrender the belief, behaviour, idea, way of being or seeing, that is causing the grief.
I think this is the animal survival instinct operating in human nature. I think the reasons for this are neurological - the organism seeks homeostasis.
Like calls to like and birds of a feather flock together.
And while opposites attract, it's only a matter of time before the polarity of the attraction flips, and the differences that were once attractive are the things that eventually repel.
These are just my observations.
Although I would love to find a more inclusive way of being in community, I believe this would require such an effort on the part of the members of the community that they would be exhausted before the results could be enjoyed.
AFF
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
But there's a huge double standard. A person posting from a popular point of view has a wide variety of posting styles open to them from polite reasoned argument to wild unsubstantiated ranting, whereas a person posting from an unpopular point of view has to do so in a mild unchallenging style, or have a thick skin and not mind the abuse they are going to get.
I think there's some inevitability about a "double standard". If most people accept some basically common ideas then they can cut a lot of corners in their argument. On most Christian sites no one would need to justify why they consider what the Bible says to be important with every post, but someone who wants to use other sources (eg: Book of Mormon or the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg) is likely to have to spend a considerable amount of time to justify why others there should consider their views. Going through the gauntlet of having to justify core assumptions before you can get to discuss what you really want to talk about isn't something everyone wants to do.
Moonlit Door's point is correct though. If you are as I am, fascinated by dead horses and always tempted to kick them, You realise You have to be pretty thick skinned but I appreciate this and also the way hosts monitor the discussions.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Alan Creswell
I think there's some inevitability about a "double standard". If most people accept some basically common ideas then they can cut a lot of corners in their argument.
Yes I agree with that. But I was meaning unpopular in a stronger sense than just 'in a minority'.
For example Swedenborgians might be in a smaller minority in a group than political conservatives but still find themselves more accepted. It depends not only on how much of a minority they are in, but also on how the majority feel about the minority view.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
It depends not only on how much of a minority they are in, but also on how the majority feel about the minority view.
There are a few dynamics in action, and those dynamics are probably different for different communities.
So, a community centered around a common ethos of wanting intelligent discussion would be accepting of someone expressing a minority view that is well argued. They may not convince anyone in the majority camp, but by expressing themselves in a manner that fits the ethos of the community they are accepted. That same community may reject someone who expresses a view many of them hold in a manner that is wilfully dismissive of the opinions of others and fails to engage in the discussion.
Another community may be centred around a particular viewpoint, and anyone who does not hold that viewpoint could be rejected regardless of how they express it.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In most cases, we end up observing communities of more-or-less like-minded people who happily talk to each other. But react against other-minded individuals who cross their path. Does it have to be thus? Can't things run along a different, better, path?
I'm no good at debating - my mind runs off at a tangent too quickly. But I've learned a lot from SoF. I have a colleague with strong views (on many things and, alas, a need to inform me of them) but he says he doesn't waste his time reading things he doesn't agree with, or if he does, it is to expose their errors. That seems rather pointless to me - getting a sense of how other people see and feel the world appeals much more.
Mind you, I'm glad I'm just an atheist - I sense that a Jehovah's Witness might feel less welcome.
Thanks, everyone.
Posted by Odds Bodkin (# 18663) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In most cases, we end up observing communities of more-or-less like-minded people who happily talk to each other. But react against other-minded individuals who cross their path. Does it have to be thus? Can't things run along a different, better, path?
That's pretty normal activity; we prefer to be around people who share our tastes, values and interests. People who seek out disturbance are usually quite childish (wanting noise and excitement) more often than truth-seeking...although they will often claim to be the latter.
Speaking as a newcomer here it is interesting spotting whether the dominant clique are Corbyn-supporting liberals, conservative Christians, or somewhere in-between. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
My tech expert has been here today and made it possible for me to watch that Prof Brian cox video, so I will do so asap. However, I am having a bit of difficulty with my software and the settings of IE, but I should be able to watch it.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
I have watched the Prof Brian Cox video. he was rather waffly, I think, seldom completing a sentence, but he was being interviewed and not giving a lecture, and I almost always like what he has to say ...
I am pleased to say that as far as I could tell he did not compromise his own scientific credentials by allowing his words to be interpreted as meaning that any religious belief was based on fact.
P.S. What was the slogan on his shirt?! His hair is a bit different from what it used to be, isn't it?! The picture was large and clear enough for me to be able to peer at that!!
All I have to do now is to get the Tech chap back to re-set the Ie advanced options so that the S/N software works as I'm used to. *sigh*
[ 10. October 2016, 12:38: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
Posted by catnip (# 18638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In most cases, we end up observing communities of more-or-less like-minded people who happily talk to each other. But react against other-minded individuals who cross their path. Does it have to be thus? Can't things run along a different, better, path?
As a new poster here and having had a unwelcoming challenge to my very first post--much to my surprise--I would like to say something here. As a liberal leaning Christian, I had carefully evaluated this list as a lurker off and on and felt I would be a comfortable fit for this group. I might have even previously subscribed and even posted. People here had appeared to be very kind, gently inclined, well read and the discussions not too heated. In all my careful perusal of discussions here, I had not seen such a dismissive post as I received. I wasn't troll-like. I had not failed to keep the Commandments in mind, it was simply a minor difference of opinion.
Generally, I think that if people are not welcoming the group will die a slow death. I suggest that new people should be treated gently and welcomed before rejecting them for good reason--being new is no reason to reject a person. If they aren't a fit they will wander off on their own or they may learn how to present themselves more in line with the group.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
catnip--
Hi, and welcome to the Ship.
If you're talking about your post on the "Male language, male Jesus" thread, and mean the response that's a few posts down, I don't think it was meant as dismissive--just as disagreeing.
Purgatory is where we discuss and argue about things. With anything you post, there's apt to be someone who knows something about it, or has an opinion on it.
Good luck!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Catnip,
As GK says, Purgatory is for discussing and arguing. Any poster should be ready to face challenge. And as far as you being new, I can say for myself that I do not always look to see how new someone is unless their post throws up red flags.
Those of yours I've read do not do so.
It is difficult to read tone in a text only medium as well.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
catnip--
Hi, and welcome to the Ship.
If you're talking about your post on the "Male language, male Jesus" thread, and mean the response that's a few posts down, I don't think it was meant as dismissive--just as disagreeing.
Purgatory is where we discuss and argue about things. With anything you post, there's apt to be someone who knows something about it, or has an opinion on it.
Good luck!
GK, your link is only to the post icon, and not to any post or thread.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think catnip is probably talking about this thread.
It is quite hard to talk about this example that our friend has introduced without getting personal, so let's not do that.
But it is perhaps something else we could or should discuss; namely the tendency of communities to have hidden "doorkeepers" (I'm not sure if that's the correct phrase) which intentionally or not keep people from participating when strictly speaking they have no bearing on the running of the organisation or whatnot.
The most obvious example I can think of is how many employers judge prospective new employees based on inflationary educational standards, which evidence suggests are not needed to actually perform the job well. So we have the common, but ridiculous, situation whereby someone giving an interview expects more than they themselves bought to the role when they joined.
I'm not sure how one breaks out from that mindset.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I think that, in most communities, there are indeed self-appointed doorkeepers who see it as their role to keep the community "true to its spirit". This may well be an unconscious position; these folk are probably not the official leaders (although they may have been); their perception of the group's values may be nothing more than their own perception. But there is no doubt that their attitude will contribute to the welcome (or lack of it) given to a newcomer.
Equally there will be some folk who lean over backward to welcome outsiders, ignoring obvious differences and reaching out a hand of friendship. It could be that these people are so criticised by their peers for "not upholding our standards" that they eventually leave in disgust.
Or am I just talking about churches? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think that, in most communities, there are indeed self-appointed doorkeepers who see it as their role to keep the community "true to its spirit". This may well be an unconscious position; these folk are probably not the official leaders (although they may have been); their perception of the group's values may be nothing more than their own perception. But there is no doubt that their attitude will contribute to the welcome (or lack of it) given to a newcomer.
Yes, but this illustrates why I didn't like the term I introduced - I'm not really talking about people, I'm talking about systematic issues in organisations which end up excluding new people. For example, I'm thinking more about the sense of "institutional racism" whereby there is a norm that black people are overwhelming excluded from various positions and careers rather than that individual racists are taking it upon themselves to be bouncers.
If someone can think of a better term that doesn't make us automatically think of individuals, that might be helpful.
quote:
Equally there will be some folk who lean over backward to welcome outsiders, ignoring obvious differences and reaching out a hand of friendship. It could be that these people are so criticised by their peers for "not upholding our standards" that they eventually leave in disgust.
Or am I just talking about churches?
Again, without taking forward your point about individuals (who, I think, are just actors participating in a system that allows/encourages/supports certain behaviours over others) I suppose one could argue that as well as systematic biases which restrict entry, there might also be internal pressures acting in the opposite direction. So maybe the end result is not so much that an organisation holds these accepted-and-not-discussed biases, but the overall impact of biases acting in different directions.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes, I see what you are getting at.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
All of this being said, the mechanics of this type of group dynamic function on a subconscious level. It's a type of group-level gestalt.
If we were to even recognize this dynamic in the group, this would be a major step forward in changing the group dynamic.
But to change the group dynamic, this would require a major shift in self-recognition and introspection on an individual level, and a commitment on the part of every individual to lovingly call others to account.
I believe this is what early Christian communities set out to do.
But how long can a loving community support the social irritant and discomfort of those who simply can't or won't "get with the program" - no matter how loving and inclusive that program might be?
ISTM the cry for acceptance in the social milieu is the projection of an inner need for self-acceptance. The world acts as both the movie screen and the mirror. It's sometimes hard to tell when it's functioning as one or the other.
AFF
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
catnip--
Hi, and welcome to the Ship.
If you're talking about your post on the "Male language, male Jesus" thread, and mean the response that's a few posts down, I don't think it was meant as dismissive--just as disagreeing.
Purgatory is where we discuss and argue about things. With anything you post, there's apt to be someone who knows something about it, or has an opinion on it.
Good luck!
GK, your link is only to the post icon, and not to any post or thread.
Thanks and apologies, BroJames. This should work:
"Male Language, Male Jesus" thread (Purg).
As I understand it, catnip was referring to her first post on the Ship, and that's it, per her post list.
Posted by catnip (# 18638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
catnip--
Hi, and welcome to the Ship.
If you're talking about your post on the "Male language, male Jesus" thread, and mean the response that's a few posts down, I don't think it was meant as dismissive--just as disagreeing.
Purgatory is where we discuss and argue about things. With anything you post, there's apt to be someone who knows something about it, or has an opinion on it.
Good luck!
No worries! It wasn't that thread or the other one someone guessed it might be. I find it amusing and rather sweet that there is a guessing game as to which post it was. I decided that I would ignore it and it would fall into the archives. We can leave it there and hope for a fresh start and a better day. The point being to be friendly first and then disagree.
I've never met two people who agreed in all ways on either religious or political subjects and disagreement is what fuels these discussion groups and keeps them interesting.
Thank you!
Posted by catnip (# 18638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
catnip--
Hi, and welcome to the Ship.
If you're talking about your post on the "Male language, male Jesus" thread, and mean the response that's a few posts down, I don't think it was meant as dismissive--just as disagreeing.
Purgatory is where we discuss and argue about things. With anything you post, there's apt to be someone who knows something about it, or has an opinion on it.
Good luck!
GK, your link is only to the post icon, and not to any post or thread.
Thanks and apologies, BroJames. This should work:
"Male Language, Male Jesus" thread (Purg).
As I understand it, catnip was referring to her first post on the Ship, and that's it, per her post list.
You are right! I did say first post, didn't I? Well, it did begin it. I guess it was really my second, but what matters is that I would rather not make a big fuss about it now and I decided not to then, either.
Oh, dear! I really didn't anticipate the sleuths we have here!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
You didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition?
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
We all know that NO ONE expects the SPANISH INQUISITION!
Shall we arrange for the comfy chair for Catnip?
AFF
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
No, not the comfy chair!
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Well, perhaps we should just start with the soft cushions
Posted by The Om (# 2318) on
:
Though is the whole idea of 'debate' universal?
If you pit a university professor against someone who failed school and can barely write, the professor is likely to demolish them in short order. It doesn't mean the latter's views are necessarily invalid, it means the professor has had a lot more practice at building arguments. (the professor might also bring fresh data/evidence of their own - in this case let's assume that they do not).
The equivalent online might be someone who can't type or spell or form coherent sentences - there might be a valid point in there, but they're often dismissed for their appearance just the same as they might be for the clothes they wear in real life.
In Parliament, two sides might have different views A or B but, to some extent, they come from the same background of engaging in debate, argument, etc. They are therefore an elite of sorts.
Previously we engaged such 'professional debaters' to represent our views, but today there is a cacophony of voices and the professionals are cast aside.
So how do we avoid ghettoising into those who can conduct debate and those who never learnt to do so?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I think the current political situation puts paid to the idea that learned debaters have an advantage. Brexit and Trump demonstrate this exceedingly well.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
It depends on your audience. If you have an audience that respects learning, has it themselves, and is willing to listen, then the debater who uses those skills is likely to win (provided other things are equal--such audiences are also more likely to notice if you try a snow job). If you have an audience that is uneducated or emotion-driven or not paying much attention or all of the above, well, the one who yells the loudest, is most amusing or scary, requires the least hard thinking, and appeals to prejudices is likely to win.
Posted by The Om (# 2318) on
:
Indeed, and that's the thing. They're different styles of engagement, but they're both engagement, and some might say that neither is better or worse than the other. By focusing on engagement type X (call it 'debate') and not on type Y (could be many things but let's call it 'emotion'), is that not exclusionary?
You'll obviously come off worse if you use technique X to audience Y, or vice versa. So, if we want to get out of our debate-centred bubble, should we move from sharpening our arguments to making better clickbait?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Well, Trump clearly has. And IMHO that's the direction almost everybody in public communication is taking. I don't think it's a good thing,* but it's a reality.
* because logic and evidence work better when addressing the real world of Stuff (as opposed to human beings) and trying to do the clickbait approach on something like plans for hurricane clean-up or war strategy is just going to fail. If I'm listening to somebody who actually has plans to do something (anything) in the real world, I'd like to see some evidence that they actually have an approach that would work somewhere other than, say, Twitter.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, Trump clearly has. And IMHO that's the direction almost everybody in public communication is taking. I don't think it's a good thing,* but it's a reality.
* because logic and evidence work better when addressing the real world of Stuff (as opposed to human beings) and trying to do the clickbait approach on something like plans for hurricane clean-up or war strategy is just going to fail. If I'm listening to somebody who actually has plans to do something (anything) in the real world, I'd like to see some evidence that they actually have an approach that would work somewhere other than, say, Twitter.
Well said.
Posted by Odds Bodkin (# 18663) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It depends on your audience. If you have an audience that respects learning, has it themselves, and is willing to listen, then the debater who uses those skills is likely to win (provided other things are equal--such audiences are also more likely to notice if you try a snow job). If you have an audience that is uneducated or emotion-driven or not paying much attention or all of the above, well, the one who yells the loudest, is most amusing or scary, requires the least hard thinking, and appeals to prejudices is likely to win.
Logos, Pathos and Ethos...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0