|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Debate: alternative to "scoring points"?
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think there are models of formal debating (say from Oxford etc) which perhaps are influencing how mdijon is using the term. I could be wrong, apologies if so, mdijon. But it is certainly true that we live in a culture where the epitome of debate (in politics, law etc) is grounded in adversarial rhetoric rather than truth.
Is this a reasonable point to bring in the Quaker idea of consensus? Maybe a better idea in all of these things is to imagine that the truth lies somewhere outside of all of our collective grasp, and the only way we are going to get anywhere near to it is in the silence as we think deeply about what others are saying and the assumptions and weaknesses of our own opinion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
..... In a debate the challenger would immediately need to start thinking of reasons for rubbishing the new data even though they were previously unaware of them.
Where do you get this odd definition of debate, which includes never backing down? OED? Webster? Daily Mail?
This would be the case in a competitive debate, for example the Oxford Union Debates. Giving ground to the opposition would certainly be frowned upon.
Each person in the debate usually has a 'position' in support of their side which they read up on and speak eloquently about.
Fascinating stuff, which is occasionally ground breaking and educational, but is usually a forum for showing off the talents and oratory abilities of the competitors. Practice for many who would end up in the Houses of Parliament, probably.
Simply not suitable for this kind of forum imo.
(x posted with mr cheesy)
[ 05. February 2015, 07:39: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
One characteristic of most forms of debate is that it's usually public. The debaters are not really trying to convince their opponents to change their views, nor develop their own ideas. They are playing to an audience, and seek to gain the support of that audience.
In forthcoming party leaders debates, Cameron is not going to be trying to convince Milliband to vote Conservative, nor to get Milliband to change the policies of Labour so they agree with the Conservatives. His intention will be to simply get people watching the debate and discussing it afterwards to vote Conservative.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
And this is why I won't be watching the leaders' debates, because I plan to make up my mind on who to vote for by reading the manifestos and deciding for myself which party is most likely to behave in a manner I will approve of in government. Watching the leaders of all the parties weaselling their way out of answering direct questions on their own policies whilst trying to score rhetorical points off each other is more likely to put me off voting for any of them.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think the public/competitive nature of it is what pollutes genuine communication. I might have a sneaking suspicion that you have a point on a particular area but if we are competing in public for votes or at least the sympathies of the gallery then I won't acknowledge it. I may fail to point out facts that go against my argument.
In a discussion I don't have to do any of those things. This doesn't rest simply on me changing my mind, it rests on my ability to acknowledge things that I know are true but wouldn't be conducive to winning a debate.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's not a definition, its an observable characteristic. Maybe your experience differs. Feel free to discuss.
An observable characteristic of what, though? That people who call what they're doing "debate" act one way, and people who don't act another way? If so then yes, my experience differs greatly. I have witnessed uncounted discussions, many if not most here on the Ship, where people showed no signs of backing down from their positions, but they never used the word "debate." I have also seen the opposite, especially when I was in grad school: people called what they were doing "debate" and yet when someone had a good counterargument, said, "Whoa, good point!" and tried to work the new information into their reasoning.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Really, I think both words have a widish and overlapping semantic range.
Exactly.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think there are models of formal debating (say from Oxford etc) which perhaps are influencing how mdijon is using the term.
That could be; only mdijon can answer that for us. Such "debates" are show, however. You might as well put forward the fact that people in movies always do this-and-such as evidence of something in real life. No, it's a movie. Movies have a lot of tropes that are pretty religiously followed that don't have application to real life. (As an example, people lying in bed after sex in such a way that the man's upper body is showing but the woman's isn't -- the so-called "L-shaped blanket.")
In a formalized debate, the people on either side may not even believe the proposals they are putting forth. It's theatre. Debates here on the ship are not theatre. If one's formal definition of "debate" only covers moot courts and the like, then yes, one could say part of debate is never backing down. But that's not terribly relevant to what we do on the Ship, or what most people do in real life. (Most people don't use the word at all.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Yes, Mr Cheezy is on the lines of the use of the word debate I had in mind. Rather than get bogged down in the right label, I think there is the sort of adversarial, point scoring, I'm-right-at-all-costs interaction which one does often see on the SoF where parties will not back down for anything - in fact would rather reach for increasingly crazy justifications and grounds for dismissing alternative arguments.
Then there is another sort of interaction which is not adversarial in the sense of scoring points and being desperate to maintain appearances - which I think is more likely to be conducive to genuine communication and understanding.
In the spirit of which I'm happy to concede my use of words doesn't seem to be helpful in distinguishing these.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure this would work very well on an internet forum as such a person is more likely to be described as a wind-up merchant than a clever socratic interlocutor..
Well, Occam's Razor most times. And the end point of trying to help someone work something out is that they eventually do. If your play your clever game and the audience miss the point, you are a WUM, despite intentions.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The best I hope for, when honest with myself, is that people will recognise that my position has better arguments in its support than they previously believed, and that their position is perhaps a little less compelling to all reasonable people than they thought.
This is kind of disturbing. Surely the ideal is to listen and be open to the possibility one is missing or misunderstanding other views.
Yes, I freely admit I fail that ideal, but should this not be that for which we strive?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Surely the antics in Hell do way more to damage relationships than "destructive" debate!
Do they? It seems to me that Shipmates often get a sense of unity from joining together against the person whose destructive debating techniques got them called to Hell in the first place...
Damaging the relationship with that person in the process, and sowing resentment for the future (not in my case, I hasten to add, I'm not that invested, but certainly has that potential).
This kinda "unity" can be found with any mob or gang. It's not on the up and up.
In any case, if you wanna run with it, surely the same kind of "unity" can be found in joining together in a "destructive" debate.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Hell, IMO and IME, serves as a safety valve. I don't think it is meant specifically as a place for the mob to queue. But if the villagers are pounding on your door with pitchforks and torches, you might reconsider the nature of that which you are defending.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hell, IMO and IME, serves as a safety valve. I don't think it is meant specifically as a place for the mob to queue. But if the villagers are pounding on your door with pitchforks and torches, you might reconsider the nature of that which you are defending.
If I did that, I'd hold contradictory positions on everything! An appeal to the people's a fallacy for good reason: popularity has zip to do with merit.
If the mob's out with pitchforks and torches, I'm allying myself with their target on principle, and getting 'em the hell outa Dodge.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The best I hope for, when honest with myself, is that people will recognise that my position has better arguments in its support than they previously believed, and that their position is perhaps a little less compelling to all reasonable people than they thought.
This is kind of disturbing. Surely the ideal is to listen and be open to the possibility one is missing or misunderstanding other views.
Yes, I freely admit I fail that ideal, but should this not be that for which we strive?
As you say, that is the ideal for which we strive. It is, however, as well to be realistic also.
I like to think I at least listen, and I like to think I'm open to the possibility of learning from other points of view. However, the number of times I can honestly say that's happened is a lot lower than I'd like. (For what it's worth, I read a lot which means I tend to have read viewpoints in other places before I come across them on the Ship.)
Off the top of my head, I've learnt from ken not to be so dismissive of Calvinism.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
I've, likewise, learned to treat evangelicalism with nuance, but that hasn't changed the strength of my opposition to arguments from authority, or to the idea of the supernatural, since both are grounded in worldviews of which I remain unconvinced. Every time I debate it, I become more convinced of my opposition.
The opposite happened when I debated gun control. I'm instinctively anti-gun, and pro-restriction, but kept losing ground. I assumed the fault was mine, but when I went looking for knockdown arguments from the (forgive the phrase) big guns, I couldn't find any. Reluctantly, very reluctantly, I changed my mind.
I doubt that would've happened in a consensual model, as I wouldn't have experienced the defeats. So adversarialism needn't lead to entrenchment.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hell, IMO and IME, serves as a safety valve. I don't think it is meant specifically as a place for the mob to queue. But if the villagers are pounding on your door with pitchforks and torches, you might reconsider the nature of that which you are defending.
If I did that, I'd hold contradictory positions on everything! An appeal to the people's a fallacy for good reason: popularity has zip to do with merit.
If the mob's out with pitchforks and torches, I'm allying myself with their target on principle, and getting 'em the hell outa Dodge.
Which will inevitably lead you to ally with some very dark ideas and some very wrong people.
So no. For example, if the crowd with the pitchforks are also waving degree certificates, citable journals and work references showing many years experience, then yes, I'm going to take a good long look at whatever idea it is they're objecting to. There is absolutely no merit in defending a position that is indefensible.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
If the mob's out with pitchforks and torches, I'm allying myself with their target on principle
We've already had a Shipmate who appeared to operate on the basis of this 'principle'.
I can't understand it myself, because it's basically a proposition that the majority is always wrong. Which is no more defensible as a matter of logic than the proposition that the majority is always right. It's based on exactly the same fallacious idea that one determines truth by a show of hands, but compounds the error by assuming that we're all a bunch of morons.
There are a number of reasons why someone might completely fail to convince others as to the merits of their position. One of the reasons is that their position is stark, raving mad and anyone with an ounce of knowledge knows that it's incorrect.
Where, exactly, is the merit in a 'principle' that thinks every argument needs that kind of "balance"? Do we need to have an equal number of people believing human-made climate change is real or not, for "balance"? Do we need an equal number of people believing homosexuality is a choice, for "balance"?
[ 05. February 2015, 20:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which will inevitably lead you to ally with some very dark ideas and some very wrong people.
Think of it like the ACLU defending the rights of gangbangers and Nazis and robber barons (oh my). Defending the right implies no sympathy for person or position.
quote:
So no. For example, if the crowd with the pitchforks are also waving degree certificates, citable journals and work references showing many years experience, then yes, I'm going to take a good long look at whatever idea it is they're objecting to. There is absolutely no merit in defending a position that is indefensible.
Mobs are about intimidation, not reason, so merits of a position's set aside so long as they're hefting their torches and farm implements.
Once the mob's dispersed, if the credentialed folk are arguing from evidence, it's not an appeal to popularity or authority. Numbers don't matter in that circumstance. If they're arguing from their credentials alone, it makes me sus., 'cause there should be evidence. Credentials have no weight in and of themselves: they're vocational training that facilitates the ability to find and deploy evidence.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which will inevitably lead you to ally with some very dark ideas and some very wrong people.
Think of it like the ACLU defending the rights of gangbangers and Nazis and robber barons (oh my). Defending the right implies no sympathy for person or position.
No. You would like to cast yourself in such a position, but the ACLU generally defend one specific amendment to the constitution of one specific country. That's fine, but it's not universally accepted or universally applicable, as has been shown.
It's also not what you said.
quote:
If the mob's out with pitchforks and torches, I'm allying myself with their target on principle.
Are you now saying your position is more nuanced than that?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
If the mob's out with pitchforks and torches, I'm allying myself with their target on principle
We've already had a Shipmate who appeared to operate on the basis of this 'principle'.
I can't understand it myself, because it's basically a proposition that the majority is always wrong. Which is no more defensible as a matter of logic than the proposition that the majority is always right. It's based on exactly the same fallacious idea that one determines truth by a show of hands, but compounds the error by assuming that we're all a bunch of morons.
There are a number of reasons why someone might completely fail to convince others as to the merits of their position. One of the reasons is that their position is stark, raving mad and anyone with an ounce of knowledge knows that it's incorrect.
Where, exactly, is the merit in a 'principle' that thinks every argument needs that kind of "balance"? Do we need to have an equal number of people believing human-made climate change is real or not, for "balance"? Do we need an equal number of people believing homosexuality is a choice, for "balance"?
To clarify, by allying myself, I'm not talking about truth or artificial balance, but my dislike of mob psychology. A debate can be weighted without that. If it sticks to evidence, it's not a mob.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No. You would like to cast yourself in such a position, but the ACLU generally defend one specific amendment to the constitution of one specific country. That's fine, but it's not universally accepted or universally applicable, as has been shown.
It's an analogy, so inevitably imperfect.
quote:
It's also not what you said.
quote:
If the mob's out with pitchforks and torches, I'm allying myself with their target on principle.
Are you now saying your position is more nuanced than that?
It was never my intent to say I was allied with their position, or wanted to be their BFF, so if the original didn't communicate that, it's wrong, consider it revised.
See, adversarialism's clarified things! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If it sticks to evidence, it's not a mob.
This looks like a convenient tactical definition that is not altogether applicable to the context.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If it sticks to evidence, it's not a mob.
This looks like a convenient tactical definition that is not altogether applicable to the context.
Surely the common understanding of "mob" is a disorderly group that seeks to get its way by intimidation. It may use some evidence in the process, but it's incidental. An orderly group that seeks to persuade by evidence and reason is the precise opposite of that!
Or would you take "mob" to mean something else? If so, what?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which will inevitably lead you to ally with some very dark ideas and some very wrong people.
Think of it like the ACLU defending the rights of gangbangers and Nazis and robber barons (oh my). Defending the right implies no sympathy for person or position.
This makes sense for a professional lawyer or a professional organisation. It makes no sense for an individual poster on a message board.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If it sticks to evidence, it's not a mob.
This looks like a convenient tactical definition that is not altogether applicable to the context.
Surely the common understanding of "mob" is a disorderly group that seeks to get its way by intimidation. It may use some evidence in the process, but it's incidental. An orderly group that seeks to persuade by evidence and reason is the precise opposite of that!
Or would you take "mob" to mean something else? If so, what?
Well if THAT'S the definition, I'd simply say that mobs on the Ship are very rare indeed.
The reason that large majorities form on topics is because a large number of people come along independently and agree with each other. Not because someone organised a posse. You're hardly the first person who has been on the wrong side of a Hell crowd to suggest that it was for some reason other than people genuinely disagreeing with you, but the alleged mechanics don't hold up under scrutiny. People who attempt to gain support down there sometimes gain it, and sometimes find themselves with a lot of opponents.
*You might want to do a search of the Ship's history for the word "dogpile". You'll see this has all been hashed out before.
[ 05. February 2015, 21:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which will inevitably lead you to ally with some very dark ideas and some very wrong people.
Think of it like the ACLU defending the rights of gangbangers and Nazis and robber barons (oh my). Defending the right implies no sympathy for person or position.
This makes sense for a professional lawyer or a professional organisation. It makes no sense for an individual poster on a message board.
Let me expand on this, because it's rather important.
It absolutely DOES imply sympathy for the person/position in this context. Unless you come waving a card saying "hi, I'm your lawyer and doing this for money", how is anyone to guess that your role is not one of a sympathiser?
If you come on a board and back someone up, they're going to think "look, here's someone backing me up". Unless, of course, you're in a community where you've developed a reputation of coming in and backing the underdog regardless of what the underdog is saying (and as I mentioned, there's been a Shipmate who received exactly that reputation), and where everyone knows what you do, people are going to assume that you're backing up an argument because you believe in it.
Because you're not a paid lawyer, and no-one is going to ascribe to you the motivation of paid lawyers.
And as a result, you may well be unnecessarily prolonging the argument. Have you thought about that? If you come along and back up a person with a completely crazy idea, who is being told how crazy their idea is, they're going to either think or say "No! Look! Someone agrees with me! My idea isn't crazy!"
Whether we like it or not, the numbers do affect people's thoughts about the relative merits of positions, and if you come along and back up someone with an argument that you actually don't sympathise with, no-one's gonna know that you don't sympathise with it. You'll be giving the argument a boost anyway.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Some people conflate "destructive debate" and bullshit. While the latter may be employed in the serving of the former they are different.
One part of the SOF concept of Hell is an optimistic one. It predicated that telling someone that people dislike their postings on the board will perhaps convince them to mend their ways. With some posters it becomes apparent that it's not going to happen and it's not worth the effort to continue chastisement. In these cases, there's the flounce or the general consensus that this person may not be worth engaging in debate.
A Hell call is not going to cause some damage to the relationship that hasn't already happened.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Hell isn't predicated on anything resolving. Hell is where you go when people are so resolute on no resolution that they lose the ability to discuss things without things turning combative.
Hell is predicated on the generally understanding that such conversations are inevitable, but distracting from serious discussion. I don't think anyone expects Hell to be a place of resolution, though it may be a place of catharsis, sometimes, when the stars are properly aligned...
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I've, likewise, learned to treat evangelicalism with nuance, but that hasn't changed the strength of my opposition to arguments from authority, or to the idea of the supernatural, since both are grounded in worldviews of which I remain unconvinced.
There are many things of which I remain unconvinced, but I don't have strong opposition to them all. Are you strongly opposed to everything you aren't convinced of, or just these two?
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If it sticks to evidence, it's not a mob.
This looks like a convenient tactical definition that is not altogether applicable to the context.
How surprising. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hell, IMO and IME, serves as a safety valve. I don't think it is meant specifically as a place for the mob to queue. But if the villagers are pounding on your door with pitchforks and torches, you might reconsider the nature of that which you are defending.
If I did that, I'd hold contradictory positions on everything! An appeal to the people's a fallacy for good reason: popularity has zip to do with merit.
If the mob's out with pitchforks and torches, I'm allying myself with their target on principle, and getting 'em the hell outa Dodge.
Waht orfeo and Doc Tor said, but also contemplate the word reconsider.*
I did not say change your opinion, but to think again on the whys and wherefores.
*Assuming, of course, that one considered their statements in the beginning.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[...] The reason that large majorities form on topics is because a large number of people come along independently and agree with each other. Not because someone organised a posse. You're hardly the first person who has been on the wrong side of a Hell crowd to suggest that it was for some reason other than people genuinely disagreeing with you, but the alleged mechanics don't hold up under scrutiny. People who attempt to gain support down there sometimes gain it, and sometimes find themselves with a lot of opponents.
*You might want to do a search of the Ship's history for the word "dogpile". You'll see this has all been hashed out before.
Indeed, and so long as mobbing persists, it'll recur. As this is Purg, I'm discussing issues, not people. I started the thread to explore people's reasons for disliking adversarialism, and to discuss alternatives, but since you raised it, I'm also interested to know why you believe "destructive" (or, as I prefer, adversarial) debate is more, well, destructive to relationships.
You said, "It seems to me that Shipmates often get a sense of unity from joining together against the person whose destructive debating techniques got them called to Hell in the first place..." Forming unity by isolating and beating down on a person is a common method of cohesion, much loved by groups of all kinds, be they high school cliques, bangers, or cybermobs. What's not so common is believing that debate causes more damage. I'm genuinely curious about the grounds for that belief.
As for objecting to said tactic, you're right, it can be misconstrued as supporting the person and their position, but that distinction can easily be clarified.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Some people conflate "destructive debate" and bullshit. While the latter may be employed in the serving of the former they are different.
One part of the SOF concept of Hell is an optimistic one. It predicated that telling someone that people dislike their postings on the board will perhaps convince them to mend their ways. With some posters it becomes apparent that it's not going to happen and it's not worth the effort to continue chastisement. In these cases, there's the flounce or the general consensus that this person may not be worth engaging in debate.
A Hell call is not going to cause some damage to the relationship that hasn't already happened.
We'll agree to disagree on that last one, I think, as it's probably Styx material, and this isn't a thread about the merits of Hell, but of adversarial debate vis-à-vis alternative methods.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There are many things of which I remain unconvinced, but I don't have strong opposition to them all. Are you strongly opposed to everything you aren't convinced of, or just these two?
Of course not, there's all kinds of things I'm both unconvinced by and unconcerned with, from who's topped the jazz charts to who's joined the Fortune 500.
quote:
How surprising.
Really now, I believe it's pretty uncontroversial to say that mobs don't, as a rule, confine themselves to calm and rational discussion of the evidence. Are you claiming that they do? If not, we don't disagree.
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Hell isn't predicated on anything resolving. Hell is where you go when people are so resolute on no resolution that they lose the ability to discuss things without things turning combative.
Hell is predicated on the generally understanding that such conversations are inevitable, but distracting from serious discussion. I don't think anyone expects Hell to be a place of resolution, though it may be a place of catharsis, sometimes, when the stars are properly aligned...
There's combat and there's combat. Adversarial debate is combat of a kind, but aims to be constructive, by focusing on the issue at hand.
Given the vehement opposition to it, I'm interesting in seeing if alternatives are superior, either at truth-seeking, mutual education, or at least clarification. So far, I'm not seeing clear distinctions between adversarial debate and discussion, since discussion seems to allow for many adversarial elements. The clearest difference seems to be a willingness to admit error, which adversarial debate allows for.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think the clearest difference is that adversarial debate is almost always two sided (two views and often only two people 'going at it') and discussion is multi-faceted.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Ah, thanks for the reminder Boogie, forgot that one.
I think IngoB was onto something when he linked "constructive" debate with uncertainty. I can discuss the finer points of horticulture in a relaxed way, 'cause I've no firm opinions on the matter, and want to learn. I could never discuss heavy hitters like that.
Formal debate might split into two sides, but informal debate can have multiple perspectives, focusing on a particular subset of an issue, say, or advancing two alternatives over a third.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If it sticks to evidence, it's not a mob.
This looks like a convenient tactical definition that is not altogether applicable to the context.
Surely the common understanding of "mob" is a disorderly group that seeks to get its way by intimidation. It may use some evidence in the process, but it's incidental. An orderly group that seeks to persuade by evidence and reason is the precise opposite of that!
Or would you take "mob" to mean something else? If so, what?
Armies are pretty orderly, but don't use evidence and reason to persuade. Academics use evidence and reason to persuade at least as much as any group, and are generally pretty disorderly. (I first came across the phrase 'herding cats' used by an academic administrator.)
If an orderly group were coming at you in Hell, that would surely be a sign that there was something going on beyond the use of evidence and reason.
A mob is a 'disorderly group'. As often in the debate, people allow that nobody is orchestrating Hell, and Hell is quite hostile, so it's an acceptable description. You then later say that mob means 'irrational', once the metaphor has been established on other grounds.
Fallacies of ambiguity often happen in this sort of way - not so much that the denotation shifts, as that the word has a wide range of connotations, and the subset of connotations in play shifts.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Adversarial debate is combat of a kind, but aims to be constructive, by focusing on the issue at hand.
No, it doesn't focus on the issue at hand, it focuses on having an adversary. It's in the title. That's where this thread started.
You are in fact pushing, with the notion of being adversarial, right towards the kind of formal debate where people are assigned "For" and "Against" positions and stick to them because they think that's their job. Which has no place in a genuine discussion amongst peers.
This is exactly where the point-scoring criticism comes from.
Nor does it follow, even if adversarial debate DOES focus on the issue at hand, that it will be constructive.
[ 06. February 2015, 07:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Popularity of thread is obviously only a rough measure of the satisfaction people gain from participating on SoF. But given that "adversarial debate" threads tend to beat "convivial discussion" ones by a mile in Purgatory, consistently, I think the supporters of the latter are protesting too much. The activity leaders on SoF are clearly: adversarial debate (Purgatory, Hell, and speciality boards), games (Circus, Heaven), small talk (All Saints) and practical support (All Saints, Heaven). Convivial discussions about "factual" matters tends to be short and engage few, presumably because people get motion sickness after nodding their heads for a while. Every veteran of SoF really should know by experience what catapults a thread into a 10+ page monster, and it is not people politely listening to each other's opinion and then prudently changing their position or agreeing to disagree.
I'm confident that without the well-known "Call of Internet Duty", SoF would peter along for a few years, go to sleep, and die. Or at least its "factual" boards would, I guess games and social activity could hold their own as long as there are still people around who have not moved that kind of thing to Facebook and competitors.
Indeed, this thread is deeply ironic because guess what has been saving it from being another twenty post dud? Yeah, you got it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The activity leaders on SoF are clearly: adversarial debate (Purgatory, Hell, and speciality boards), games (Circus, Heaven), small talk (All Saints) and practical support (All Saints, Heaven).
Are you trying to sweep entire boards into these categories?
It is not even the case that everything in Hell is adversarial, never mind Purgatory.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Every veteran of SoF really should know by experience what catapults a thread into a 10+ page monster...
Indeed, this thread is deeply ironic because guess what has been saving it from being another twenty post dud?
Basically, what you're telling us is that you're a size queen.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Are you trying to sweep entire boards into these categories?
I'm simply pointing out what sort of threads most people actually participate in, consistently and frequently, on these respective boards. Never mind what they are claiming what they like to participate in.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Basically, what you're telling us is that you're a size queen.
King.
By the way, orfeo, are you officially back to giving a fuck? The call of duty was too strong once more, was it now?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Officially? No. In fact, this thread is providing excellent reminders of why I stopped giving a fuck in the first place: [material after semicolon retracted on the grounds that it's not suitable for this particular board, even though no names were used].
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
I think it's important to note though that posting is not the only, in fact probably not the most important action happening on these boards. Mostly people read. I used to post more than I do. And yeah partially I'm a host of a busy board, so I read things I wouldn't otherwise read, but I don't think that's the biggest reason I post less. If it were, I'd probably have asked to transfer to a less busy board by now or stopped hosting. No, I post less because reading is more important than posting to me often. I could name some 20-30 shipmates off the top of my head who tend to have very interesting insights I particularly like to read. Few of them probably have any idea of my appreciation for them because I don't write to them. I don't need to be heard. I need/want to hear.
Which is all a lot of jabber, but I mean that although Purgatory probably is one of the most read boards, I don't think we can assume that most people come to post and disagree with each other. I think probably most times a thread is opened people just read it and move on.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
To expand on what Gwai sai:
The problem with such measurements is that people who agree often don't post. There may be 100 people agreeing with something someone said, and two of them will post to say "I agree." (the genius of the "Like" button on Facebook is that these people can have something of a voice without having to thrash up something moderately original to say.)
Thus just measuring people who post is not in any way an accurate measure of how popular a thread is.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I once read that people are far more likely to complain to an organisation (e.g. the BBC) than to praise it. So letters of appreciation are valued at 10x letters of complaint.
Our local newspaper recently did a survey of "What do you think of our town?" Of course the comments tended to be very negative. Problem was, they failed to realise this and felt it was an accurate mark of public opinion.
IMO most people tend to be fairly accommodating and will only comment on an issue if they, personally, feel strongly about it which, most of the time, they don't.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Popularity of thread is obviously only a rough measure of the satisfaction people gain from participating on SoF. But given that "adversarial debate" threads tend to beat "convivial discussion" ones by a mile in Purgatory, consistently, I think the supporters of the latter are protesting too much. The activity leaders on SoF are clearly: adversarial debate (Purgatory, Hell, and speciality boards), games (Circus, Heaven), small talk (All Saints) and practical support (All Saints, Heaven). Convivial discussions about "factual" matters tends to be short and engage few, presumably because people get motion sickness after nodding their heads for a while. Every veteran of SoF really should know by experience what catapults a thread into a 10+ page monster, and it is not people politely listening to each other's opinion and then prudently changing their position or agreeing to disagree.
I'm confident that without the well-known "Call of Internet Duty", SoF would peter along for a few years, go to sleep, and die. Or at least its "factual" boards would, I guess games and social activity could hold their own as long as there are still people around who have not moved that kind of thing to Facebook and competitors.
Indeed, this thread is deeply ironic because guess what has been saving it from being another twenty post dud? Yeah, you got it.
You're not wrong, but you're not right either. You and Bryson are painting using way too much black and white and not enough grey. A very common manner of framing a discusion, but not always an accurate depiction of the result.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I could name some 20-30 shipmates off the top of my head who tend to have very interesting insights I particularly like to read. Few of them probably have any idea of my appreciation for them because I don't write to them. I don't need to be heard. I need/want to hear.
Sure. What really keeps people going in their efforts is if one neither reciprocates, nor ever thanks them. Give them the slightest encouragement, and they will slack off. A consistent wall of silence, that's what keeps contributors to bulletin boards both happy and on their toes.
(Yes, Sheldon, that was sarcasm.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
On the other hand, if we wanted to be jabbered at by noisy masses we'd be on reddit or somewhere like that. I think many of us would agree that we quite value the thoughtfulness of the ship. Part of what makes that atmosphere is when we all know when we don't need to make noise. I have written quite a few things I never posted because I realized it wouldn't really contribute anything. I've looked at threads and never shared my thoughts because I knew someone else would say it better. And they usually did; when I was wrong and no one did say it, I spoke up myself.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
What Gwai said. I read way more than I post, and in general I only post if I think I have something useful or different to say. But even then, there have been times where I think "I should post on that thread", but real life commitments mean I don't, or by the time I could, the discussion's moved on or someone else has more or less said what I wanted to. I guess the times I post more are when I get drawn into a more 'adversarial' discussion with an individual poster, but, although I've learned much at those times, I learn a lot lot more just by reading, so I value that much more.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Well, as one who post more than I read...no, wait, one who posts more than I think....no that's worse. Hmmm. One who posts more than I should...Well, that is]/i] true, but....
OK, I post a lot. And I can be adversarial. But that is not the [I]point or goal. The point is to discuss. There will be contrary points, complete agreement and partial agreement. You know, just like in person.
Unless one views SOF as a virtual debate club. Which, IME is a minority opinion.
BTW, If anyone thinks unilateral thinking stops conversation, I invite you to go to a political rally.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Dafyd, I didn't call mobs "irrational," a word you introduced; I said they rely on intimidation, not persuasion, to get their way. Method's the thing at issue. A mob could, I suppose, be acting rationally, although it's unlikely. If there's a bait-and-switch here, it ain't coming from my end.
Orfeo, we're at cross-purposes here, as you're using "adversarial debate" to mean person-focused, not issue-focused, whereas I'm using it to mean testing the issue via adversarial methods, which needn't be done in a formal way. As you've said you don't mind using those methods, could you please elaborate on how adversarial debate, or "scoring points," differs?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think it's important to note though that posting is not the only, in fact probably not the most important action happening on these boards. Mostly people read. I used to post more than I do. And yeah partially I'm a host of a busy board, so I read things I wouldn't otherwise read, but I don't think that's the biggest reason I post less. If it were, I'd probably have asked to transfer to a less busy board by now or stopped hosting. No, I post less because reading is more important than posting to me often. I could name some 20-30 shipmates off the top of my head who tend to have very interesting insights I particularly like to read. Few of them probably have any idea of my appreciation for them because I don't write to them. I don't need to be heard. I need/want to hear.
Which is all a lot of jabber, but I mean that although Purgatory probably is one of the most read boards, I don't think we can assume that most people come to post and disagree with each other. I think probably most times a thread is opened people just read it and move on.
As a long-time lurker, I couldn't agree more, and one of the things that drew me back every so often was the quality of discussions, discussions which, often, were adversarial. I also enjoy exploratory discussions and personal experiences. (Although after reading the dogpile thread, I'll not be sharing any. The Ship really needs a version of Miranda: anything you say can, and will, be used against you in hell.)
So I'm surprised to find "scoring points" being objected to by so many, especially when it's hard to pin down exactly folk mean by the phrase! It's not testing issues via adversarial methods, it's not personal attacks, so what on earth is it?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Orfeo, we're at cross-purposes here, as you're using "adversarial debate" to mean person-focused, not issue-focused, whereas I'm using it to mean testing the issue via adversarial methods, which needn't be done in a formal way. As you've said you don't mind using those methods, could you please elaborate on how adversarial debate, or "scoring points," differs?
I've already disagreed with you that the methods are adversarial methods. Why are you calling them that?
I don't have anything more to add to that previous observation.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
