The Art of Discourse II

[Cindy B.]

Hi again, guys.

Just a few thoughts to add. As already pointed out, most communication is nonverbal, so this medium puts us all at a disadvantage when interpreting someone else's words on the screen. Until posters get to know each other a bit, it's only natural that we project ourselves, good and bad, into what we read. Then again, sometimes the other person really is over the line, huh.

Anyway, when another poster happens to push my buttons for some reason, my habit is to wait a bit before I reply. It might be a wait of a few minutes or even until the next day, but I know that if I post off the cuff, there's a good chance that I'll create unnecessary antagonism or fuel any bad feelings that already seem to exist. Sometimes, just to get it out of my system, I might write a reply to satisfy my offended side, but I never hit Submit. Later, when I'm calmer, I'll formulate my reply in a way that does get my point across but without creating undue tension on the board then send it instead. This is such a simple thing to do--the proverbial "first take those three deep breaths"--to keep disagreements from becoming personal that I, anyway, think it should be Rule #1 For Internet Discourse. The internet's not going anywhere, so there's always time to respond later without bad feelings that might be unjustified making things worse.

Another simple way to help keep peace on the board and conversations civil and on topic is merely to say, "I understand your point of view, but I disagree, and here's why..." No more, no less, and no "That's a really stupid thing to say, and you're stupid, too." It's true, what goes around comes around, and showing respect for another's view shows respect for the person, the same thing that any of us wants. As I mentioned before, though, on this board the majority of posters seems to naturally have respect for others, and this is a reflection of the sort of people who are drawn to Campbell's work, I think.

Have a great one!

Cindy

[Clemsy]

Well, ya, alright – maybe ‘narrow-minded’ wasn’t the absolute bestest word to use.

Agreed. Your use of 'narrow' in this context is one thing, but 'narrow-minded' is a whole other concept altogether. We have parameters which exclude ad hominem language, spamming, etc. What's left within those parameters is still wide and deep.

The moderators do an awesome job.

Clemsy, bowing...

Not just in keeping the peace, but generating ‘higher order’ discussions, by directing them toward academic topics, such as myth, art, anthropology, religion, science, philosophy, literature, and the like.

Not that whimsy isn't allowed here. The Humor thread is one of our longest running and has garnered not one complaint from even the most... conservative minded among us given that a lot of the humor is rather bawdy by American standards. The Sci-Fi Collaboration thread is (was) also a product of associates just having fun.

So it doesn't all have to be deep. It's not the depth that allows for the higher order, the way I see it, it's the quality of posting that allows the depths to be plumbed. And that boils down to civility. Manners and politeness, yes, but there is this narrow range within which one is no longer quite polite but is also not rude. As I said before, it doesn't all have to be nice, but it can't be rude. Civility has some elbow room for a little heat.

I would add that this takes some very mindful composing.

Anger, resentment, annoyance, etc., are not proscribed. It's how they're expressed that can be of issue. That's the point of the very first guideline:

Should the opinion of another associate spark your anger or scorn, rather than your spirit or mind, please take a deep breath and consider before posting an ungenerous response. Flaming, the online equivalent of ranting, can seem terribly gratifying in the short term, but it is a very ineffective form of communication.

The point should always be the point and not the person. And when passions are aroused there is no rule against expressing them, but there is concerning the manner of the expression.

The same goes for practicing dime-store psychology, the point of which is always to assume a superior position by dismissing a point due to an assumed, and usually convenient, flaw in the person.

There isn't a concrete guideline addressing this. Perhaps there should be because it does become an occasional issue, but it certainly is addressed by the spirit of the guidelines:

...to encourage the continuation of the high level of civil discourse and mutual respect

...These are Conversations, not Conversions.

...Be polite.

So, we may leave certain behaviors and topics outside the fence, but the last word I would use to describe what's left inside is narrow.

[noman]

…this medium puts us all at a disadvantage when interpreting someone else's words on the screen.

- Cindy B.

There are a few disadvantages compared to face to face conversations. But sometimes less is more. I think the advantages by far outweigh the disadvantages.

First, a person has all the time in the world to respond. Conversations can be resurrected at any time. With these dangling threads it’s as though we can splice and paste time – like a film that jumps around and doesn’t follow any chronological order.

Second, anything a person says can and will be used against them (or in their defense). It’s so frustrating in verbal conversation to sort out what each person said and meant. “You said …”, “No I didn’t…” There’s a great deal of wasted time and energy in a spontaneous exchange. In a written forum one is allowed to take their time, read and re-read other posters responses at their leisure, and then, respond thoughtfully. It’s an entirely different mode of exchange.

Third, in this forum editing is allowed. So the value of the printed word just stated is not an absolute uncompromising rule. It isn’t just valuable to erase nasty remarks – though that’s a nice option. But it’s great to be able to correct errors, and make oneself as clear as possible. I love clarity. Confucius remarked that three hundred pieces in the Book of Odes could be summed up in one sentence—“Have no twisted or depraved thoughts.” Every post can be an exercise in clarity.

Fourth, posters are largely anonymous. A preacher will say we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord. MLK famously said he looks forward to a time when a person can be “judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. In an internet forum, a person is judged, not by their age, ethnicity, religion, gender, social status, as much as by the content of their posts. It is a great thing to be judged, if we must be judged, only by our carefully chosen words.

Fifth, as Cindy said, emotions can be neutralized by a delayed response. I hate watching those two minute debates on CNN, both sides are given fifteen seconds to speak, and either side can interrupt the other. These people know they are reaching a wide audience. They often care a great deal about the issue. But then they are expected to just blurt ideas out in little bursts before they are told ‘we have to go to a commercial break’. If CNN had any decency, they would direct people to the web; to a fair and informative written debate between these same two people.

On tone.

Robert Frost spoke about the difficulty and importance of conveying ‘tone’. I hadn’t thought about it before. Neo mentioned the ‘tone’ of my post. I do love to play with ‘tone’ in this forum. Sympathy, remorse, anger, flippancy and sarcasm, disgust, and dispassionate objectivity. I play them all now and then. It isn’t just conveying ideas. Emotion comes through as well. That is part of the game, and part of the fun of posting. Conversing with other consciousnesses would not be the same if we didn’t believe they were encapsulated by the organic hardware of breathing, bleeding bodies.

Unfair and Bias

I know it’s splitting hairs but it’s an important point, I think. Earlier I contrasted ‘fair and balanced’ with the phrase ‘unfair and bias’. But a person or an organization can be bias and still be fair. If you walk into a Christian Church and they say they believe Jesus is the life and truth and way, in a way that Mohammed and Buddha and Secular Humanism are not, it may be bias – but I don’t think it’s unfair. If they then tie you on a stretcher and crank the wheel till you scream and profess Christianity I would say that crosses line of unfairness.

But I haven’t seen any milder forms of unfairness at NPR, or here at the JCF.

aum shanti

- NoMan

[Clemsy]

Cindy, I don't know why i missed you're post above. I'd like to add something to

Anyway, when another poster happens to push my buttons for some reason, my habit is to wait a bit before I reply. It might be a wait of a few minutes or even until the next day, but I know that if I post off the cuff, there's a good chance that I'll create unnecessary antagonism or fuel any bad feelings that already seem to exist. Sometimes, just to get it out of my system, I might write a reply to satisfy my offended side, but I never hit Submit. Later, when I'm calmer, I'll formulate my reply in a way that does get my point across but without creating undue tension on the board then send it instead. This is such a simple thing to do--the proverbial "first take those three deep breaths"--to keep disagreements from becoming personal that I, anyway, think it should be Rule #1 For Internet Discourse. The internet's not going anywhere, so there's always time to respond later without bad feelings that might be unjustified making things worse.

Often, the best option to to ignore the post. It is fascinating how a message directed at you in this medium can create psychological pressure to respond. This is the troll's bread and butter, to entice you onto the merry-go-round and play you like a fiddle.

Shamelessly mixed metaphors there.

When the perceived intent of another is to press your buttons, just ignore it.

[nandu]

I've learnt the following from my time on the forums:

1. Listen to what is being said, not who is doing the saying (easier said than done)!
2. If you are angry, find your blood boiling, want to respond immediately...don't. Sit back and take a deep breath, and respond only if and when you can respond with a calm mind.
3. When you find that you are repeating yourself, stop.

Nandu.

Edit to add: 4. Don't try to get in the last word!

[Clemsy]

Well said, Nandu. I particularly like number three...

[nandu]

Evinnra wrote in another thread:

Nandu is clever but stubbornly refuses to see the other person’s point, his personal style is to mask over every disagreements with feigned politeness, but over all what he writes is interesting.

The poet Robert Burns wrote:

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us

Why I have quoted Evinnra's remark about me above, is because it was an eye-opener to me, as how another person perceived me. (Which is why I quoted the poem by Burns.) In these fora, we all have cyber "personalities" based on our posting style, which may be totally at loggerheads to our real-life personality. Now, something in my posts is coming across as less than honest-at least to Evinnra-whereas I try to be ruthlessly honest with whatever I say in the cyber medium.

Compare that with this:

It took me a long time to understand what Nandu meant by 'personal god.' He never explained it, and always dodged the conversation whenever we got close to where it would come up.

This is by Steve. Now, here is another person accusing me of dodging the issue! Apparently there is something in my conversation that others perceive as less than honest, but which is not apparent to me.

(I have quoted the above comments because they are direct references to my style of posting. Steve, Evinnra, pardon me if I am taking a liberty.)

I suggest that this happens many a time on the web, when we cannot meet face to face. But I take such comments as valuable feedback on how to improve my style of communication. Of course, there will always be people who take offense at what you say, but improvement is always possible.

Nandu.

[Clemsy]

Nandu, I really want to keep this from getting personal, but do see your point, which is:

...we still complete our mental pictures of each other on limited data... brains tend to fill in the blanks to create a whole image. Any given image may be well off the mark.

...Don't discount the importance of the lack of nonverbal cues within this medium. It becomes almost impossible to know when an 'inferred inflection' becomes a sign symbol resulting in another's taking offense.

...taking offense or just plain misinterpreting the meaning and tone of any given post. The point is to avoid being certain that you can define the poster based on the post.

That happens by the reader asking questions of the poster. There is no guarantee that this will work to anyone's satisfaction. "Oh well' and move on.

Nandu, I do not agree with Evinnra's evaluation of your posting habits... but that's neither here nor there. However, my evaluation of you may also be eroneous.

Who cares.

The 'you' that I have in my head is someone whose posts I will respond to on a regular basis. If that 'you' were otherwise, I would, mostly, ignore your posts.

[nandu]

Clemsy,

I do see your point. That is why I said I am using the above quotes for illustrative purposes only. I will not make any further postings of this nature.

[Clemsy]

No problem, just want to avoid a 'let's get personal' bandwagon.

Your post did allow me to refine the the point, though, and that's cool.

[romansh]

Occasionally the question of what constitutes a 'higher order' conversation arises.

What defines a higher order conversation?

No distinction, all is one.

But what I like:
Parsed thoughts
No more than three or four thoughts per post/answer.
People engaging in a conversation, albeit written.

Negatives:
A wall of prose.
A wall of impenetrable prose.
"Talking" past one another.

[Evinnra]

Occasionally the question of what constitutes a 'higher order' conversation arises.

What defines a higher order conversation?

No distinction, all is one.

But what I like:
Parsed thoughts
No more than three or four thoughts per post/answer.
People engaging in a conversation, albeit written.

Negatives:
A wall of prose.
A wall of impenetrable prose.
"Talking" past one another.

How would you describe 'talking past one another'?

[romansh]

How would you describe 'talking past one another'?

ohh it might look something like this:

How would you describe 'talking past one another'?

The ego's eloquence is an illusion of the mind's duality.

ie I don't really address your question or your point.

[Evinnra]

How would you describe 'talking past one another'?

ohh it might look something like this:

How would you describe 'talking past one another'?

The ego's eloquence is an illusion of the mind's duality.

ie I don't really address your question or your point.

Ahha, so it is not a deliberate act of re-directing, rather it is to ommit using the words in the way these words were originally asking the question? Or is this 'talking past' is when one is pointing to another topic as an answer to the question? Say , when I ask you, do you like cheese and you answer me with the statement that you are in fact lactose intolerant, you are 'talking past me' then?

I think I get what you mean, by the way. I too get extremely frustrated when people avoid answering my point. It is quite an insult, to avoid answering reason with reason. It's just , ... this is rather difficult to discern whether someone is 'talking past' us or we haven't connected the dots just yet. No?

[Clemsy]

What fun! I'll get to this thread later today and probably focus my time here rather than elsewhere.