The Art of Discourse II

[Transom]

I am not sure if this is the correct thread to bring this point to attention, but as it is being frequented by most of the people who participate consistently, I'll go for it.

Not that there are masses of new posters on these forums lately, mind you there certainly are some, I am not sure they feel particularly welcome. Occasionally there are the 'welcome so and so posts'. What I am referring to is an aspect of 'talking past'. It involves not addressing a person's post at all. Does the post not seem to qualify as something of the 'higher order'? Or is it not of personal interest to you? Well, on forum board with a great many people this might slide, but here and now, it won't. There are perhaps 20 consistent posters, and a contingent of 30 others who make appearances. Every so often there is a new member/associate who makes one post, then is never heard from again. Okay, chalk it up to them, maybe. But while we are discussing the 'art of discourse' I feel I might as well say that merely answering/not answering is not enough. Our responses should encourage further participation from the new folks.

(disclaimer: I know I have not been here nearly as long as most of you, nor have I been an avid poster...just check my count, and I am not bringing this up to garner more responses to my own ramblings )

I am merely suggesting that to expand the community we must make an effort to make people feel more welcome. They are of course treated courteously, always, but an effort must be made to retain these people. If they decide not to, then so be it, I don't want people to be coerced.

And, the thing I struggle with most in my life, is whether or not the things I am saying are valid...so, I hope no one takes this the wrong way! I only mean to try and expand the community here, because this place is truly a refuge and a pleasure for those who may not have similar intellectual outlets elsewhere!

[Clemsy]

Transom, you raise an interesting point.

Occasionally there are the 'welcome so and so posts'. What I am referring to is an aspect of 'talking past'. It involves not addressing a person's post at all. Does the post not seem to qualify as something of the 'higher order'? Or is it not of personal interest to you? Well, on forum board with a great many people this might slide, but here and now, it won't. There are perhaps 20 consistent posters, and a contingent of 30 others who make appearances. Every so often there is a new member/associate who makes one post, then is never heard from again. Okay, chalk it up to them, maybe. But while we are discussing the 'art of discourse' I feel I might as well say that merely answering/not answering is not enough. Our responses should encourage further participation from the new folks.

I think the issue here isn't necessarily one of 'higher order' conversation, but of posting patterns and, most importantly, time. The higher order we're looking for is in the character of interaction, not the absence of interaction. When someone new shows up, I , and others, do try to acknolwedge their presence. Invariably, however, a new person who joins in an existing conversation has a greater opportunity to be acknolwedged. A new person who starts a new thread is less likely, not that it doesn't happen. Kind of like a party when a stranger comes in the room with existing discussions going on and says, "let's talk about this." Maybe someone will bite, maybe not.

For example, stardustwind54 started a thread May 11th. Personally, that one got right by me. However, Overmanwarrior posted a response yesterday and the discussion seems up and running. Sometimes a new thread catches no one's fancy. It doesn't have to. Sometimes it may take a week or a month for someone to drop a reply in.

Associates will engage according to their interests and time. Right now I'm posting here rather than the philosophy thread. We assume everyone leads fairly busy lives and the time spent here is limited.

In the 8 years I've been here, posting patterns have remained the same. Indeed, there's research to back up that what happens here isn't much different to the participation patterns in other forums. Participation ebbs and flows. (Weekends and summers tend to see less busy which may be a concern to bosses worldwide!) There's a core group of veterans, and those who come and go. The overall number varies but not by very much. Indeed, this is one of the busier periods here

My advice for newbies who wish to be recognized is to browse the forums, find an existing discussion and join in. Starting a new thread right off the bat may not be successful because a) it may be interesting but I'm already involved in that thread over there or b) not interested in the topic.

Does this answer your question?

Cheers,
Clemsy

[Transom]

Indeed, thank you for clarifying! I was feeling a bit indignant earlier...my netbook (purchased a month or so ago) is no longer booting up correctly. and it made me angry! lol, better now.

The analogy to the stranger at the party is perfect, I would never interject something entirely new to the group right off the bat...guess I should have thought that one through!

Best,

Transom

[Clemsy]

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.

Romansh, I personally agree with your post length comment. But that's just me. I like smaller bites because I haven't the time to study and respond to every thought in an epic post.

I also agree with your 'wall of impenetrable prose.' I mentioned this earlier in this thread:

Every effort should be made to clarify meaning before hitting the submit button. When done mindfully, there's liable to be less chance of there being a definitional problem in the reader.

So, imagining how your own post will be processed by another may reveal semantic 'holes' that your own brain has filled in. Know what I mean? Do you use the preview function to proof your work? Do you reread after posting and make further edits?

This demonstrates that you care about your own words enough to maximize understanding in the reader.

This also shows respect.

I take this very seriously.

[romansh]

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?

It may be deliberate it may just lack of care or etiquette I don't know.

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?

I can give you an example ... imagine someone posts a famous quote, you answer saying where you agree and disagree with the quote. The original person suggests that you should tell deceased author of the quote.

How would you respond.

This is an example of talking past one another, I would say.

[Clemsy]

Hmmmm. Sounds more like talking down to, rather than past.

[romansh]

Hmmmm. Sounds more like talking down to, rather than past.

Benefit of the doubt, Clemsy, in this case ... I'm considering my reply.

[Clemsy]

Is it discourse? There's the friendly exchange, the friendly duel, the perhaps not quite so friendly duel, and there's wrestling with smoke and looking for shapes in clouds. How do you know that the meaning you've built just isn't your own psyche trying to make some kind of shape out of a vague image?

[romansh]

Is it discourse? There's the friendly exchange, the friendly duel, the perhaps not quite so friendly duel, and there's wrestling with smoke and looking for shapes in clouds. How do you know that the meaning you've built just isn't your own psyche trying to make some kind of shape out of a vague image?

It's all that and more ... It takes all sorts. We just have to get used o the idea that there are people that are different from us. Of course as a moderator you are in the unenviable position of not having the luxury to let things slip. You have the rules and guidelines to enforce.

eg I might not take offence at something somebody writes, but there may be more sensitive souls following a thread who might?

Regarding the the psyche ... it definitely is "kind of shape out of a vague image," but I suspect everyone one else is in the same boat so that is the way things are.

Waxing lyrical way too much here.

[Clemsy]

I suspect everyone one else is in the same boat so that is the way things are.

But only if it's one's preference to maintain the engagement.

It really boils down to what you said in the other thread: you exert effort to make sure the meaning you have in your head gets transmitted as effectively as possible into another. To do so says you care about your words and respect your audience.

That's higher order discourse.

Waxing lyrical way too much here.

My style. It's a slight flaw in my character.

(I just edited to insert a damn apostrophe!)

[romansh]

It really boils down to what you said in the other thread: you exert effort to make sure the meaning you have in your head gets transmitted as effectively as possible into another. To do so says you care about your words and respect your audience.

That's higher order discourse.

That's part of it ... it's also trying to understand carefully what your "nemesis" is trying to say. Sometimes I read way too quickly, and misunderstand what was said. Evinnra said it took a awhile for her to get what some posters are saying, which is OK. But I think we have to careful with this. The quote below:

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

was meant to be plausible gobbledygook, but after coming back to this, I could make sense of this ....

My style. It's a slight flaw in my character.
(I just edited to insert a damn apostrophe!)

It's a pathway to bliss.

[Clemsy]

but after coming back to this, I could make sense of this

The author's sense or your sense? Hamilton College's Seventh Deadly Sin of Writing is all that quote brings to mind.

Yes, of course the reader has to put forth effort in order to be understood. However the conventions of written language exist in order to facilitate just that. Everyone is free to try to figure out tortured syntax or bloated diction... but many to most won't bother. Got places to go, people to see, laughs to laugh. If a writer isn't going to do the reader, or his or her own ideas, the respect of writing with clarity, than that writer is in danger of not being taken seriously.

After all... this is a text based medium.

Besides... I tell my students constantly that clear writing is an expression of clear thinking and that it's not just their writing that a reader will judge. Even for the learning disabled or second language student, effort will refine written expression. (We have seen both examples of this at this website with more than a few associates over the years.)

There's a certain amount of ego involved in not giving a damn.

As I said, I do take this very seriously. I also tell my students, "Open your mouth and English falls out, and it doesn't have to be of the Queen's quality. Wire your writing to your mouth and you maximize the probability of being understood.."

It's not hard. Just takes a bit of time and mindfulness. But first you have to care. Expect the reader to care for you and you won't be read.

[jonsjourney]

It is certainly a challenge to convey one's thoughts mindfully and with the reader's understanding as the goal. I have always struggled with certain aspects of grammar, like the proper use of a comma. The placement of a comma is so important, in my mind, to adding that little caveat or link, to a thought. How many comma mistakes did I just make???

I agree that intention is very important here. Do we intend to convey something clearly? I do try to spend a lot of time reading and re-reading my post before hitting that "submit" button. Often, I find that I am not that happy, but I have to get on with other events in life and that post is going to have to be "good enough". The intent though is to try to be clear and it is imperative that we care enough about the reader to post something that, regardless of the value of the opinions expressed within it, they can understand. Particularly, if we consider the multicultural nature of a site such as this.

This may be a case where form and function are equivalent.

[Evinnra]

I am not sure if this is the correct thread to bring this point to attention, but as it is being frequented by most of the people who participate consistently, I'll go for it.

Not that there are masses of new posters on these forums lately, mind you there certainly are some, I am not sure they feel particularly welcome. Occasionally there are the 'welcome so and so posts'. What I am referring to is an aspect of 'talking past'. It involves not addressing a person's post at all. Does the post not seem to qualify as something of the 'higher order'? Or is it not of personal interest to you? Well, on forum board with a great many people this might slide, but here and now, it won't. There are perhaps 20 consistent posters, and a contingent of 30 others who make appearances. Every so often there is a new member/associate who makes one post, then is never heard from again. Okay, chalk it up to them, maybe. But while we are discussing the 'art of discourse' I feel I might as well say that merely answering/not answering is not enough. Our responses should encourage further participation from the new folks.

...


I am merely suggesting that to expand the community we must make an effort to make people feel more welcome. They are of course treated courteously, always, but an effort must be made to retain these people. If they decide not to, then so be it, I don't want people to be coerced.

And, the thing I struggle with most in my life, is whether or not the things I am saying are valid...so, I hope no one takes this the wrong way! I only mean to try and expand the community here, because this place is truly a refuge and a pleasure for those who may not have similar intellectual outlets elsewhere!

Hi Transom,

Must start with a disclaimer, I am not famous for having the best manners on this board, so what I write here should not be taken for 'gospel'. However, I've been around for over 5 years and picked up a method from others that seems to work quite well. If someone quotes my post or adresses me by my username, I respond, except in fhose cases where I simply can't be bothered getting angry with the poster. There are many posts that I do feel like answering, but not having enough time for getting into every conversation may give the impression that I don't even read them. That is not the case, I read almost every post on the JCF board. What I'm trying to say here is that there are wonderful posts on the board that don't get an answer and it is not because they are lacking in quality or meaning. Please do go on posting, Transom, I do enjoy your style and I find your posts very thought provoking.

Cyber-bro,

I really don't know what to say. You do know that conversation etiquette is different in different cultures and that is what makes it so hard for people from different cultures to communicate. Words can be translated, meaning behind those words need to be felt somehow. On the end, patient people usually get somewhere.

[Clemsy]

I have always struggled with certain aspects of grammar, like the proper use of a comma. The placement of a comma is so important, in my mind, to adding that little caveat or link, to a thought. How many comma mistakes did I just make???

JJ, improper mechanics may tweak comprehension. Usually, a question is the cure. It's not the occasional punctuation or spelling mistake that starts the fog machine.

There's the Third Deadly Sin:

Wordiness

Concise writing is the key to clear communication. Wordiness obscures your ideas and frustrates your reader. Make your points as succinctly as possible, and move on. As Strunk and White tell us in Elements of Style:

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences.... This requires not that the writer make all sentences short, or avoid all detail and treat subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.

(23) LINK

The one 'sin' Hamilton College doesn't include is tortured syntax. The college assumes its students come in with a competent sense of basic sentence structure and grammar. Its when those conventions are ignored, and coupled with wordiness or inflated rhetoric, that meaning becomes a Rorschak test.

I have no problem with your writing. Doubt anyone else does either. You obviously care.

Here's another question: What do you think other people think your purpose is in any given post? That's also interesting to consider while writing.

"Pain in the ass," is much better than "Haven't a clue."