The Art of Disagreement

It isn't much of a revelation that while we are to greater or lesser extent internet personae on here beside, if not in place of our genuine selves, neither is it that far off to understand that the nature of this place is one we utilize to speak our minds as openly as we feel we can afford to, for better or worse. Most of what we claim we think, we do at that moment also believe we think, and much of what we believe we feel in these discussions is in the vicinity of what it is we actually feel about them.
Now yes, just as we don't encourage children cussing (or most of us, I presume wouldn't, anyway), it stands to reason that neither should some highly destructive, or should I rather say inflammatory, rhetoric be explicitly encouraged.
However, this wouldn't be much of the same place we openly speak our minds at if from on high we were dictated to try our utmost not to offend. And let's face it, that's what this boils down to (again).
This is, after all, an internet forum. We do have a journals section where we are free to have our open solitude as much as we please, but to expect it in public discussions is like expecting to play basketball at a chess club.
I suppose my point is that while I respect and would defend anyone's right to request being addressed in a particular manner, and even go so far as to say that we may or may not consider pulling the nastiest of teeth that would otherwise poison our food, if you must, but we must leave our forceps off those we merely deem ugly. Not only does no animal take kindly to its teeth being removed artificially like that, but if we have nothing anymore to actually bite our food with, to chew it, as it were, we'll also be left eating porridge for the rest of our time here.

To contribute to this, I think a responsible degree of subjectivity should be part of this art. When discussing our personal experiences, for instance, we must be aware that not everone will share our specific experiences and not everyone will draw the same conclusions from similar experiences. And we must respect the validity of those other bodies of experience and give at least the benefit of the doubt to those other conclusions.

One of my favorite quotations from my Maitre, and I am paraphrasing, is this:

We must not make our meaning by destoying the meaning of others.

I would love to see the forums be more about learning and less about winning.

Gisteron wrote: It isn't much of a revelation that while we are to greater or lesser extent internet personae on here beside, if not in place of our genuine selves, neither is it that far off to understand that the nature of this place is one we utilize to speak our minds as openly as we feel we can afford to, for better or worse. Most of what we claim we think, we do at that moment also believe we think, and much of what we believe we feel in these discussions is in the vicinity of what it is we actually feel about them.
Now yes, just as we don't encourage children cussing (or most of us, I presume wouldn't, anyway), it stands to reason that neither should some highly destructive, or should I rather say inflammatory, rhetoric be explicitly encouraged.
However, this wouldn't be much of the same place we openly speak our minds at if from on high we were dictated to try our utmost not to offend. And let's face it, that's what this boils down to (again).
This is, after all, an internet forum. We do have a journals section where we are free to have our open solitude as much as we please, but to expect it in public discussions is like expecting to play basketball at a chess club.
I suppose my point is that while I respect and would defend anyone's right to request being addressed in a particular manner, and even go so far as to say that we may or may not consider pulling the nastiest of teeth that would otherwise poison our food, if you must, but we must leave our forceps off those we merely deem ugly. Not only does no animal take kindly to its teeth being removed artificially like that, but if we have nothing anymore to actually bite our food with, to chew it, as it were, we'll also be left eating porridge for the rest of our time here.

I understand just what you're saying here, as some of us simply have the nature of the hunt in our blood so to speak when it comes to certain individuals and just the right topics.

Acknowledging this, I would like to express my ideas in this thread as not "de-fanging" anyone, but instead, teaching a much more efficient way to carry out the hunt. I've noticed that in many cases, the hunt can become an energy-consuming, and messy wrestling match with more blood loss than usually necessary. What I imagine is a technique that can put a prey down with the least amount of pain and agony possible for the prey and using the least amount of energy by the hunter (hunting smarter, not harder).

Proteus wrote: 1. Probing questions for clarification, elaboration, and exploration, and then...

Proteus wrote: Could this "Art of Disagreement" become more fueled by the want to learn, than the want to teach?

"To be understood, as to understand" ...

These are my two favorite parts of the OP. I feel like (prepare for personal experience evidence ) I see many arguments come about because of these two things, or rather a lack of these two things. People don't ask questions for clarification and people care more about teaching others than learning from others.

My favorite thing to see in the forum is when two people start out disagreeing and calmly discuss the subject until they reach an understanding, even if they still don't agree. Although frequently I see arguments where people seem to be saying almost the same thing but using different words and not taking the time to hear each other out. I love to see people say "Well I guess we actually agree then! :laugh: "

My second favorite thing to see in the forums is when someone had one stance at the start of a thread and has a different stance by the end. To see a person go into the conversation with an idea and an open mind and is actually swayed by the conversation instead of stubbornly sticking to their ideas no matter what.

My third favorite thing to see is pictures of bears, but that's not entirely relevant. :laugh:

The prey, or what I called the food in my analogy is not the opponent, it's the subject at hand. Now, yes, some are more sensitive than others and react more aggressively to, let's call it "uncareful" inquiries of the "I disagree and here is why" or "Here is why I think you are plain wrong about this" kind. I wouldn't say that specifically on TOTJO heated reactions often lead to personal battles, but in principle they can. However, they don't need to and I'd for one much rather make the participants responsible for not going there rather than framing their challenges so mildly as to risk their remaining unaddressed. The power words have over us, the things they signal to us is absent tone and body language often in the hands of the recipient rather than the sender and for this reason I think the sender should not carry the weight of trying to avoid overreactions.
I'm by no means one to laugh in someone's face at the first genuinely laughable thing they say or call their position idiotic even if after a longer discussion that may be exactly what I think of it. There are rules about civil conduct on this forum already in place. Respectful disagreement is already a restriction far above and beyond the law that only forbids physical or some forms of verbal abuse. Setting aside whether that restriction is sensible, it does leave us to civil disagreements, and intellectual, albeit occasionally heated, debates. Some find them just that little bit too heated and decide not to come back for many more, others stay and enjoy not being abused but be treated with good sportsmanship instead. To introduce a new guideline along the lines of "frame your challenges so as to avoid people mistaking them for attacks" can hardly make a perfectly civil place any more civil, but because we never know what will offend someone next, it can very well prevent what could otherwise become a most enlightening clash of minds to the readers as much as to the participants. It also, as I mentioned earlier, puts the responsibility over how others feel because of what someone says on the sayer rather than on the feeler, forcing them into a position of having to please all. Not only can an actor seldom anticipate every reaction, potentially for months to come, the actor is also the party with the least control over it, while the reactor is treated as a victim of the action rather than the actual perpetrator of the reaction.

I see your point, Proteus, I just... think that it can be taken way farther than would be good to anyone. Not sure if someone would, but why prepare the slope in the first place, if we don't want to end up slipping down?

Gisteron wrote: The prey, or what I called the food in my analogy is not the opponent, it's the subject at hand. Now, yes, some are more sensitive than others and react more aggressively to, let's call it "uncareful" inquiries of the "I disagree and here is why" or "Here is why I think you are plain wrong about this" kind. I wouldn't say that specifically on TOTJO heated reactions often lead to personal battles, but in principle they can. However, they don't need to and I'd for one much rather make the participants responsible for not going there rather than framing their challenges so mildly as to risk their remaining unaddressed. The power words have over us, the things they signal to us is absent tone and body language often in the hands of the recipient rather than the sender and for this reason I think the sender should not carry the weight of trying to avoid overreactions.
I'm by no means one to laugh in someone's face at the first genuinely laughable thing they say or call their position idiotic even if after a longer discussion that may be exactly what I think of it. There are rules about civil conduct on this forum already in place. Respectful disagreement is already a restriction far above and beyond the law that only forbids physical or some forms of verbal abuse. Setting aside whether that restriction is sensible, it does leave us to civil disagreements, and intellectual, albeit occasionally heated, debates. Some find them just that little bit too heated and decide not to come back for many more, others stay and enjoy not being abused but be treated with good sportsmanship instead. To introduce a new guideline along the lines of "frame your challenges so as to avoid people mistaking them for attacks" can hardly make a perfectly civil place any more civil, but because we never know what will offend someone next, it can very well prevent what could otherwise become a most enlightening clash of minds to the readers as much as to the participants. It also, as I mentioned earlier, puts the responsibility over how others feel because of what someone says on the sayer rather than on the feeler, forcing them into a position of having to please all. Not only can an actor seldom anticipate every reaction, potentially for months to come, the actor is also the party with the least control over it, while the reactor is treated as a victim of the action rather than the actual perpetrator of the reaction.

I see your point, Proteus, I just... think that it can be taken way farther than would be good to anyone. Not sure if someone would, but why prepare the slope in the first place, if we don't want to end up slipping down?

Right. Well, we most certainly wouldn't want to develop this as a system of censorship nor political correctness, which in time, someone could mistake it as and even try to direct it toward over time. But such a way of communication should never be that simple. As I understand, it seems very important for us to be able to honestly express ourselves and how we feel. I don't think I would suggest leaving those aspects out of the equation. Instead, I feel it is about exercising a higher level of awareness of how one is feeling and learning how to more clearly communicate those feelings in a way that helps keep the dialogue open and accepting, instead of restricted. Speaking of taking responsibility, doing so would be a core aspect of the ability of this kind of communication, since, what we typically get, is the responsibility frequently put onto the other person in the disagreement, as part of the heated process of argument.

I think a great deal of this comes down to intention. The learning vs. teaching element in the OP.

We can certainly tear into a subject matter without tearing into each other. And if we can't, what is all this training for?

I’ll throw this in again as I believe it is fitting.

Nonviolent Communication

As an explanation: I don’t think the 4 components part will be feasible online/written, plus it is designed to solve personal conflicts rather than the matter of the discussion. The other parts of the ‘NVC theory’ block however I would say are fitting. As with all things this too needs to be seen with nuances and I partially agree with Gisteron that we need to avoid suffocating discussions in fluffiness, but the general concept of being aware what I myself actually want in this and how it makes me feel as well as what I believe the other wants from this and why that may be important to them is a concept I believe to be in line with our doctrine.

Here is another thing which I learned through roleplaying online (during the dark ages where character animation was minimal and everything needed to be expressed through written text): Power-rp is bad. Power-roleplaying would be the part of a narrative where one participant writes something that takes away choices from another. If I wish to punch someone in the face, power-rp would be ‘I hit you in the face’ where as regular rp would be ‘I throw a punch at your face’. The difference is: In the first part I decide what is happening, forcing my view on them; In the second part I express what I want to happen but ultimately it is their choice if it actually does (if the punch connects). Why is this relevant? Because it happens in regular conversation too. “You said xyz”. This would be an absolute expression, which is fine if we are quoting, but powerplay if xyz is what we made of it. In line with the OP the better strategy would be “Did you mean xyz?”

Because if it’s not there in printed(displayed) letters word by word we are reading it into it. And then it is just our understanding of it which is not necessarily the objective truth. This is not even accounting for the other not expressing themselves correctly (as in: not conveying what they actually meant) as I feel that is everyone’s own responsibility.

In conclusion: Asking questions is not meant to slow down the discussion or prevent an in-depth exploration of the matter, the way I see it, it is meant to reduce the clutter spawned my miscommunication.

I think part of it has to do with something I believe to be fundamental with ideology. No matter how much data, clarity, logic, and all those other ingredients that supposedly make for a good dialogue; unless a person is genuinely open to the possibility of changing their opinion they will not change it. You cannot force someone to change their ideological stance unless they already want to.

This is why, on the best of days, I read what other people think and mull it over and then put in my thoughts but I don't continue to post unless I feel that I have something to say that will add new ideas to the conversation. That, to me, is one of the ideal ways to discuss stuff with people.

Most of the time, unfortunately, I get swept up in the passion of opinions and feel (in that moment) compelled to write something that'll "really show 'em they're wrong" only to be met with the same level of passion from a different perspective. It's an easy trap to fall into because I think it's intricately tied to pride and ego, maybe others have a different take on it... For me, I know that I feel like, "I know how to attack this, I can do it. I can wipe the floors with their weak arguments." In the end very little is accomplished. I am disturbed by how frequently these discussions become personal and I've not been one to hold back letting something become personal. Sometimes I get roped in because I feel like the discussion thus far has been one big self-congratulatory circle-jerk (I will note that it's not coincidence that there's a judgmental tone there). Again, I think that's my ego saying, "These people don't get it. They're not thinking critically. I'll show them!"

https://youtu.be/qZLOeiYuTyA