A Question on Communication

I have this strange almost compelling urge to post a thread asking 'When starting a thread to ask people about a topic, do you post the reasons why your asking?'

Proteus wrote: So lets take two people discussing their views. Person A and person B.

Person A expresses views that are accepting, open, and considering of Person B's views even given that they are not exactly the same.

Person B replies with not only views but direct statements that literally condemn Person A's views, showing no signs of any possibility of their own view being incomplete, imperfect, or even slightly inaccurate, and instead, insists that Person A's position is deluded, dangerous, and outright misguided.

Person A went into the discussion to share a belief in a neutral manner, devoid of judging person B's views or personal state.
Person B replied to the discussion with statements that contain notions against Person A to tell Person A he is wrong and deluded, using information that is no less proven or historically supported than Person A's.

What would you say is the state of this discussion?

The state of the discussion rather depends on Persons A's next response. But...*fidgets a little* Person A seems to grasp a better understanding of the second line, "There is no ignorance, there is knowledge." The scenario is a wonderful demonstration of this line and how it can be used in application for debate. ~El

Proteus wrote: So lets take two people discussing their views. Person A and person B.

Person A expresses views that are accepting, open, and considering of Person B's views even given that they are not exactly the same.

Person B replies with not only views but direct statements that literally condemn Person A's views, showing no signs of any possibility of their own view being incomplete, imperfect, or even slightly inaccurate, and instead, insists that Person A's position is deluded, dangerous, and outright misguided.

Person A went into the discussion to share a belief in a neutral manner, devoid of judging person B's views or personal state.
Person B replied to the discussion with statements that contain notions against Person A to tell Person A he is wrong and deluded, using information that is no less proven or historically supported than Person A's.

What would you say is the state of this discussion?

We can discuss things, converse of things, debate things, question things, and argue things.

Where one may begin a discussion, it can quickly turn to debate, and sour into an argument, but can always be returned to discussion, and perhaps even a conversation among friends.

How the above referenced scenario plays out will depend largely upon Person A's reaction to Person B's perceived attack. For we do not know if it was an attack in Person B's view or not, and intention and misinterpretation of intentions is not helpful to any constructive discourse.

Both Person A and B can be equally wrong and right at the same time, yet both are responsible for returning the course of the interaction to one of inquisition into the question.

It takes two to tango.

Adder wrote: I have this strange almost compelling urge to post a thread asking 'When starting a thread to ask people about a topic, do you post the reasons why your asking?'

And if you did start such a thread...what would be your reasons?

Proteus wrote: So lets take two people discussing their views. Person A and person B.

Person A expresses views that are accepting, open, and considering of Person B's views even given that they are not exactly the same.

Person B replies with not only views but direct statements that literally condemn Person A's views, showing no signs of any possibility of their own view being incomplete, imperfect, or even slightly inaccurate, and instead, insists that Person A's position is deluded, dangerous, and outright misguided.

Person A went into the discussion to share a belief in a neutral manner, devoid of judging person B's views or personal state.
Person B replied to the discussion with statements that contain notions against Person A to tell Person A he is wrong and deluded, using information that is no more proven or historically supported than Person A's.

What would you say is the state of this discussion?

Stalemate.

They will both keep jumping around, person A dodging attacks in an attempt to bring the conversation back to openness, while person B will keep on attempting a checkmate. Person B feels he is winning, but gains nothing. Person A avoids checkmate, but gets nowhere.

SamThift wrote:

Adder wrote: I have this strange almost compelling urge to post a thread asking 'When starting a thread to ask people about a topic, do you post the reasons why your asking?'

And if you did start such a thread...what would be your reasons?

Hehe, they don't exist! I might have been trying to be inter-subjective... but if I had to guess I'd say to see the correlation between query context and query intention.

I mostly just read. I have plenty of my own opinions. I am more interested in others.

When I do chime in, I generally try to give my two cents on the original post, though I've deviated from that in the past.

Adder wrote:

SamThift wrote:

Adder wrote: I have this strange almost compelling urge to post a thread asking 'When starting a thread to ask people about a topic, do you post the reasons why your asking?'

And if you did start such a thread...what would be your reasons?

Hehe, they don't exist! I might have been trying to be inter-subjective... but if I had to guess I'd say to see the correlation between query context and query intention.

So it's all framing then. Since any of us can hardly start a thread without intending a result of the thread, the only reason we would ever ask a question is to receive an answer that we like. The intention is to provide the context, where the context confirms the intention.

SamThift wrote:

Adder wrote:

SamThift wrote:

Adder wrote: I have this strange almost compelling urge to post a thread asking 'When starting a thread to ask people about a topic, do you post the reasons why your asking?'

And if you did start such a thread...what would be your reasons?

Hehe, they don't exist! I might have been trying to be inter-subjective... but if I had to guess I'd say to see the correlation between query context and query intention.

So it's all framing then. Since any of us can hardly start a thread without intending a result of the thread, the only reason we would ever ask a question is to receive an answer that we like. The intention is to provide the context, where the context confirms the intention.

You''d think it might make it easier, but it might not (if I'm following you). I'd prefer more information then less myself but new frames of reference do serve to help us look at things in new ways.

Adder wrote:

SamThift wrote:
So it's all framing then. Since any of us can hardly start a thread without intending a result of the thread, the only reason we would ever ask a question is to receive an answer that we like. The intention is to provide the context, where the context confirms the intention.

You''d think it might make it easier, but it might not (if I'm following you). I'd prefer more information then less myself but new frames of reference do serve to help us look at things in new ways.

But only if your original question (purpose of your thread) was truly open enough to accept further questions.

While most actual questions do have inherent flexibility to bend to new information or different points of view, there is often a certain breaking point in place existing as the anticipation of an answer one expects to find, and the question will remain unresolved until an agreeable answer is offered. We have an inherently biased point we are usually trying to make in our threads, and the debate/argue/discuss formatting of the interaction makes discarding disagreeable information or perspectives and championing agreeable information or perspectives far too easy. So what we really are seeking in asking anything is confirmation of what we already hold the answer to be.

If I ask "What is the greatest movie of all time?" I may enjoy some of the responses, and may even start to question my ranking of the returns, accepting new titles I hadn't previously considered for the GoAT rank, and perhaps even watching a few suggestions I had never watched. Yet, in the end, I am looking for someone else to offer Forrest Gump as the final answer. For that is the only one I can reasonably accept right now. Everything else, open-minded or not, is just word play until I have confirmation that my initial belief is in fact true.

So I will frame my thread to that end, my reasoning already evident, but will wait for the context to equal the intention before I consider the thread to be closed or settled.