A Question on Communication

When replying to someone in a thread about most of any kind of topic, what do you find is your initial aim?

Are you here more for the sport of actual debating?

Are you here more for the spirit of just expressing what you've learned?

Do you care more about correcting ignorance in other people when discussing things?

What do you think our approach should be when we discuss topics (particularly the more heated and sensitive ones) with others?

I try not to have intentions approaching the forums. Sometimes I just read. Some times I compare and reply differences and similarities. I do enjoy the occasional debate also.

I guess it would depend on the situation. Mostly, I like to reply so I can try to understand their reasoning behind their words and such. I friendly debate is good and well but we all know those can go south QUICK. If you go in with an open mind and and open heart, and even if you may not agree with what the person said, you should always show them respect.

I mostly lurk some of these threads since I'm not big on getting into debates and such, but if I feel like my opinion could help/mean something, then I drop in (like here!)

Depends on the thread, probably a few types of threads. For example Google liked to classify internet searches into 3 broad categories; navigational, informational, and transactional :side:

Generally speaking, I'd say 'exploration' of the topic itself, my own thoughts and others thoughts.

There isnt "one answer to rule them all" but for the most part, every topic is a mental puzzle; a riddle to solve, question to answer, an idea to stretch to its most likely conclusion. And (for me) the aim is to explore and investigate the puzzle/question/idea until ive gotten as close to "the truth" of it as i am capable of getting.

It depends on how I feel about the topic and on what would suit my desires at the time.

Sometimes I feel like just sharing my opinions. Sometimes I feel like a debate. Sometimes I don't post and just read what others have written. Etc.

When replying to someone in a thread about most of any kind of topic, what do you find is your initial aim?

Are you here more for the sport of actual debating?
Are you here more for the spirit of just expressing what you've learned?
Do you care more about correcting ignorance in other people when discussing things?

I probably do not enter a conversation with much of an agenda, but I like to think that I can contribute to showing a different side to a point. I like being challenged, so I try to offer the same, though I am often aware that not everyone desires a challenge. All examples you state probably work their way into my posts quite easily.

What do you think our approach should be when we discuss topics (particularly the more heated and sensitive ones) with others?

I value an honest approach, even if it is not delicately stated nor shows "empathy" for my feelings on the topic. As long as name calling is set aside, I see it as a huge favor when someone can shatter my views or jar me out of a funk. I realize not all people like this, so I try to adapt my style according to the person I'm addressing, but it's not easy.

Why do you ask, Proteus?

Proteus wrote: When replying to someone in a thread about most of any kind of topic, what do you find is your initial aim?

Are you here more for the sport of actual debating?

Are you here more for the spirit of just expressing what you've learned?

Do you care more about correcting ignorance in other people when discussing things?

What do you think our approach should be when we discuss topics (particularly the more heated and sensitive ones) with others?

I don't usually speak of initial aim, as that seems to intend some kind of change of practice. When I approach threads I approach it as what I feel any Jedi should. We are here to share knowledge, and to seek knowledge where knowledge may not yet be defined. Debates will happen as a consequence to that. A key part to bringing knowledge from ignorance is perspectives, to truly understand a thing you need as many perspectives as possible, but also to provide your own, and to keep an open mind as a form of mutual respect for others who give their perspectives if you expect them to listen to yours. Debates happen, but I'm there to share what I know when there is something I feel needs shared if no one else has the same perspective. I'm not out to debate just for the sake of debating or to force anyone to think in any such way. I say my piece, correct myself if I need to explain things further, debate if there is a reasonable debate going on, or if there are people debating on false information. Then move along to the next one.

I try to approach my interactions here in the Krishnamurti notion that every thought, question, or topic needs endless/never-ending/eternal consideration.

Every reply to every interaction we ever have should not be the last reply. A settled question is a closed door that ignores the fluid nature of a question itself.

We should not be seeking answers to questions, but just looking to give it more thought. Always.

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?

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.