Discussing ideas, not people

There tends to be a common adage used in TotJO that goes like this:

"Discuss ideas, not people".

I know that the "spirit" of the adage is to avoid ad hominem fallacies, and especially to deter personal attacks.

However, I do think the separation between "person" and "idea" can be a bit arbitrary (i.e., sometimes it "seems" the "person" is being discussed, when in reality it is a much deeper analysis of the idea - and the motivators and experiences behind it - which is being explored).

My question is: is it possible that by avoiding "discussing the person" we might be missing out on the opportunity to explore ideas, mindsets and deep motivations that might lead to exponential personal growth?

Manu wrote: There tends to be a common adage used in TotJO that goes like this:

"Discuss ideas, not people".

I know that the "spirit" of the adage is to avoid ad hominem fallacies, and especially to deter personal attacks.

However, I do think the separation between "person" and "idea" can be a bit arbitrary (i.e., sometimes it "seems" the "person" is being discussed, when in reality it is a much deeper analysis of the idea - and the motivators and experiences behind it - which is being explored).

My question is: is it possible that by avoiding "discussing the person" we might be missing out on the opportunity to explore ideas, mindsets and deep motivations that might lead to exponential personal growth?

Anything is possible...

But I'll also note the more common problem, and that is not everyone is prepared to handle that kind of questioning, or more importantly willing. There's the common phrase which I hate very much and that is "Do on to others as you would want done to yourself" or some other common tweaks like, instead of do on to, respect others, or treat others etc...

The problem with that is especially when you leave your local communities and connect with people from many different cultures and other communities they all have different ways of conversing, and exchanging ideas. What might may seem appropriate for one, is not going to be appropriate for the other.

So the idea is to reduce that conflict potential, by focusing on the idea's, and avoiding condescending language, such as "If not your writing style is incredibly lazy and infested with inuendo and syllogysm" could have better been written such as "I'm having difficulty with your writing style, bare with me, to understand my perspective it just appears to me to be loaded with inuendo and syllogysm, could you better explain what you have written?". The two essentially mean the same but the latter is less aggressive, and depending on the individual reading will read the former wrongly more times then correctly. The fault isn't so much on the interpreter as the writer, but both are participants. A more respectful writing style tends to be more welcoming of fruitful discussions then not.

But that's just my perspective.

Tellahane wrote:

Manu wrote: There tends to be a common adage used in TotJO that goes like this:

"Discuss ideas, not people".

I know that the "spirit" of the adage is to avoid ad hominem fallacies, and especially to deter personal attacks.

However, I do think the separation between "person" and "idea" can be a bit arbitrary (i.e., sometimes it "seems" the "person" is being discussed, when in reality it is a much deeper analysis of the idea - and the motivators and experiences behind it - which is being explored).

My question is: is it possible that by avoiding "discussing the person" we might be missing out on the opportunity to explore ideas, mindsets and deep motivations that might lead to exponential personal growth?

Anything is possible...

But I'll also note the more common problem, and that is not everyone is prepared to handle that kind of questioning, or more importantly willing. There's the common phrase which I hate very much and that is "Do on to others as you would want done to yourself" or some other common tweaks like, instead of do on to, respect others, or treat others etc...

The problem with that is especially when you leave your local communities and connect with people from many different cultures and other communities they all have different ways of conversing, and exchanging ideas. What might may seem appropriate for one, is not going to be appropriate for the other.

So the idea is to reduce that conflict potential, by focusing on the idea's, and avoiding condescending language, such as "If not your writing style is incredibly lazy and infested with inuendo and syllogysm" could have better been written such as "I'm having difficulty with your writing style, bare with me, to understand my perspective it just appears to me to be loaded with inuendo and syllogysm, could you better explain what you have written?". The two essentially mean the same but the latter is less aggressive, and depending on the individual reading will read the former wrongly more times then correctly. The fault isn't so much on the interpreter as the writer, but both are participants. A more respectful writing style tends to be more welcoming of fruitful discussions then not.

But that's just my perspective.

Also, the latter form of that response is more productive as it actively encourages the other person to work with you for clearer understanding. Synergistic cooperation, as far as I've observed, tends to go further than challenges toward someone's personal convictions, etc. It also (in my eyes) shows more social intelligence and maturity, which can convert into inspiring by example.

So the idea is to reduce that conflict potential, by focusing on the idea's, and avoiding condescending language, such as "If not your writing style is incredibly lazy and infested with inuendo and syllogysm" could have better been written such as "I'm having difficulty with your writing style, bare with me, to understand my perspective it just appears to me to be loaded with inuendo and syllogysm, could you better explain what you have written?". The two essentially mean the same but the latter is less aggressive, and depending on the individual reading will read the former wrongly more times then correctly. The fault isn't so much on the interpreter as the writer, but both are participants. A more respectful writing style tends to be more welcoming of fruitful discussions then not.

I think these are actually two separate issues. It is entirely possible to discuss an idea so deeply as to explore a particular person's worldview without resorting to condescending or inflammatory language, just as it is quite easy to be very inflammatory when debating the shallowest of things (e.g. pizza on pineapple? are you a moron?!).

But I'll also note the more common problem, and that is not everyone is prepared to handle that kind of questioning, or more importantly willing. There's the common phrase which I hate very much and that is "Do on to others as you would want done to yourself" or some other common tweaks like, instead of do on to, respect others, or treat others etc...

The problem with that is especially when you leave your local communities and connect with people from many different cultures and other communities they all have different ways of conversing, and exchanging ideas. What might may seem appropriate for one, is not going to be appropriate for the other.

I get that, being a Temple, we are bound to have an influx of people who come from backgrounds that include verbal abuse, mental disorders, anxiety, etc., that might make deeper probing ver uncomfortable. But the alternative seems to simply stoop to the lowest common denominator of what we are allowed to discuss, similar to how PC culture has made communications a nightmare, because there is always someone we might be offending with something we say.

Why not take advantage of the fact that we have forum categories, to actually set aside those topics that are marked for casual conversation and endless head bobbing as we all agree with each other in our own little heavenly corner, and separate them from more serious topics, clearly marked for deeper exploration?

I for one, consider it invaluable when we can go deeper into something, even if that requires owning up to my own discomfort.

If you come up with a list of suggested categories and rules you can pitch it for discussion and see if people agree, if the need is there the temple will provide, if it is capable of doing so.

Your perspective of course, but not mine. Why use 50 words to say something you can say in 25 and get a more precise point across? Once again, as I have said before, we need to be responsible for our own actions, not spend our time trying to change others into a version of themselves we think they should be. Pointing out the apparent flaw you see in a sentence and then engaging in an exercise to reword it but ending the whole thing with "just my opinion" is not very effective as it only serves to once again passively aggressively polarize a conversation into yet another game of persecution of the individual.

Do not Demean Others.
Do not Belittle Others.
Ideas, Not People.
Its simple

This is what I find so funny. These ideas are NOT simple. This is because they get skewed by followup individuals trying to once again correct wrongs and adjust people to their idea of who they should be and in the process often quote mine and take things out of context. Often times ideas are called insane not people, ideas are called idiotic, not people. But because those ideas are associated with people they get transposed from the idea to the person. Acting crazy does not make you crazy, it only makes you perceived as acting crazy over a specific context. That is not calling a person crazy, it is calling a behaviour into question, not an individual.

I love the most recent example in the media of this. Donald Trump typically calls out Fake News and he says "Reporters that report fake news should be silenced". This is a call out to suppress fake news reporters. However when the media gets ahold of this they conveniently leave out a portion and report that Donald Trump said "Reporters should be silenced". This is classic out of context quote mining and it happens quite frequently on this board as well. People are so quick to respond and correct someone they don't like that they never actually listen to what they said or they just deliberately misquote them. I had this happen to me about 5 times last night across two different threads.

I have said this before and I will say it again, stop trying to fix people or modify them into versions of people you think they should be and start celebrating them for who they already are. This is a natural process where we each take responsibility for our own actions and stop worrying about everyone else.

I think part of the importance is the knowledge of what is and isn't an ad hominem.

For example, if you're discussing equality among people:

"George is wrong because he is mean" is not a valid criticism,

"George is wrong because he has a history of saying things that imply his position is not in our best interest" is a valid criticism.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I have said this before and I will say it again, stop trying to fix people or modify them into versions of people you think they should be and start celebrating them for who they already are. This is a natural process where we each take responsibility for our own actions and stop worrying about everyone else.

To be fair though, isn't this what your approach toward others here seems to be trying to do? When you challenge others to "stop all the the LARPing and be more genuine", it kinda sounds like the same thing you're claiming against.

Something else I observe here is what I call "hypocrisy loopholes" which is what can manifest easily in a community like this. When just the right person spots these, they learn how to say pretty much whatever they want in just the right ways and not get in trouble because it exposes "hypocrisy" in the community. This loophole is frequently used to get away with being as "strait forward" as one would like to be.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: This is because they get skewed by followup individuals trying to once again correct wrongs and adjust people to their idea of who they should be and in the process often quote mine and take things out of context.

I feel like I didn't word my statement correctly, I did not intend to change who people are, simply lay out a common ground to which we can better converse. There are many ways to communicate, not everyone can communicate via video, not all can send/receive text messages, some are blind, deaf, illiterate as broad examples. I'm not asking someone to change their perspective, I'm just asking to converse on a common respectful ground/medium to share and discuss your perspectives.

It is simple.

I do believe it was Gist who said it best, and its a rule I've been trying to go by.

"Avoid the use of the word you."

I find the second I use that word, I'm making it much more personal than it should be. Avoid it, and people coming out of the woodwork murmuring "Ideas, not People" will quickly stop, or at least lessen.

I'll paraphrase for the sake of mixed company -

I heard a joke, I'm sure there are similar versions across the world.

A young soldier is getting yelled at by his commander, and the young soldier says "you're a tosser"

and the commander turns a deep angry red, and says "You can't say that! I'm your commander! You can be flogged for saying that!"

so the soldier asks "Can I get in trouble for what I think?"

the commander stops to think

"Well, no I guess you can't"

"Okay!" the soldier says brightly "I think you're a tosser!"



You might say he ended up dicussing ideas, not people

Proteus wrote:
To be fair though, isn't this what your approach toward others here seems to be trying to do? When you challenge others to "stop all the the LARPing and be more genuine", it kinda sounds like the same thing you're claiming against.

Actually no, your assessment is not fair but thank you for committing the actual phopah that I speak of. I never CHALLENGED anyone to anything. I did not challenge them to be other than larpers and I did not even degrade them for following that path. I simply stated my opinion on the matter of specific individuals here and why I personally do not respect them. I did Express encouragement that they continue to grow but I expressed no disparaging comments about where they were beyond my own disappointment in them. There is a huge difference between these ideas and ones where people have been personally called out for not meeting some arbitrary standard of communication.

Proteus wrote:
To be fair though, isn't this what your approach toward others here seems to be trying to do? When you challenge others to "stop all the the LARPing and be more genuine", it kinda sounds like the same thing you're claiming against.

I would say this is a fair assessment.

Arisaig wrote: "Avoid the use of the word you."

I find the second I use that word, I'm making it much more personal than it should be. Avoid it, and people coming out of the woodwork murmuring "Ideas, not People" will quickly stop, or at least lessen.

This was my original question though: what are missing out on trying to make conversations impersonal? It is one issue to word arguments in a violent/abusive/bullying manner. It is another to avoid trying to discuss things at a more personal level. I have seen "ideas, not people" been thrown around even when the person being "defended" has taken no offense at all, and is actually getting a much fuller experience by going deeper into things.

Manu wrote:
I would say this is a fair assessment.

Really? Well my reply notwithstanding, who and where did I challenge anyone?

Manu wrote:

Arisaig wrote: "Avoid the use of the word you."

I find the second I use that word, I'm making it much more personal than it should be. Avoid it, and people coming out of the woodwork murmuring "Ideas, not People" will quickly stop, or at least lessen.

This was my original question though: what are missing out on trying to make conversations impersonal? It is one issue to word arguments in a violent/abusive/bullying manner. It is another to avoid trying to discuss things at a more personal level. I have seen "ideas, not people" been thrown around even when the person being "defended" has taken no offense at all, and is actually getting a much fuller experience by going deeper into things.

Its not a matter of making it impersonal, but avoiding it can be less, well, direct.

You wanna get personal, that's what PMs are for.

In informal writing “you” is actually the preferred form to specifically address the reader and "one" is used only when you want to address a person in general but not specifically the reader. This is considered good practice in general. In formal writing the latter might be preferred to the former because the former can come across as accusatory. But this is really the only circumstance to use "one" as opposed to "you." Generally, except in very formal writing, "one" comes across as rather pretentious or old fashioned. It puts distance between the reader and writer which is seen as a bad thing making “you” the preferred term to use.

Same goes for so called “softening” phrases like I believe, I feel or I think. These phrases do not inspire confidence in the reader, In fact they do the exact opposite. Their use causes the reader to question the author’s authenticity and honesty. These words make the writer sound unsure of themselves and the topic discussed. It also forces the writer to overuse pronouns and that’s not effective writing.

JamesSand wrote:
"Okay!" the soldier says brightly "I think you're a tosser!"

You might say he ended up dicussing ideas, not people

Haha, but no.

He was 'both' thinking it and saying it. So I imagine he would have still got in trouble, but it would have been for saying it not thinking it. While he was allowed to think it, he was not allowed to say it.
So saying he thought it is still saying it. It doesn't matter if he makes it a personal belief or observation because its still about a person and not an idea. That's how I see that anyway.

Manu wrote: I get that, being a Temple, we are bound to have an influx of people who come from backgrounds that include verbal abuse, mental disorders, anxiety, etc., that might make deeper probing ver uncomfortable. But the alternative seems to simply stoop to the lowest common denominator of what we are allowed to discuss, similar to how PC culture has made communications a nightmare, because there is always someone we might be offending with something we say.

It's probably a bell curve.... for I see that it goes the other way as well, being where the loudest and rudest people are effectively white noise to any diverse discussion, its either there way or get attacked. There are lots of people out there that crave attention and want to be the centre of it, and take pleasure in 'winning' internet arguments... or even getting the last word. It's that which I consider the lowest common denominator as well. The middle ground is probably what should be aimed for, and I tend to think ideas not people is well within that exactly because it tries to stop venturing to either end of the curve, where on one hand people take topics personally and on the other people take attacks personally.

Manu wrote: Why not take advantage of the fact that we have forum categories, to actually set aside those topics that are marked for casual conversation and endless head bobbing as we all agree with each other in our own little heavenly corner, and separate them from more serious topics, clearly marked for deeper exploration?

I agree. The Faith forum was probably meant like that but people wanted to criticize people in there as well. It speaks to genuine intent I think, if someone helps a place run by trying to work with it versus working against it. It's those people who make rules required. And they are examples of why we can't have nice things But they exist at both ends of the curve and we all can interact at any point at any given moment - its up to our intent and effort to chose how to interact. Rules are just holding people responsible for their decisions. The trouble is no body of rules cannot cover all possible behaviours, which is why so much time is spent with these topics - because rule breakers spend too much energy on trying to break them. It cannot be black or white, so again a middle ground is sought.... and defended, else it slips one way or the other.

Manu wrote: I for one, consider it invaluable when we can go deeper into something, even if that requires owning up to my own discomfort.

Yea I think most would agree, but the question might better be how best to do that. Open slather is probably not the best way to do it IMO.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Same goes for so called “softening” phrases like I believe, I feel or I think. These phrases do not inspire confidence in the reader, In fact they do the exact opposite. Their use causes the reader to question the author’s authenticity and honesty. These words make the writer sound unsure of themselves and the topic discussed. It also forces the writer to overuse pronouns and that’s not effective writing.

Well, let's be clear here. Who is the reader here? Are you speaking for everyone who reads these forums? I have felt plenty inspired many times by posts that use these phrases and I have also had many times I've received loads of Thank You's for posts I have used these phrases in.

Proteus wrote: Well, let's be clear here. Who is the reader here? Are you speaking for everyone who reads these forums? I have felt plenty inspired many times by posts that use these phrases and I have also had many times I've received loads of Thank You's for posts I have used these phrases in.

The reader is the person reading the writers posts. I am speaking for no one, I'm stating good rules for informal writing. I didnt know this was a thank you contest. I dont consider it that but if you do, good job on your plethora of thank you's! Keep up the good work, I'll be over here having deep meaningful conversations.