"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> Dana Hedberg wrote:
> > If I wanted to have an argument, I would write more like M. Lorrey or L.
> > Crocker. =) Bygones. Seriously though, when I talk/write with someone, I
> > don't view it as adversarial. I view it more as an attempt by all
> > parties to discover something new, together. More of a cooperative
> > push/pull towards some undiscovered country of the mind (and all it
> > entails), rather than a here's my opinion, bow down. If you'd rather
> > have an "argument" I'll oblige, but I'd rather not if it's all the same
> > to you. =)
> Ha. Well, I understand that some people view my conversational manner as
> confrontational or argumentative. I know that in plenty of my posts, I do lose
> patience with opinions or statements that I see as uninformed or in willful
> denial of the facts, even after the facts have been clearly posted and
> referenced. People who prefer to think the best of themselves obviously resent
> when I call them by their proper names, names they deserve if they are to
I try not to call anyone names. The portion of people that I see through
fora such as this is very tiny as to their actual being, as well as
being a medium that seems at times to thrive on miscommunications. What
I will do is call into question their statements, their use of
words/phrasology, their logic and reasoning, their assumptions, etc.,
but rarely, if ever, will I call into question their character. It seems
counterproductive and often fosters more road blocks to useful
communication. Now, don't get me wrong Mike (if I may take the liberty).
Your style of communication is one that I enjoy in that you are very
straightforward and do not mince words. I suppose that I tend to give
others the benefit of the doubt more so than I should, but at the end of
the day I can honestly say that I tried to be very reasonable in
understanding others. It just doesn't seem profitable to engender anger
in others over a set of topics if in the future they may be able to
present information to me on other topics in a manner I agree with, but
I would never realize because I called them something less than
pleasant. Do you agree?
> beleive the things they do without significant thought. Other people who do not
> like to have their most cherished misconceptions challenged dislike dealing with
> myself, or Lee, or others on the list who do not suffer fools so gladly as
> others seem willing to do. Being of the school that 'that which does not kill
I might argue they dislike dealing with you (and L. Crocker) not because
their misconceptions are challenged, but rather due to the manner in
which they are confronted. Which do you think is more engendering of an
exchange of information? 1)"Your opinion is unfounded, because of x.",
versus 2)"Your ignorance is showing, because of x." It's a question of
style, I suppose. And like anything in that subjective realm, is open to
interpretation, granted. For me, my style is an approach based on
eliciting communication, not reducing the conversation to mudslinging.
Which is in no way meant to imply that you (and L. Crocker) do this on
this purpose. But, it does seem to happen frequently with the
discussions you have with others that you disagree with.
> you makes you stronger', I look at my adversarial manner, which IMHO I actually
> rarely release in full force, as a tool by which others may improve themselves.
It seems slightly disingenuous of you to live by this creed unless you
make it clear upfront. If you come to the table of conversation thinking
of war, then of course I'm going to lose. How do I get stronger, if I'm
crushed right off the bat leaving me with no emotional fortitude to
explain that my last post had an unfortunate typo? A silly example, to
be sure, but the point is illustrative. IMHO, it's very easy to be
adversarial, it's very difficult to elicit cooperative communication.
For me, I'd rather improve my skills at the latter than the former. It's
hard enough understanding people you are very close to, let alone
someone I only see written words from. Name calling seems to make the
odds even worse.
> I know that when others come back at me to bring my own misconceptions to my
> attention, it does improve me as well.
Very true. Let me ask you this: How would you want those misconceptions
presented to you?
> That being said, I do not come to the list 'looking for an argument', however,
> as seen in the stats posted regarding the percent of the population that
> beleives in creationism, there is obviously a large chunk of the population that
> is living in Egypt at any given time...
I'll be the first to let my stupidity and ignorance show and say I have
no idea what this means. The Egypt part, that is. =)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:52 MDT