From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 09:25:55 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Two things I am quite weary of:
>
> 1. ..
> 2. Posters complaining that we should "harmonize"
> instead of argue---that we should try to "work
> together" instead of score points.
[snip]
> On (2), above, Brett writes
>
> > The Lomborg debate provides just one example of where a
> > choice was made to frame the discourse in terms of "point
> > scoring over the opponent" rather than, framing it in terms of
> > "seeking a deeper understanding".
> >
> > This choice, either to pursue "point scoring" or to pursue
> > "deeper understanding" seems available to each of us each
> > time we post.
>
> I wish I had a dollar for every time on this forum this
> useless sentiment has been expressed.
I see very little sentiment (useless or otherwise) in the statements
at all.
I certainly wasn't looking to do anything so pointless as express
mere sentiment. I hoped to highlight a fundamental choice that
each poster gets to make each time they post - to "pursue point
scoring" or to "pursue deeper understanding".
Do you think there is no such choice?
>
> > Yet it seems that there are STRUCTURAL aspects of a list
> > such as this, that make it hard for people to keep in mind,
> > both that they HAVE this choice and that there are REAL
> > consequences in how the choice is exercised
>
> Do you really think that it would be any different in person?
Yes I really do.
I think that if people are talking face to face either one to one or
in groups that a differnent set of dynamics apply than apply on a
list where posts are sequential. I think a list structure favours the
"point scoring" mindest as opposed to the "seeking deep
understanding" mindset more than face to face does. It easier to
tell in the more context rich face to face environment if people are
serious, interested, in the middle of a conversation that matters to
them or merely shooting the breeze, and so in a face to face
circumstances I think the "point scoring" debater mindest would
stand out more balatantly as rude and damaging and that people
would therefore do it less as a consequence of the richer feedback
that they'd get.
My point is essentially that lists are less forgiving, there is a natural
bias in them that favors "point scoring", for the reasons I outlined,
and its worth being aware of this bias. Being aware may help us
counter it.
> Consider the exchange between Anders and Mike:
>
> > [Anders wrote]
> >> One prerequisite for having a constructive discussion about a
> >> powerful topic is to be able to handle it on a high level of
> >> abstraction. When you know enough about a topic you can start to
> >> look at it from different sides. You can be abstract enough about
> >> it so that you become dispassionate.
>
> Mike replied
>
> > On the contrary, the more you know about a topic, when that topic turns
> > on Objective Truth, the more likely you are to be very passionate for
> > the side which you are able to objectively, quantitatively, and
> > qualitatively determine is in the right. The opposition begins, more
> > and more, to look not just wrong, but foolish, naive, stubbornly
> > obstinate in their willful ignorance, and willing to believe anything
> > that agrees with their prejudices.
>
> It's quite clear that the more someone learns about an
> issue, the less affected is his or her basic personality
> disposition!
Not to me.
I'm not sure what your saying. It seems that, your saying that, as the
amount of knowledge one has on a subject increases one's personality
(or) personal disposition, is less (e)ffected by each further unit
increment.
Either speaking generally or even having particular regard to
the example you've provided I can't see that your conclusion is justified
(even if I restated it correctly which I'm not sure about). It looks like
quite a big claim about the way knowledge effects personality.
An interesting one though. I'd genuinely like to see you develop this if
you can and have a interest in doing so.
> Those who start by being quite opinionated
> remain that way, and those who tend to reserve judgment,
> have "working hypotheses", be indecisive, and so on, tend
> to remain their way.
I can't agree with the view that having a working hypothesis and
indecision amount to the same thing, which seems to be what
you are saying. Having a "working hypothesis" is in my view an
excellent example of balancing the need to be decisive so as
to act and learn in the world and the need to be open and aware
that ones assumptions are possibly invalid.
There is nothing particularly indecisive about a working hypothesis
that I can see. With a working hypothesis one has usually taken the
trouble not only to recognize that one may be wrong, but to consider
some of the more likely areas in which their errors might reside. You
seem to me to be setting the bar for decisiveness so high that only an
entity that could never change its mind would be decisive.
>
> And neither speaker here is distinguishing between ordinary
> discussions of near-fact, and discussions laced with
> ideology.
I'm not sure I could hold someone to blame for not distinguishing
"near-fact" from anything. What is a near-fact? How near?
In a *subjective* or *objective* estimation?
> It is *extremely* difficult not to have a
> somewhat biased perspective on the latter issues, and
> only a fool has such prejudices about matters of fact!
But now you seem to be moving near-fact into fact. I'm
trying but I'm just not following. Maybe I'm thick or maybe
you are charging irreverently across ground that is more complex
then you see. Maybe both :-)
> I agree with *all* of these further observations of Brett's:
>
> Lee
Ok. Good. If you, a person who certainly thinks for himself,
agrees with me on them, then I am more confident that my
observations may be valid.
>
> > First, RUDENESS, perceived or actual, intended or not,
> > enkindles a strong desire to respond that may not be just
> > emotional, but may have some intellectual basis - in the
> > principle of "tit for tat".
> >
> > Second, quite naturally, people perceive and respond
> > negatively not just to BLATANT personal attacks but also
> > to the subtler varieties. Ad hominem, or at least the essence
> > of it, can be packaged into sophisticated forms. The use of
> > insinuation and innuendo; selective excerpting; misleading
> > paraphrasing; even in the formulation of questions that are
> > structured not to elicit discussion or serious consideration
> > but that are leading and that invite the other to impale or
> > ensnare themselves.
> >
> > When this occurs, I think it is a shame. I feel fairly certain
> > that NONE of the frequent posters to this list are
> > ACTUALLY as jaded, closed or cynical as some of their
> > postings could be taken to suggest.
> >
> > Ridicule CAN be an effective tools in SOME forms of
> > debate, but its use invites an IN-kind response and soon, it
> > is difficult for either party to change tack and for genuinely
> > open questions to be asked. Passions inflamed are not
> > easily dowsed. Subtle slights and put-downs are remembered.
> ...
> > It seems an original or initiating post, however carefully prepared,
> > to try and seek deeper understanding of an issue can be used as
> > launching pad by any would-be debater.
> >
> > The opportunity to selectively excerpt affords a ready means
> > of changing the frame of reference to that which is more
> > suitable to the practice-debater's knowledge base. They need
> > only select any detail, however incidental to the original thrust
> > and reset the frame of reference to grounds more convenient to
> > the development and display of their debating skill.
> >
> > Yet, I do not think there is ANYONE who frequently posts
> > to this list who could neatly or fairly be categorised as ONLY
> > interested in practicing their debating skills, or as only interested
> > in pursuing and fostering deeper understanding. Indeed, the two
> > approaches can be adopted at different times by the same person,
> > and imo, sometimes, even by the same person at different points in
> > the one post.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST