From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 16:36:43 MST
Anders wrote:
> Unfortunately people tend to debate many issues they *feel*
> strongly about, but do not *know* much about. Witness the
> Lomborg debate, for example.
> On this list the problem is that people seem to think that it
> is better to debate now and learn later, rather than the reverse.
> I think the problem here on the list is not that human nature
> is against us, but simply that it is a loud cocktail party where
> everybody is talking rather than the thoughtful scholarly den
> where many of us really would like to be.
-------------------
I'm glad that at least one other person has noted a similar
pattern.
I'd not read the thread on the Lomborg debate but following
the mention of it (above), I did.
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.
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
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.
That SOME, "people seem to think that it is better to debate
now and learn later is something I'd also noticed.
Ridicule CAN be an effective tools in SOME forms of
debate, but it's 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.
Once the choice is made by someone to approach a topic
with a debating mindset, rather than with a view to getting
deeper understanding for mutual empowerment, then, FROM
THAT POINT ON, it is VERY difficult for anything other
than the debating mindset to set the agenda. Once adopted,
the debating mindset is EASIER, QUICKER and becomes
SELF REINFORCING.
The structure of an electronic list itself seems to afford intrinsic
advantages to the debating or 'point scoring' mindset at the
expense of the mindset aimed at pursuing deeper understanding
towards mutual empowerment.
Its seems ironic that it may be precisely because so much genuine
good will and real interest in developing deeper understandings
exists on the ExI list, that a person primarily wishing to use the
list to practice their debating skill may find it such a useful 'arena'
for doing so.
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 creates a dilemma. A person who frequently adopts a
practice-debating mindset may be a pest in some circumstances
but cannot safely or fairly be ignored or dismissed as such.
Debating and debating skills WITHIN a structure DO serve a
useful purpose and are RIGHTFULLY respected. And even the
most enthusiast practice-debaters on the ExI list are sometimes,
also open minded questioners seeking to really deepen
understanding.
As a longer time reader and shorter time poster, I suspect that
in some cases I may have erred and left UNanswered some
questions that were asked, at least partially, in good faith.
It is often hard to SEE an open, or partially open question, for
what it is, when it comes surrounded in debating rhetoric and
bundled with what seem to be cheap shots.
It seems ignoring a perceived practice-debater in full rhetorical
and acerbic flight can be a mistake that has twofold negative
consequences. Not only does the sometimes practice-debater's
good faith questions go unanswered, but also other readers,
may misinterpret any non-response as an inability to respond.
Silence or restraint can be perceived as vanquishment.
Thus there seems to be a dilemma. The very STRUCTURE of
a list such as this favours the success, at least in the short term,
and possibly indefinitely, of the debater-mindset over the
seeking-to-understand-and-empower-to-action mindset. We
can and do make real progress on understanding issues but the
rate of progress seems less than each of us would probably
like it to be. Especially if we hold that increased understanding
leads to greater power to effect positive change.
I suspect I can hardly be the first one to have encountered
this paradox. Indeed, I wonder if many are drawn in frustration,
into the "point scoring" practice-debater mindset far more often
than they would wish.
Intellectually, most of us are well aware of the imprudence of
fighting with each other when "we are standing in a burning
house". (i.e.. The default human condition IS mortal and I think
few if any would dispute that the overriding of that condition,
sooner rather than later, will require the concerted effort of
people so oriented).
Yet, it remains hard to let 'cheap shots' at ones expense pass
unresponded, and further, if ignoring a cheap shot or leaving
unchallenged a specious argument seems to gives the poster
making the cheap shot or specious argument an apparent
victory, then it would seem that even the 'virtue' of restraint is
doubtful. Indeed restraint may see lesser motives and baser
behavior go unpunished and the list may be overwhelmed not
be the more thoughtful posts but by the more noisy and puerile
postings. And probably none of us would want this as an
object.
I think I am beginning to understand why some of the more
thoughtful posters post less often. Its not that they have reached
the limits of what they could useful say, so much, as they reach
the limits of how much time they have to defend what they say
from the practice-debater mindset. They see, perhaps, that the
forum will necessarily become an arena.
I agree with the comment (above) that it is not human nature
per se that works against us on this list. But I think some aspects
of 'human nature' and not the better aspects, imo, are more able
to find expression due to the very structure of the list.
If my observations are sound, then it seems that there is an upper
limit on how consistently "nice" "courteous" or tolerant one can
afford to be in one's behavior on a list without ultimately rendering
both oneself and the list the worse for one's restraint.
Intrinsic to the structure of a list is that casual readers as well as
practice-debaters may pop in and out of a thread, without
ever seriously engaging. Yet one cannot afford to leave even
the most specious argument or the cheapest shot unaddressed,
lest the final impression left on the mind of the casual reader is
that some deep fallacy has been exposed. This seems to feed
into the debating principle of it never being prudent to leave
even a specious argument or a ad hominem go unchecked lest
they be mistakenly be perceived as substantive by the audience.
The structure of the list seems to place disproportionate power
in the hands of the most recent poster to a thread. It is the most
recent poster that a casual reader is likely to read. And if it
happens to that the most recent post (perhaps because it is
quicker to prepare and easier to shoot of) contains biased
excerpting, ad hominem or cheap shots then the casual reader
seems quite likely to take that post as indicative of the content
and theme of the thread. Mud thrown easily, sticks, and is not
so easily removed.
So its not human nature that the problem, and we don't need a
better class of poster what we need are non-stick posts :-)
Not all of the most valuable and empowering insights will appear
to everyone to be that on first blush. If they did they could hardly
be insights. It could be that quite a number of threads that are
initiated and appear to be of no obvious consequence to most,
might in fact, if allowed to develop in a spirit of seeking deeper
understanding have profound and empowering consequences.
Perhaps, as we are mortal, we poop in each others posts at our
peril, yet as we are mortal, we must work within the constrains
of a forum, and so we refrain from reciprocity at our even
greater peril.
I am reminded of a quote by George Bush Senior.
"I would have been kind and gentle. I would still be kind.
But I am considering how gentle I will be".
Original sin? Nah. But the "human predicament" perhaps.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST