Why do we keep talking past each other?

That was a very mild example. In that case there was no stripping of context and the response was phrased as a query instead of an accusation. And also the person doing it has a history of being willing to have a real two-way conversation.

But there’s this recurring conversational pattern (and it happens two or three times in that discussion, as I recall) where a person takes part of what someone says (quite often plucking a line completely out of context) and says “so you’re saying THIS HORRIBLE THING I WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST?”.

If this only happened occasionally I’d hesitate to call it target-seeking… but look at what’s going on here! The mods peel away truly offensive posts that are made by people who might deserve to be rhetorically scourged, so people who want to vent their spleens are seeking targets among whomsoever is left. I have no idea if this is conscious behavior or not.

1 Like

Why do we keep talking past each other?

2 Likes

Ooh, I like that. I like this one too:

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/18/great-minds/

1 Like

I still see the occasional Piñata left hanging around.

Although walking that line is probably a tough decision.

And of course we have our pet… I don’t want to call them trolls, feels too close to home. I really do wonder if sometimes Rob or other friendlies aren’t out there, pitching slow, encouraging walloping home runs in order to fuel the discussion.

I mean, there are some really feeble arguments bandied about. But then… yeah well, I guess. I’m probably just spoiled by boingboing.

1 Like

Thanks for the clarification. It seemed to me, at the time, that I was trying to call out ongoing unpleasant behavior (without actually naming all of the people I consider innocent victims of it) and that others were picking off little pieces of my comments and using them as attack vectors to discredit me as an individual.

Despite my 'nym I’m actually better read in Ancient history than Medieval, so I did understand your point about the cruelty and many inequities of the Roman principate. I suspect Marcus Aurelius himself lived a far less comfortable and satisfying life than either of us, though, and his “Meditations” were written as exhortations to himself. They were certainly not intended to be arguments for “tone policing” by their author.

I used to think Takuan was really Mark. :slight_smile:

One of my favorite Antinous posts was: Piñata at twelve O’clock! directly underneath a post that contained well known, easily disproved, invalid arguments.

2 Likes

There’s a name I haven’t heard in a while. That was back when I was but a lurker. He seemed really well informed and cool.

I like him, but he’s in Cali so we rarely communicate. Time zones and schedules… that’s one of the reasons I thought he was Mark, actually.

I’m unclear how one could disagree with you, without meeting your definition of “target-seeking.”

1 Like

Well, one could object to something I’d actually said, or take a position opposite one I’d actually taken. I’d call that disagreement.

But if someone wants to make a point orthogonal to mine, or if wants to argue the same side of the position I’m already on, it isn’t necessary to disagree with me. If a person’s ideas are valid, they really don’t need to try to force or trick me into a supporting role as whipping boy.

And that’s what I meant by target-seeking. If I say “the sky is blue” you can disagree with me by saying “the sky is red” or “the sky is not blue”. You could even provide evidence or reasoned argument to support your dissenting view. But if you start out by saying “so what you are saying is that outer space is made of blue colored material” or “are you saying that the sky is controlled by SATAN, who loves blue?” or “you’re a horrible person for talking about the blue sky when the dirt is so brown!” there’s a non-zero chance that you’re misrepresenting me to get to some completely other place, and that you’re not really talking to me at all, you’re purposely talking past me. Using me as a stepping-stone, which I do not like.

I’m not saying that every request for clarification that robs context is disingenuous. What I’m saying is that I’ve seen a perceptible pattern of behavior, that is relevant to the title of this thread, and I think if you watch for it you will see it too.

Sorry I took so long to answer. I was cleaning mice out of an old lawn tractor and quarreling with a local corrupt cop.

For some utterly inexplicable reason I was picturing this happening between Richard Scarry anthropomorphic animal characters. (And the cop was a badger rather than the stereotypically more obvious pig.)

Sorry about that. Anyway, I do believe I’ve occasionally noticed that pattern too. Usually I try to keep my trap shut about it anymore since I no longer have the energy for such things (especially when I feel I’m being deliberately misunderstood or misrepresented), but every now and then I get suckered into it.

I do feel that a lot of potentially positive energy is wasted on infighting between imperfect allies.

6 Likes

Forever this and nicely put. It’s all over the fora here. :scream:

Here for example. :sob:

In regards to that specific article, I think maybe the author hasn’t been to a lot of well-publicized urban protests, and so is unfamiliar with the black-masked opportunists who often show up (sometimes proclaiming themselves “anarchists”) and try to cause random chaos and engage in looting, under the cover of whatever protest is going on. These people are a great problem for legitimate political protestors.

But yeah, it makes you want to weep. I read the article, but purposely did not read the BB comment thread, because I figured there would be nothing new or useful there.

[quote=“Donald_Petersen, post:98, topic:44368”]For some utterly inexplicable reason I was picturing this happening between Richard Scarry anthropomorphic animal characters. (And the cop was a badger rather than the stereotypically more obvious pig.)

Sorry about that.[/quote]

Never apologize for being awesome. He’s more like a fox or weasel than a badger, though. The next time we have one of our showdowns I am going to do my best to imagine him as a Richard Scarry-esque weasel cop.

1 Like

… are not infrequently agent provocateurs working for the opposition. So it’s sad to read their success in causing online in-fighting … :disappointed:

2 Likes

Well spoken.

1 Like

Speaking about on-line discussion, my opinion is that we need to replace the blog with a better means to focus in and address exactly the part of a comment or article that we want to address. Now, most on-line venues do not do as much as even what is available here to facilitate that directed reply, and most people do not use what tools are available because they are used to not having them most of the time. Sites like Reddit and Slashdot have contextual tools for replies, Facebook, and most other sites do not, but people don’t use these tools very much, even when they are available, because they are not in the habit of thinking of making a directed reply.

Since people do not reply in context, they allow for abuse to happen in conversations, they allow for topic hijack and driving trollies to have a much bigger effect than they should. Both can be contained by directed replies and possibly additionally by forking the conversation into a new thread or subthread.

I argue that it is the blog that has done more to degrade communication than anything else.

I was not just asking within the context of an online discussion, but in society overall.

People have talked past each other for well before the internet came along.

2 Likes

What if talking past each other is actually just the most efficient way to deal with our collective problems?

I just read the whole thread and I can’t find it now, but someone said that maybe the reason has something to do with people posting as a performance for others rather than posting as a way to actually connect with the person they disagree with. Person A says X, Person ~A says ~X, not to convince A or learn something about X or figure out the disagreement, but to try to win the favour of B and C. What if that is actually just the purpose of public forums? What if reaching an understanding was never part of the equation at all?

I don’t think we are individually intelligent or useful. If anyone of us didn’t exist things would pretty much be as they are now (I don’t mean if we ceased to exist at this moment - that would disrupt a lot of routines).

I don’t think talking past each other is new, so I’m pretty sure that a broad tendency to talk past each other has so far resulted in all human accomplishments. I guess my question is what is the purpose of this thing that I think I am that engages in these conversations to begin with? Is it actually important to the functioning of humanity that those parts of our brains that exist to think about ourselves actually connect with other parts of brains that think about themselves? If it isn’t, then maybe talking past each other is a feature instead of a bug, or maybe it just doesn’t matter whether we do it or not.

Have to say, GIFT seems to have been disproven by the experiment of forcing everyone to use real names on youtube. It made the comments even worse. Jerkish behaviour (and even some outright illegal things) on the internet is not related to anonymity, and allowing anonymity might actually encourage it since it removes many thoughtful people who do not wish to be identified for thoughtful reasons. Ultimately the problem with GIFT may be that “Normal Person” is already the same thing as “Total Fuckwad.”

2 Likes

Thus I put “Human nature” right above.

This topic was automatically closed after 842 days. New replies are no longer allowed.