Discussion Forums
Hello folks,
I would have put this post in some kind of “new members introduce yourself here” section. But I couldn’t find anything like that so I’m putting it here ('The Lounge' section). Although (full disclosure) I’m not really a new member and have already posted a few times.
But this post is also a bit ‘meta’ as it is about this forum (or forums in general).
So, I don’t go on internet discussion forums very much. Because the purpose of discussions on such forums (not just this one) seems to be mostly to defend and argue for some (preferably original) thought or idea. But I’m far too non-confrontational to defend or argue for anything. (Even if I did have some original thought worth defending. And I doubt very much that I do!)
Also I don’t like very much the format of group discussion (whether online or IRL). Which I find to be like just people giving little speeches about what they think. I want something more interactive than that but when I try interacting further on a forum thread I find it’s something I’m not very good at. To me it feels like I am trying to have multiple simultaneous (not to mention very slow motion) casual conversations without going into any depth with any of them. It’s like having a meal of mouthfuls of different dishes which does not make a satisfying meal.
Or it’s like I am trying to have a conversation with somebody while they are, at the same time, having different conversations with other people about the same thing. And so then I feel like I need to understand all those other conversations before I pursue mine. Because I don’t want to repeat points that are being made in any of the other conversations. And then it all gets really complicated.
Despite all of this, here I am! Because I do (very much) want to engage in interactive conversation with people. But not with the purpose of arguing for something. And certainly not in the format of group discussion. I’d much rather have conversation which is about just understanding another’s view. In a focussed one-to-one conversation. This is a lot less complicated than group discussions. (Read my profile and message me if you’re interested.)
By the way, in case you were wondering, yes I am aware of the fact that I have joined an internet discussion forum and then proceeded to present my objections to both the aims and methods of the whole idea of a discussion forum. Really sorry to be so negative! I couldn't find any place that does what I want so I have come here as the next best thing.
If you want a better idea of WHAT I like talking about. And HOW I like talking about it. Then please check out my website (link in profile).
I would have put this post in some kind of “new members introduce yourself here” section. But I couldn’t find anything like that so I’m putting it here ('The Lounge' section). Although (full disclosure) I’m not really a new member and have already posted a few times.
But this post is also a bit ‘meta’ as it is about this forum (or forums in general).
So, I don’t go on internet discussion forums very much. Because the purpose of discussions on such forums (not just this one) seems to be mostly to defend and argue for some (preferably original) thought or idea. But I’m far too non-confrontational to defend or argue for anything. (Even if I did have some original thought worth defending. And I doubt very much that I do!)
Also I don’t like very much the format of group discussion (whether online or IRL). Which I find to be like just people giving little speeches about what they think. I want something more interactive than that but when I try interacting further on a forum thread I find it’s something I’m not very good at. To me it feels like I am trying to have multiple simultaneous (not to mention very slow motion) casual conversations without going into any depth with any of them. It’s like having a meal of mouthfuls of different dishes which does not make a satisfying meal.
Or it’s like I am trying to have a conversation with somebody while they are, at the same time, having different conversations with other people about the same thing. And so then I feel like I need to understand all those other conversations before I pursue mine. Because I don’t want to repeat points that are being made in any of the other conversations. And then it all gets really complicated.
Despite all of this, here I am! Because I do (very much) want to engage in interactive conversation with people. But not with the purpose of arguing for something. And certainly not in the format of group discussion. I’d much rather have conversation which is about just understanding another’s view. In a focussed one-to-one conversation. This is a lot less complicated than group discussions. (Read my profile and message me if you’re interested.)
By the way, in case you were wondering, yes I am aware of the fact that I have joined an internet discussion forum and then proceeded to present my objections to both the aims and methods of the whole idea of a discussion forum. Really sorry to be so negative! I couldn't find any place that does what I want so I have come here as the next best thing.
If you want a better idea of WHAT I like talking about. And HOW I like talking about it. Then please check out my website (link in profile).
Comments (12)
I like your favorite quote.
Withdrawal in disgust is not the same thing as apathy.
But the quote itself is originally from something called Oblique Strategies.
(see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_Strategies)
Which is a kind of game.
(And (oops!) I have slightly misquoted: it's "withdrawing" not "withdrawal" but I kind of prefer the latter!)
I once used to go to a (IRL) philosophy ‘group discussion’. The format was that an issue was presented and then each person (going round the table) had their say. And at the end we all went home. No interactive conversation. No follow-up questions. I thought: what was the point of that? But it was a discussion, right?? That's the worst that can happen.
Or on this kind of online forum. I ask a question. And immediately three or four people get into a heated argument with each other about something else entirely. And, despite my requests, fail to address my original question. In general it is too easy to ignore people and say what you like without consequences in a discussion forum. Which, to me, isn’t polite. (Sorry I know I sound really snooty and a bit condescending here, but!)
I also think the term ‘argue’ has a more negative connotation and prefer generally to have a ‘discussion’. It does often take some effort to be generous with interpretation. Honesty is also difficult when it is met with personal insults ... it is the internet and it happens everywhere to some degree.
I don’t have an issue with ‘harsh’ words though as long as people are able to shrug them off and just work past the nonsense they receive and/or dish out.
Being needlessly polite is quite offensive sometimes too. Having the courtesy to make a scathing comment is as worthy as not making a scathing comment. The best we can do is reflect on how we approach any given post and then move forward - mistakes will happen.
We only really see what we’ve done at a distance so if I find myself reading, or writing, with a certain attitude I shift my focus elsewhere rather than get sucked into some needlessly fruitless exchange so I can then return to it when I’m in a more complete state of mind.
I read your bio in the link to your website in your profile. You seem conflicted about academia, where your thoughts are best addressed in terms of guided debate by professionals or more well-qualified individuals, such as a moderator in a debate, and the freedom that people have around here to go off on tangents, and perhaps return to the discussion.
Care to elaborate on this seeming dissatisfaction with both, and how some compromise between the two you envision?
Then you bite their head off for straying from the topic. Your discussion, you act as chair.
Bite their head off? Who do you think I am? Ozzy Osbourne? No. I want people who don't need telling.
Sounds like psychology to my ears. Philosophy has always been a dialectic between multiple parties and not a bilaterial exchange of ideas. However, I do agree with the sentiment that talks with two participants in close proximity might be more effective at addressing concerns, and not perceptions of issues, which you might see about here, where it seems like disagreement is somehow encouraged.
Because often the only responses to a post will be from whatever people just happen to read it. I feel like it should be more systematic than that. If I am a member of a group and I say something I want everyone to be obliged to give their serious considered response to what I have said. (And I would do likewise of course.) Rather like in an election everyone should be required to vote.
What I don’t want is just the more or less impertinent immediate reactions of whatever slack-jawed yokels happen to be loitering at the particular street corner where I have made my point. (Apologies for the rather laboured and possible slightly offensive analogy!)
But seriously though, I am still here and available for conversation. Sounding a bit needy like I've got a sign round my neck saying "Talk To Me".