Tired of that word. Doesn't mean it's more or less useful or relevant. It's just become over-used to the point where the original connotations are no longer accepted and meaningful. Like so much of the language that was understood and accepted. Being a "bully" was never welcome or acceptable. Even way way back decades ago when I was growing up. Language used to be something that came naturally, not requiring a minute by minute critique in your head before using. People are still people the way they also were decades ago. Not all "good", not all "bad", just people trying to connect with one another.
The concept that we are not our ideas and an attack on our ideas is not an attack on us as a person was first introduced to me in that form about 10 years ago in a forum of mostly physical therapists. The focus of the forum was discussing current pain science and how to apply it in practice. The discussions were amazing, very high level debates. Personal attacks were not permitted and that was strictly enforced but the discussions could still get quite heated at moments yet always stayed on topic and civilized. Participating in that was a game-changing experience for me professionally. I long for those kinds of discussions. One of the things I most valued was that I could ask the hard questions and not have to worry anyone would be offended. No one every complained about “tone.” They stayed focused on the information. It was liberating.
In my personal life I’ve had friends who worked in biomedical research and we had great discussions about all sorts of things. One of the things I’ve loved about my science-minded friends, that I had the same freedom to ask questions and express my thoughts without fear because they, too, did not take it personally.
I am fortunate to have attended a high school where I got an exceptional education. Critical thinking was encouraged and I never felt afraid to ask a question. I never joined the debate club but I attended some of their debates.
So less explicitly that idea was being put into practice in all those environments.
@sillysassy: Huh.
The article was about childhood bullying (internet edition). I didn't think that had much to do with the criticism of ideas. You disagreed and said you thought it was where children learned to either find their identity in their ideas or have an idea/belief separate from their identity.
I thought that meant you disagreed with my statement that childhood bullying doesn't have much to do with the criticism of ideas.
I thought you were saying the article on childhood bullying (cyber style) did relate strongly to the topic of the thread—that is, criticism of an idea not being criticism of a person.
I got the impression that you believed childhood bullying was where people learn to either identify with their ideas or not.
Well, whatever the case:
People learn to either identify with their beliefs or realize those are separate from them in childhood, yes. And sometimes this happens while they're being bullied, yes. Sometimes it happens while they're eating dinner. Or reading a book. Any time they're thinking, really.
A discussion of bath time thoughts doesn't seem to have much to do with the current topic either. Some, yes! But the connection is tangential. So: not much.
My parents also believe they have a huge responsibility to train and take care of their children. You and they share that belief. Where you disagree, it would seem, is on how the world works. Would you stand idly by as your kids wandered toward a blazing fire pit? Even knowing your beliefs aren't always correct, and so perhaps the pit isn't there or maybe your kids are fireproof?
Would you tell them to make up their own minds about the pit, knowing that if it does exist—as it certainly seems it does to you—they won't be able to back out once they've fallen close enough to feel the flames?
I think you did have bullying in your life.... in a different way.
The word you're looking for is "abuse." My parents abused me. They didn't mean to. They didn't realize they were. They believed they were helping. Doing what was best for me. Giving me the tools I needed—the knowledge, the self-discipline—to live in eternal joy.
But they abused me.
Their beliefs are not accurate. Therefore, they are untethered from reality. Therefore, the actions they take are equally untethered. They are, for all intents and purposes, insane.
They are a danger to themselves and others. Even without the child abuse: their belief that God would protect them from Covid nearly killed them and those around them—their desire to abolish minimum wage (so that businesses can legally pay their workers pennies per hour), criminalize abortions (so raped children can die giving birth), etc. makes them plenty dangerous to everyone in the USA.
I don't have any amazing ability to overcome extremism. I just don't want to be insane.
It feels like when someone can't respect an idea they sometimes can't be respectful to the person. Why is that?
I'm guessing at least one reason is because we all know belief—true belief, anyway—affects action. If you believe a friend is on fire, you're probably not going to just stand there. If you believe your neighbor is a lizard person who wants to kill and eat you, you're unlikely to treat them well. If you believe a deadly pandemic is no big deal, you're unlikely to take the proper precautions to help save lives.
And so on.
It's difficult to respect someone when the logical results of their ideas are harmful.
@JoyfulHeart I'm sorry that you went through that my brother. I hope your heart finds some rest and peace in this little village of love.
I don't recall who it was who responded to Kellyanne Conway's reference "alternative facts" by saying "We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not all entitled to our own facts."
There are a lot of people in this conversation stating their opinions as if they were facts.
@Spoiler You're mixing up facts with beliefs. Facts are based on evidence. Facts can be tested. Beliefs are based on who knows what. Beliefs can not be tested.
My friend either is or is not on fire. His condition is a fact that can be tested, I could look for the presence or absence of flames. I could measure his temperature. I could check for the odor of burning flesh. I could see if he is becoming charred. Without any facts, what I choose to believe, is of absolutely no significance.
If my belief happens to be contrary to the facts, the result might not not be pleasant. At best, I might soak him with a hose for no reason at all. At worst, I would just stand by and let him burn to death.
The bottom line is that facts are more useful than beliefs.
@GreatHornedOwl - Daniel Patrick Moynihan is quoted as having said, in an article in The Washington Post, 1983, “Everyone is entitled their own opinion but not his own facts.” He apparently was quoting James Schlesinger who had said it earlier. It’s often repeated so It’s no surprise it would be used in response to Kellyanne Conway.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan#
@Babichev
I long for those kinds of discussions. One of the things I most valued was that I could ask the hard questions and not have to worry anyone would be offended. No one ever complained about “tone.” They stayed focused on the information. It was liberating.
That sounds amazing. I have rarely had a discussion in which I could, for instance, point out that the expert someone else had brought up wasn't an expert in the area we were discussing without the other person immediately attacking me directly... with, for example, accusations of thinking I'm smarter than their long-dead expert (whose opinions are now behind the times even in their own field)... or allegations of being abusive to my life partner.
It sounds utopian. I don't know whether to envy you, though! I'm not sure I'd be able to handle this kind of irrationality so well if I were used to experiencing the rational approach.
I feel like it's important to state the following, again:
One cannot bully or harass ideas.
Drink it in. Meditate on it. Write it on the walls of your bedroom. Shave it onto your dog.
@hogboblin What you say is true.
That said, scoffing at ideas can seem to reflect on the person who holds them firmly. Even when it isn't intended, the scoffing is likely to feel like an attack to the person who believes them.
Scoffing can also give the impression that the scoffer's mind is closed. This may or may not be the case, but it is unlikely to foster the free exchange of ideas.
In other news, scoffing does not constitute evidence that the scoffer's viewpoint is correct. Scoffing is equally accessible to those who are wrong and to those who are right.
My conclusion from this is that scoffing fulfills no useful purpose in a discussion, even when it is directed at ideas and not people.
I recognize that my assumptions and conclusions in this matter may be incorrect.
This may or may not be the case, but it is unlikely to foster the free exchange of ideas
Agreed, @JoyfulHeart
@JoyfulHeart: I asked to take this one, because I really feel what you're saying. Personal experience follows....
When I first encountered @HogboblinZwei, I was a firm believer in the absolute accuracy of the Bible—my beliefs seemed very much like a part of me, and words like "a big bearded man in the sky" felt like an attack on me personally.
These feelings were very real (that is, I definitely had them; they existed, all right), but they were based on the idea that my beliefs were a part of me somehow.
They were not.
@HogboblinZwei was perfectly justified in laughing at, for instance, the idea that a talking snake convincing someone to eat a piece of fruit is what led to "sin" entering the world. That is a stupid idea, and deserves no respect whatsoever. He should not have had an open mind about it. I wouldn't have myself, except I was a baby when that idea was first shoved into my brain, and had no capacity for anything but uncritical acceptance!
His mockery allowed me to see, for the first time, what my beliefs looked like from the outside. I didn't like it. In fact I hated it. It felt very, very bad! I felt like I was being scoffed at for being stupid enough to believe something so silly.
This was not the case.
@HogboblinZwei was making fun of my ideas—he was not making fun of me. My feelings on the matter did not change this fact. Obviously, I could have clung to my feelings. I could have started attacking him as a person ("how dare you make me feel bad!") and driven him and his outside perspective away. If I had done this, it would have been my decision, and my fault. I would have been the one cutting myself off from the facts. Not him.
He had no obligation to pander to my feelings. No one does! It was my responsibility to set aside my feelings and look at the actual arguments... which I did.
He never once attacked me.
He only ever laughed at my laughably stupid beliefs—and in so doing, he set me free.
So in at least one case in the history of argumentation, scoffing was an eye-opener.
Even if it weren't, however, it's not your job (or mine, or anyone's, so far as I know) to carefully ease people out of mistaken beliefs, making sure they suffer no bruises to the ego along the way.
You're only responsible for managing your own beliefs... and recognizing when they, not you, are under attack.
@DaringSprinter Thank you for your well-considered reply. I agree that I'm responsible for my own beliefs and no one else's.
It is for that reason that my approach to any discussion takes the form that it does. I acknowledge that the "jarring" approach is one that has its time and place. For me personally, it's an approach I'm more likely to use in face to face conversation, and with people I know well.
Regarding the childhood beliefs that you have discarded, I respect your honesty to yourself. I was raised with similar beliefs, and reached a time when I challenged them as well. My conclusion was different from yours. This isn't because I continue to insist on a strict literal interpretation of what is written, but because I believe that there are useful truths in the subtext. Part of this is the result of a video I once watched, which was produced by an atheist who spoke about the truth he found in the Bible. I figured that I could do it if he could. In a broad sense, I think that it can be argued that much fiction contains an element of truth. (Even Dr. Seuss) As such, my reaction to the ideas of others is one of curiosity. At the same time, I've learned to be my own skeptic regarding my beliefs.
@JoyfulHeart: I think I understand your decision to protect people's feelings even at the cost of giving blatantly unrealistic ideas more legitimacy than they deserve.
After all, ridiculing untruth won't always clear it away, but good feelings? Those are much easier to attain than truth... and I think we can all agree that being happy feels nice. Truth can, perhaps, be slipped in later.
@DaringSprinter Based on your reply, it sounds like you do understand my perspective.
I think that my bent towards kindness stems from life experiences where people have used non-gentle strategies to try to direct my thoughts. Interestingly, the duress was never effective in changing my mind.
That's part of the reason why I don't try to change people's minds unless I really know them. There's no way I can know whether they need a hard thump or a beckoning hand.
@JoyfulHeart: It sounds like you see disagreement with an idea as identical to taking on the responsibility of guiding people gently out of false beliefs.
That is, if you decide to argue against an idea, you consider yourself responsible for delivering what the person who holds the idea needs, rather than considering them responsible for managing their own beliefs, and simply talking in a way that accurately represents your own view of the subject.
That is a heavy burden. I respect your decision to bear it while still believing that neither you nor anyone else is obligated to.
Why are people so eager to control how someone else communicates?
The world is full of people who think our ideas are nonsense. Get over it!
I really don’t care what someone thinks of me personally nor do I care about their style of communication. I’m under no obligation to communicate with them. If I find them annoying or abrasive I can ignore them.
I’ve suffered some seriously vicious personal attacks in online professional discussions. They don’t bother me in the least because I know those folks don’t know what they are talking about.
Seriously, we’re supposed adults, we should not need to be coddled like children. Anyone who can’t handle having their ideas criticized or even laughed at just should not take part in online discussions.
Just stay on topic. Support your claims with evidence. Do that and discussions stay a lot more productive.
Everyone has a different style. If you don’t like someone’s style, ignore them. Listen to someone else. Everyone does not need to cater to our personal preferences. Communicate in the manner you think is best and leave others alone about theirs. Consider the possibility that someone else loves that person’s style which you dislike and it really works for them.
@DaringSprinter
I just wanted to respond because it seems as though your comments warranted it. I was agreeing with you but it is clear to me now that I muddy my responses so much so that it becomes unrelatable or creating a feeling that I am trying to go off topic or off on a tangent. I was merely trying to express my feeling as a Mom. It is a heavy burden to know that your beliefs (if you hold them strongly) impact your children to a really large degree. I know I'm not perfect in any way shape or form and I won't always choose the right path and that can be harmful. BUT you made a good point that belief brings action. My action currently with my children is to teach an idea such as this thread presents. Hopefully I will always be happy and have it turn out in their best interests that I choose these things. That is all. Nothing more. Thank you for trying to find clarity in my words.
In another point of view, what you are talking about is your personal preference too. I could use the last line of your post for you too. As you rightly mentioned, everyone is different, everyone has their preferences.
Me and some others in this forum don't think using strong language is necessary to disagree. You and some others think otherwise. All these are preferences. Irrespective of these preferences, we all should find a way to co-exist peacefully. These differences is what keeps things interesting. Asking people who differ from your preference not to take part in online discussions is not nice.
I am sorry you had to tackle vicious personal attacks in online professional discussions. That is not warranted from either side of this aisle.
@spreadjoy: The penultimate line of @Babichev's comment was "Communicate in the manner you think is best and leave others alone about theirs."
She's objecting to the tone policing so often seen in forums like this—she's objecting not to anyone else's preference for speaking softly themselves, but to any insistence that other people speak the same way.
"Police your own tone," in other words; "you have no right to control anyone else's."
Remembering always, of course, that tone and content are two different things: you can object to what someone says without objecting to how they said it.
@sillysassy:
Oh, I see now. Thank you for providing further clarity! Yes, being a parent carries a lot of responsibility with it. That's undeniably part (but only part) of why I've decided never to be one: I know I don't have what I'd need to be anything better than an absolutely garbage parent.
I can pretty much guarantee that you're better at parenting than I would be—which is a low bar, so feel free to imagine yourself clearing it by at least a mile. (That's probably accurate.)
I understand what both of you are saying. I am quoting myself below from previous posts on this same thread.
I am also not suggesting it is wrong to use it anytime. I am just suggesting that the usage of it could possibly lead into a one-sided conversation or a non-productive debate where both sides have now set up such big walls that they are not willing to listen one bit. Use discernment is all I am saying. But if using these words is what has worked for you in having a productive conversation with someone, then I am no one to stop you.
I am also not suggesting it is wrong to use it anytime. I am just suggesting that the usage of it could possibly lead into a one-sided conversation or a non-productive debate where both sides have now set up such big walls that they are not willing to listen one bit. Use discernment is all I am saying.
But if using these words is what has worked for you in having a productive conversation with someone, then I am no one to stop you.
I cannot and would not stop any of you. I may not like it, and might voice my disapproval. But again, that would be end of it.
After @HogboblinZwei posted his OP, all I have been intending to say is that using strong words or scoffing at people's ideas might not lead to a productive conversation. Your personal experience suggests otherwise, and I understand that. Below is a quote from me, and one from @JoyfulHeart, which is all I wanted to say since the beginning.
All I am trying to say is that - if your intention is to discuss, and have a productive conversation then calling someone's idea insane or absurd or nonsense is not the way to go about it. This may or may not be the case, but it is unlikely to foster the free exchange of ideas.
All I am trying to say is that - if your intention is to discuss, and have a productive conversation then calling someone's idea insane or absurd or nonsense is not the way to go about it.
This may or may not be the case, but it is unlikely to foster the free exchange of ideas.
Again, I understand that some of you don't agree to this and I don't think there is anything more that can be added to this discussion. I think both sides have given their views on this topic.
@spreadjoy
I cannot and would not stop any of you. I may not like it, and might voice my disapproval. But again, that would be [the] end of it.
That, I like to hear.
Too often, when one group of people says "let me use strong words" and another group says "stop using strong words," the second group (given any power at all) proves inclined to take action to forcibly prevent Group One from using strong words.
Group One, on the other hand, would put no strictures on Group Two's use of language no matter how much power they had.
Haha, thanks for correcting my use (or rather non-use) of 'the'.
Again, I understand what you are saying. If you think though, what action can you really take against group two?
"Please use stronger words in your conversation"
Considering you are from group one, you would not feel bad about softer words being used, right? Additionally, given the power, group one could tell group two to stop "whining" (not that it is whining, but I am sure that's how it looks to group one) - which is what I think is happening in this thread
If you think though, what action can you really take against group two?
Exactly! One perspective has, innately, a desire to control others in it—the other doesn't. Group One may be disgusted by the use of softer words (personally, I feel it leads to giving stupid ideas more legitimacy than they deserve, which can have terrible results), but they recognize Group Two's right to use soft words anyway.
Considering you are from group one, you would not feel bad about softer words being used, right?
I do, actually! I think it's a dangerous thing, making unrealistic ideas look acceptable.
But I would never, never try to take away your right to talk about even the most unhinged ideas as gently and respectfully as you like. All I want is the ability to speak strongly against certain ideas myself... without being accused of having committed an ad hominem attack.
I have an acquaintance who is obsessed with being polite. It's pretty difficult to understand what she's trying to say half the time because she is so circumspect that you can't figure out what her point is. "Soft" words can be incredibly annoying when they are not making their point. And, of course, there's passive-aggressive use of soft words. So yes, soft words can be objectionable.
I would much rather see people address content and discuss that rather than waste time criticizing other people's style of communication. If what someone is saying is garbage, it doesn't matter how "nice" their words are. And when someone's cherished beliefs are being challenged, it usually doesn't matter how nicely one tries to say it, they are still going to get upset.
It seems to me childish to try to control how other people say what they have to say. We're adults. We're not that fragile. We can choose not to take offense. We can choose not to let other people's personal problems ruin our day.
I once prepared a pitch deck for a VR mechanical training technician startup.
The purpose is to convince investors and for that you need to make an argument using data. We used studies that showed memory is tied to emotion. If you can make something emotionally engaging, it directly correlates with higher retention.
We also used studies that show that immersive VR triggers emotional engagement.
So, if you can make someone go through an imersive VR training, they are more likely to remember what happened.
All this to say that we are emotional creatures in very intricate and profound ways. Our ideas, sense of self, perceptions are intimately tied with our emotions. To disregard the emotions of the human being you are talking to is to make an error.
If your goal is to convince someone in an impactful way, you have to approach them with the understanding that you are speaking to another human being, equal to you in respect and dignity. Research shows that establishing rapport is far more effective at changing a person's mind about big issues like abortion and gay marriage, than being adversarial. People find it hard to hold hard stances when they realize they are speaking to another human being who, just like them, is just trying to get by.
Otherwise, you may as well be talking to a wall, which is fine if the goal is to feel good but without making any useful impact on the world.
@MCcuddles2 says,
If your goal is to convince someone
—and here, I think, is the crux of the issue. Do you want to control someone else's mind, to change it to suit you? Or do you just want to speak your own mind, to put the information out there as clearly as possible?
Your approach will obviously vary depending on your goal. Are you trying to sell an idea, or to communicate it?
@MCcuddles2 - and yet we have the truism that well-behaved women seldom make history. Or men, for that matter. Were civil rights laws passed because the oppressed politely made their cases? The gay rights movement came out of the closet when gay folks took to the streets and fought back against police who raided gay bars. I’m old enough to remember when those things happened.
During the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement the moderates would complain about the radicals that they were too angry and outrageous. The response was that the moderates needed them out on the front lines blazing a path, being angry and being demanding and taking action, because without them the moderates got nowhere.
Even the right wing quotes Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. these days, acting as if he were some moderate hero. MLK was not moderate. He was demonized by those who opposed him, hated in his time, and those who marched for basic human rights were beaten, jailed, and murdered. Yet now he is praised by those who would have vilified him.
There’s more than one way to engage people emotionally. Both MLK and Mahatma Ghandi knew this and intentionally allowed violence to be perpetrated upon their followers because the image of defenseless people being brutalized shook people up emotionally. It got their attention.
I have no reason to change my style and probably couldn’t even if I wanted to. People here don’t know this but in my profession I’m very outspoken, fairly notorious in some circles, and quite literally get messages from people from all over the world who thank me for what I write. The people who complain about me, professionally, are scientifically illiterate and want to keep making unsupportable claims. They dislike that I challenge their cherished beliefs no matter how politely I do it. The people who are looking for a reality-based approach, who want to learn what is being learned through science that will help us be more effective at what we do, are grateful that I’m creating a bridge between research and clinical practice. Who should I listen to? For me, that’s a no brainer. Besides, in the beginning I tried being who I thought I was supposed to be and it was boring. I tried being “nice.” It was a lot of work and people still got pissed off. What I’m doing is working for me and for a number of other people. There are people who started out hating me and yet, over time, came to realize that what I was saying made sense. Eventually they shifted their focus to a reality based practice, some of them have become leaders in their own right, and now they are the target for the fantasy-based crowd who want to keep selling magical thinking. No one has to listen to me. In online discussions, it’s not like being stuck in a room having to listen to someone we’d rather not. We can simply ignore what we don’t like. Simple.
Let each person be who they are. We’re not all cut out to be radical, neither are we all cut out to be moderates.
All the talk about style wastes time that could be devoted to substance.
...Oh. Solid points, @Babichev! I'm going to have to adjust my own views on tone.
It's not a clear cut dichotomy between "trying to convince someone by speaking softly and not hurting their feelings" on the one hand and "trying to present your own ideas understandably and speaking without trying to arouse any particular emotion" on the other.
My concept was far too simplistic. Thank you.
A tale of two online discussions, a true story:
There is a modality practiced by some massage therapists that is used in some hospitals and clinics for certain conditions. I never really checked it out but one day, after someone had made some claims about it, the same claims I’d heard for years, I decided to check it out. The claims seemed plausible but I wanted to know what the evidence said. I went into this a complete agnostic, looked up all the research I could find, and guess what - the evidence just wasn’t there. So I made this announcement in a discussion and invited anyone who thought they had evidence to the contrary to present it. There was one woman who was very attached to these claims who put up a bunch of studies. Either she had not read them or did not understand them because the studies didn’t say what she thought they did. I tried to point this out and she insisted I was dismissing them because I didn’t like them. She was not sufficiently research literate to see that the evidence she put forth did not support her claims. She got very angry and to this day she still thinks I’m a big meanie and she’s no more research literate than she was six years ago.
Meanwhile, in another discussion a woman brought up this same modality. I told her I had not been able to find any significant research that supported the claims made by the practitioners and asked if she had any. She gave me a list of 20 citations. Nine were in German so they were useless to me. Of the eleven remaining, seven did not show results, two weren’t even measuring the results, they were looking at something else, and the remaining two were cases studies involving one or two individuals - hardly robust evidence. I pointed this out to her and said if this is all you have, you really don’t have anything. End of discussion.
Six months later this woman approached me at a conference. When she reminded me of who she was, I apologized, “I’m sorry for whatever I said to you!” She said, “Oh, no! I want to thank you!” She said she had not looked at those studies, they were a list given to her by her teacher and it never occurred to her to question what her teacher said. She was thanking me because she now understood the importance for her to investigate these things on her own and not just take someone’s word for it. She was committed to thinking accurate thoughts and giving her clients accurate information. We’re now friends and she presented me with the cup shown below.
That first woman, I don’t think there would be anything I could say to change her mind, it’s made up. I never spoke to her harshly but just questioning her beliefs was threatening to her, that’s why she was angry. The second one is committed to learning and being honest. She saw I wasn’t a meanie, I had information that she didn’t and she wanted to learn from it.
Not everyone is going to be interested in what we have to say. I look for the people who are interested in real dialogue. They don’t let petty things like whether I used exactly the right phrasing - who can predict what that’s going to be anyway? - get in the way.