Those of you who have actually bothered to read my profile will see that the number one thing that makes me happy is "unexpected brilliance." I stand by this. I hit 3000 posts today, and I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that, considering that I've been on SG for six months. Especially considering the level of discourse that I often find in the boards which is, frankly, depressing. That's why I was especially pleased today to find, in three separate threads, responces to posts that I had made that made me step back for a second and say "huh. That's really interesting, I never thought it about that way. I may need to reconsider my position." All of which came from the newest addition to my friends list, iamblades2, whose opinions differ from mine in lots of areas. But that's what I absolutely love about a good, intelligent discussion. When someone makes a really thoughtful rebuttal to something that you've said, it forces you to reevaluate ideas that you had, up until that point, taken for granted. And that's the only way to grow intellectually. Either you can accept what they're saying and change your opinion (and despite the commonly held misconception, this should never be a bad thing or embarrassment) or test the new ideas against your existing ones and find that your original thoughts are still better. Even so, being that much more confident in your belief system can only be healthy, and it's always useful to challenge your own personally held ideas occasionally to make sure that they still hold water.
I have to say, most of the discourse (especially political discourse) that I see both on and off the site consists of two different styles, which are equally reprehensible. The first is the circle jerk, for lack of a more eloquent term. Onanism, intellectual masturbation, etc. This is the case when people surround themselves with others who already share their opinion or are afraid to ever contradict them. Someone will say something that they think, and every response will be "Yeah. That's totally true. Good idea." Or "I was just thinking the exact same thing!" Or the even more annoying single emoticon response "
". During this brief exchange of words, absolutely nothing has been accomplished. The conversation needn't ever have happened.
Now don't get me wrong, that's not to say that it's bad to ever agree with anyone about anything. It's perfectly OK to do so - but doing it in a context where it's a foregone conclusion that doing so is just a repetition of an opinion already held by the majority just seems pointless. If you do it in an arena where you're expecting opposition, it just means that you've allied yourself to one side of the cause, and should expect to have to defend it against others who will be aligned against you. That's choosing sides - it's completely different from blowing smoke up someone's ass. A good example of this in the real world is a political candidate issuing a press release saying "I am firmly against child molestation. And you can take that to the bank!" Well duh. No shit you're against child molestation, so is everyone else in the world. Taking a stand against child molestation isn't taking a stand at all because there's no way anyone will ever try to rebut you. It's pointless.
The other form of discourse, intimately familiar to anyone who's ever dared to enter the current events discussion board, is flaming. This is essentially just the bitter flavor of intellectual masturbation, in contrast to the saccharine circle jerk. It goes something like this. Someone says something and the responder disagrees. Rather than going through the argument point by point and offering an explanation as to why they disagree (or even better, an alternative!) they deride the argument as being stupid without saying why, attack the person rather than the argument or (and this is a favorite of politicians) attack an argument that the person never actually made, putting words into the person's mouth. All of these approaches are disingenuous and do nothing to further discussion, they just bring in emotions trying to distract the participants in the conversation from the matters at hand.
It's sad to me that so many people take the approach now that "nothing you say will ever change anyone's mind." I really do believe that is the wrong approach to looking at life. It suggests a closed-mindedness that is frankly frightening. I think it all comes to pride and ego. If people are willing to shelve their egos for just a few minutes and really think about what others are trying to say, they would learn a whole lot about what's going on around them. Unfortunately those types of conversations are so rare they when I do find one it's enlightening. I think they should be the rule rather than the exception.
I have to say, most of the discourse (especially political discourse) that I see both on and off the site consists of two different styles, which are equally reprehensible. The first is the circle jerk, for lack of a more eloquent term. Onanism, intellectual masturbation, etc. This is the case when people surround themselves with others who already share their opinion or are afraid to ever contradict them. Someone will say something that they think, and every response will be "Yeah. That's totally true. Good idea." Or "I was just thinking the exact same thing!" Or the even more annoying single emoticon response "
". During this brief exchange of words, absolutely nothing has been accomplished. The conversation needn't ever have happened.
Now don't get me wrong, that's not to say that it's bad to ever agree with anyone about anything. It's perfectly OK to do so - but doing it in a context where it's a foregone conclusion that doing so is just a repetition of an opinion already held by the majority just seems pointless. If you do it in an arena where you're expecting opposition, it just means that you've allied yourself to one side of the cause, and should expect to have to defend it against others who will be aligned against you. That's choosing sides - it's completely different from blowing smoke up someone's ass. A good example of this in the real world is a political candidate issuing a press release saying "I am firmly against child molestation. And you can take that to the bank!" Well duh. No shit you're against child molestation, so is everyone else in the world. Taking a stand against child molestation isn't taking a stand at all because there's no way anyone will ever try to rebut you. It's pointless.
The other form of discourse, intimately familiar to anyone who's ever dared to enter the current events discussion board, is flaming. This is essentially just the bitter flavor of intellectual masturbation, in contrast to the saccharine circle jerk. It goes something like this. Someone says something and the responder disagrees. Rather than going through the argument point by point and offering an explanation as to why they disagree (or even better, an alternative!) they deride the argument as being stupid without saying why, attack the person rather than the argument or (and this is a favorite of politicians) attack an argument that the person never actually made, putting words into the person's mouth. All of these approaches are disingenuous and do nothing to further discussion, they just bring in emotions trying to distract the participants in the conversation from the matters at hand.
It's sad to me that so many people take the approach now that "nothing you say will ever change anyone's mind." I really do believe that is the wrong approach to looking at life. It suggests a closed-mindedness that is frankly frightening. I think it all comes to pride and ego. If people are willing to shelve their egos for just a few minutes and really think about what others are trying to say, they would learn a whole lot about what's going on around them. Unfortunately those types of conversations are so rare they when I do find one it's enlightening. I think they should be the rule rather than the exception.
VIEW 22 of 22 COMMENTS
Imagine trying to rebut criticism at a scientific seminar like that.
"Actually, the time course shown in your example doesn't really appear to follow a single exponential."
"Eat me. You're obviously an inbred hick with no idea what the real world is like."
I think the other problem with debates on the site is that nobody (me included) is actually willing to do research on their arguments, leading to argument by anecdote.
resisting influence on that level makes it difficult to learn anything new in life. how boring. i learned a LOT in KY last week. what a crazy vacation. DID YA MISS ME?!