----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 11:44 AM Subject: Re: Bad Spelars
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:31:08AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > > Let me put forth a hypothesis to you. Differing with you doesn't mean > > that people misunderstand. > > In that case, you were writing imprecisely. Your meaning would have > been clearer if you wrote "unintended insult", since my posts were > intended as constructive criticism rather than an insult (in most cases, > insult implies intent). If you did in fact understand what I meant, but > disagreed with my methods, then you did not express yourself well. One of the interesting things about conversations with other people is that we cannot perceive as others perceive. We perceive language, we perceive body language, we perceive tone. Over the internet, we perceive just the language itself; with occasional extensions such as " :-)." I really don't know what your intent is; all I know is that you have written a number of posts. I match these posts against the language conventions that I'm familiar with to try to parse meaning out of those sentences. Without tone and without body language, the process is complicated. Even on the internet, social etiquette has been developed. One of the reasons for this it helps reduce ambiguity in statements. One part of the brin-l etiquette guidelines is "discuss the idea, not the person." It is not insulting to say "this idea has holes in it". It is insulting to say "you don't think very well." I have gone over your posts to make sure my memory wasn't faulty, and I do see a great number of "you ...some negative" statements. Things like "you think wrong", "you have let yourself fall in a trap", etc. It appears that you are now arguing that you are really very concerned for the flaws in all of our thinking and really really wish to help us think clearer. This might be a worthwhile attitude for a mentor, a teacher, a parent, a therapist, or some other authority figure. But, I'd like to suggest that in a dialog between peers it is much more worthwhile to leave analysis of another posters failings to conversations with one's spouse or other RL friends. Limiting the discussion to the ideas that are presented helps, not only because it lowers the negative emotions associated with statements about personal failings or limitations sprinkled through a post, but because it provides opportunities for fruitful dialog. Indeed, going back to people that are in a position where they need to confront personal difficulties, the techniques I've seen you use here are the very ones we are told not to use if we are to be effective. Instead of "you think wrong", one would say "there are some difficulties with your argument." Criticize the behavior, not the person is a solid rule for any parent. So, in short, the language that you've used is language that is conventionally taken to be insulting. I really don't buy the idea that you just wish to point out the myriad of flaws that everyone else has as a good one. Even if it were your intent, which I have no way of determining, it doesn't work. I'll be happy to not judge you because I don't know your intent, but that doesn't stop the language from being insulting. So, while I'll be happy to take on faith the proposition that you did not deliberately try to hurt other people, I do think that one does have responsibility for deliberately eschewing conventions for avoiding insults to other people. (The posts you've made arguing against these conventions has led me to believe that your refraining from following them is a deliberate act.) I don't see why accepting these conventions, if one really doesn't want to insult others, is harmful. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
